In this Chapter the Ante-theorist lays down a new Hypothesis for the
Explication of the Deluge, _p._ 299. And the War is chang’d, on his
Side, from offensive, to defensive. ’Tis but fair that he should lie
down in his Turn; and if some Blows smart a little, he must not
complain, because he begun the Sport. But let’s try his Hypothesis,
without any further Ceremony, _p._ 299, 300. The first Proposition laid
down for the establishing of it, is this: _That the Flood was but
fifteen Cubits high, above the ordinary Level of the Earth._ This is an
unmerciful Paradox, and a very unlucky Beginning; for under what Notion
must this Proportion be received? As a _Postulatum_, or as a
_Conclusion_? If it be a _Postulatum_, it must be clear from its own
Light, or acknowledg’d by general Consent. It cannot pretend to be clear
from its own Light, because it is matter of Fact, which is not known,
but by Testimony. Neither is it generally acknowleg’d; for the general
Opinion is, that the Waters covered the Tops of the Mountains; nay, that
they were fifteen Cubits higher than the Tops of the Mountains. And this
he confesses himself, in these Words, p. 300. _We shall find there is a
great Mistake in the common Hypothesis, touching their Depth_: Namely,
of the Waters. _For whereas they have been supposed to be fifteen Cubits
higher than the highest Mountains: They were indeed but fifteen Cubits
high in all, above the Surface of the Earth._ And this Opinion, or
Doctrine, he calls, _p._ 329. _lin._ 19. _c._ 31. _The general standing
Hypothesis: The usual Hypothesis_: _p._ 339. _lin._ 18. _The usual Sense
they have put upon the Sacred Story._ It must not therefore be made a
_Postulatum_, that such an Hypothesis is false, but the Falsity of it
must be demonstrated by good Proofs. Now I do not find that this new
Hypothesis, of a _fifteen Cubit Deluge_, offers at any more than one
single Proof, namely, from _Gen._ vii. 20. But before we proceed to the
Examination of that, give me leave to note one or two Things, wherein
the new Theorist seems to be inconsistent with himself, or with good
Sense.
At his Entrance upon this new Hypothesis, he hath these Words, (_p._
300.) _Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as true and real_,
&c. But why then does he trouble himself or