This Chapter is against the Explication of the Deluge by the
_Dissolution of the Earth_. That Dissolution, as is pretended, being
unfit or insufficient to produce such an Effect. And to prove this, the
Ante-theorist gives us five Arguments, whereof the first is this; _p._
285. _Moses_ having left us an accurate Description of Paradise,
_according to the proper Rules of Topography_, such a Description would
have been improper and insufficient to determine the Place of Paradise,
and consequently useless, if the Earth had been dissolv’d; and by that
means the Bounds of those Countries, and the Channels of those Rivers,
broken and chang’d. This Objection, I’m afraid, will fall heavier upon
_Moses_, or upon the Exceptor himself, than upon the Theorist. However,
one would have expected that the Exceptor should have determin’d here
the Place of Paradise in virtue of that Description. So learned and
sagacious a Person, having before him an exact Draught of Paradise,
_according to the proper Rules of Topography_, could not fail to lay his
Finger upon the very Spot of Ground where it stood. Yet I do not find
that he has ventur’d to determine the Place of Paradise, either in this
Chapter, or in the preceding: Which gives me a great Suspicion, that he
was not satisfy’d where it stood, notwithstanding the _Mosaical_
Topography. Now if it cannot be understood or determin’d by that
Topography, one of these two things must be allow’d, either that the
Description was insufficient and ineffectual; or that there has been
some great Change in the Earth, whereby the Marks of it are destroy’d;
namely, the Bounds of Countries, and the Courses of the the Rivers. If
he take the second of these Answers, he joins with the Theorist. If the
first, he reflects, according to his way of arguing, upon the Honour of
_Moses_, or confutes himself.
But here is still a further Charge, _p._ 286. _Moses_’s Description of
Paradise would have been _told_ (which he notes for _horrid Blasphemy_)
if the Earth was broken at the Deluge: For then those Rivers, by which
_Moses_ describes Paradise, could not have been before the Flood. But
why so, I pray? The Theorist supposes Rivers before the Flood, in great
Plenty; and why not like to these? And if their Channels were very much
chang’d by the Flood, that’s no more than what good Interpreters
suppose. Being unable, upon any other Submission, to give an Account why
it is so hard (notwithstanding _Moses_’s Description) to determine the
Place of Paradise. Now where is the _Blasphemy_ of this? _Ibid._ _Horrid
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?_ A rude and injudicious Defence of
Scripture, by Railing and ill Language, is the true Way to lessen and
disparage it: Especially when we make our own Consequences to be of the
same Authority with the Word of God; and whatsoever is against them,
must be charg’d with Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Is it not a
strange Thing, that the Dissolution of the Earth should be made
Blasphemy, when the Prophets and inspir’d Authors speak so often of the
_Disruptions_, _Fractions_, _Concussions_, and _Subversions_ of the
Earth? See _Review_, _p._ 380, _&c._ And that very Expression, that the
_Earth is dissolv’d_, is a Scripture Expression, (_Psal._ lxxv. 3.
_Isai._ xxiv. 19. _Amos_ ix. 5) which, methinks, might have been enough
to have protected it from the Imputation of Blasphemy. But there is
nothing safe against blind Zeal, and opinionative Ignorance; which, by
how much they find themselves weaker in Reasons, by so much they become
more violent in Passions.
But to return to the Objection; upon the whole Matter, he casts the
Burden of the Charge upon _Moses_ himself, as we noted before: For take
whether Hypothesis you will, that the Earth was, or was not broken, the
Question still returns, if the Mosaical Topography was exact and
sufficient, why can we not yet find out the Situation of Paradise? ’Tis
now above three thousand Years since _Moses_ died, and Men have been
curious and very inquisitive in all Ages, to find out the Place of
Paradise; but it is not found out to this Day to any Satisfaction: So
that, methinks, upon the whole, the Theory, which supposeth the Earth
very much chang’d, makes the fairest Apology both for _Moses_ and
Mankind, in this Particular. But to proceed to his second Argument.
Secondly, says the Exceptor, p. 288. _The Dissolution of the Earth could
not be the Cause of the general Flood, because it would have utterly
destroy’d_ Noah_’s Ark, and all that were in it_. I thought the Theorist
had effectually prevented this Objection, by putting the Ark under the
Conduct of its Guardian Angels, and of a miraculous Providence; _Eng.
Theor._ _p._ 147. These are his Words: _I think it had been impossible
for the Ark to have liv’d upon the raging Abyss, or for_ Noah _and his
Family to have been preserv’d, if there had not been a miraculous Hand
of Providence to take Care of them._ Now, either the Exceptor did not
take notice of this Passage in the Theory, or he does not allow that a
miraculous Hand was sufficient to preserve the Ark; or thirdly, he made
an Objection, which he knew himself to be impertinent. And, I confess, I
am inclinable to think the last is true: For as to the first, he
confesses (_p._ 354.) that the _Theory represents the Ark, with its
Guardian Angels about it, in the Extremity of the Flood_. And as to the
second, he himself makes use of a miraculous Power to preserve the Ark
upon his Hypothesis; in Answer to the eighth Objection, _p._ 351, 352,
_&c._ Why then may not we make use of the same Power, and with the same
Effect? It remains therefore, that he was conscious to himself that he
made this Objection to no purpose.
But that is not all: He has also us’d foul Play in his Citation: For
whereas the great Danger of the Ark would be at the first Fall of the
Earth, or the Disruption of the Abyss; the Theorist, he says, to prevent
this, makes the Ark to be a-float by the Rains, before the Abyss was
broken. But is that all the Theorist says in that Place? Does he not
assign another Way how the Ark might be a-float? Namely, in a River, or
in a Dock. These are the Words of the Theory, _p._ 133, 134. _So as the
Ark, if it could not float upon these Rain-Waters, at least taking the
Advantage of a River, or of a Dock or Cistern made to receive them, it
might be a-float before the Abyss was broken open._ And these Words
being in the same Place whence he makes his Citation, it must be a
wilful Dissimulation not to take notice of them. But he saw they would
have taken off the Edge of his Objection, and therefore thought fit not
to touch upon them. But after all, there is no Necessity that the Ark
should be a-float before the Earth broke: Those Things, were premis’d in
the Theory, only to soften the Way to Men that are of hard Belief in
such extraordinary Matters: For the Angels (whose Ministry we openly
own, upon these grand Occasions) could as easily have held the Ark
a-float, in the Air, as on the Water. And the Ark, being an Emblem of
the Church, God certainly did _give his Angels Charge over it; that they
should bear it up in their Hands, that it might not be dash’d against a
Stone_. And this having been more than once profess’d by the Theorist,
we must again conclude this Objection superfluous and useless.
The third Objection is this. If the Earth had been thus dissolv’d, _p._
289. _The present Earth would have been, in likelihood of another
Figure, than what now it bears._ These are his Words; but I suppose he
means, that it would have been of another Form, as to Sea and Land. And
the Reason he gives is this: Because, says he, it would have broke first
in the Equator, and consequently that Part falling down first, would
have been swallowed up by the Waters, and become all Sea. Whereas we
find, that under the Equator that then was (which he supposeth (_ibid._)
the present Ecliptick) _the dry Ground is of most spacious Extent and
Continuity_. We need not examine his Account of Sea and Land, because it
proceeds upon a false Supposition, (_See_ p. 27. _before_.) He relapses
here into his former astronomical Error, or to his first adds a second;
_viz._ That the Earth, when it chang’d its Situation, chang’d its Poles
and Circles. This is a great Mistake; the Change of Position in Respect
of the Heavens, did not change the Places of its Circles in Respect to
its own Globe. As when you change a Sphere or a Globe out of a _right
Situation_ into an _oblique_, the Circles do not change their Places, as
to that Sphere or Globe; but have only another Position to the Heavens.
The Earth’s Ecliptick runs thorough the same Places it did before; and
the equinoctial Regions of that Earth were the same with the equinoctial
Regions of this, only bear another Posture to the Heavens and the Sun.
These Circles have not chang’d Places with one another, as he imagines;
and which is worse, would father this imagination upon the Theory, in
these Words, _Under the Ecliptick (which, in the present Situation of
the Earth, (ACCORDING TO THE THEORY) was its Equinoctial, and divided
the Globe into two Hemispheres, as the Equator does now) the dry
Ground_, &c. He that affirms this, with Respect to the Earth, neither
understands the _Theory, nor the Doctrine of the Sphere_. But let’s
press no further upon a Mistake.
The fourth Objection is this; _p._ 290. That such a Dissolution of the
Earth, would have caus’d great Barrenness after the Flood: Partly by
turning up some dry and unfruitful Parts of the Earth; and partly by the
Soil and Filth that would be left upon its Surface. As to the first, I
willingly allow, that some of the interior and barren Parts of the Earth
might be turn’d up; as we now see in mountainous and wild Countries; but
this rather confirms the Theory, than weakens it. But as to the second,
that the Filth and Soil would have made the Earth more barren, I cannot
allow that. For good Husbandmen overflow their Grounds, to make their
Crop more rich. And ’tis generally suppos’d, that the Inundation of
_Nile_, and the Mud it leaves behind it, makes _Ægypt_ more fruitful.
Besides, this Part of the Objection lies against the common Explication
of the Deluge, as well as against that which is given by the Theory. For
if you suppose an universal Deluge, let it come from what Causes you
please, it must overflow all the Earth, and leave Mud and Slime and
Filth upon the Surface of it: And consequently cause Barrenness,
according to this Argumentation.
He adds another Consideration under this Head, _p._ 292. namely, that if
the Earth had been dissolv’d in this manner, _All the Buildings erected
before the Flood, would have been shaken down, or else overwhelm’d. Yet
we read of some that outstood the Flood, and were not demolish’d. Such
were the Pillars of_ Seth, _and the Cities_ Henochia _and_ Joppa. As to
_Seth_’s Pillars, they are generally accounted fabulous; and I perceive
the Exceptor will not vouch for them: For he concludes, (_p._ 295) _I
know the very Being is question’d of_ Seth_’s Pillars_, &c. If he will
not defend them, why should I take the Pains to confute them? I do not
love to play with a Man, that will put nothing to the Stake; that will
have his Chance to win, but can lose nothing, because he stakes nothing.
Then as to the City _Henochia_, it hath no Authority, but that of
_Annius Viterbiensis_, and his _Berosus_: A Book generally exploded, as
fictitious. Lastly, As to _Joppa_, the Authority indeed is better, tho’
still uncertain. But however, suppose the Ruins of one Town remain’d
after the Flood, does this prove that the Earth was not dissolv’d? I do
not doubt, but there were several Tracts of the Earth, much greater than
that Town, that were not broken all to Pieces by their Fall. But you and
your _English_ Historian, are mistaken, if you suppose the Altars and
Inscriptions mention’d by _Mela_, to have been ante-diluvian Altars and
Inscriptions: Unless you will make the Fable of _Perseus_ and
_Andromeda_, and the _Sea-Monster_, to have been an ante-diluvian Fable.
Neither hath your Historian been lucky in translating those Words of
_Mela_, _cum religione plurima, with the Grounds and Principles of their
Religion_, which signify only, _with a religious Care of Superstition_.
But to leave Fables, and proceed:
His last Argument against the Dissolution is this, _p._ 296. Had the
Dissolution of the Earth been the Cause of the Deluge, _It would have
made God’s Covenant with_ Noah, _a very vain and trifling Thing_. So
much is true, That the Deluge, in the course of Nature, will not return
again in the same Way. But unless God prevent it, it both may, and will
return in another Way. That is, if the World continue long enough, the
Mountains will wear and sink, and the Waters in Proportion rise, and
overflow the whole Earth; as is plainly shewn, by a parallel Case, in
the _first Book_ of the _Theory_, _ch._ iv. Besides, God might, when he
pleas’d, by an extraordinary Power, and for the Sins of Men, bring
another Deluge upon the World. And that is the Thing which _Noah_ seems
to have fear’d, and which God, by his Covenant, secur’d him against.
For, as the Exceptor hath said himself, in answering an harder
Objection, (p. 152.) _When God assigned to the Waters the Place of their
Abode, he did not intend to fortify them in it against his own
Omnipotence, or to divest himself of his Soveraign Prerogative of
calling them forth when he pleased._ This being allowed, with what we
said before, that Covenant was not vain nor trifling, either in Respect
of an ordinary or extraordinary Providence.
Thus we have done with all the Exceptions against the Theory: For the
two next Chapters are concerning a new Hypothesis of his own; and the
last of all excepts not against the Truth of the Theory, but the
Certainty of it. In Reflection upon this whole Matter, give me leave to
declare two Things: First, That I have not knowingly omitted any
Objection that I thought of moment: Secondly, That I have not, from
these Exceptions, found Reason to change any Part of the Theory, nor to
alter my Opinion, as to any Particular in it. No doubt there are several
Texts of Scripture, which, understood according to the Letter in a
vulgar Way, stand cross, both to this, and other natural Theories. And a
Child, that had read the first Chapters of _Genesis_, might have
observ’d this as well as the Exceptor; but could not have loaded his
Charge with so much Bitterness. Some Men, they say, though of no great
Valour, yet will fight excellently well behind a Wall. The Exceptor,
behind a Text of Scripture, is very fierce and rugged: But in the open
Field of Reason and Philosophy, he’s gentle and tractable. _Eng. Theor._
_Book_ 2. _c._ 9. _at the End._ The Theorist had declar’d his
Intentions, and oblig’d himself, to give a full Account of _Moses_ his
_Cosmopœia_, or _six Day’s Creation_; but did not think it proper to be
done in the vulgar Language, nor before the whole Theory was compleated.
This might have spared much of the Exceptor’s Pains; but till that
Account be given, if the Exceptor thinks fit to continue his
Animadversions, and go through the two last Books, as he hath done the
two first, it will not be unacceptable to the Theorist; provided it be
done with Sincerity, in reciting the Words, and representing the Sense
of the Author.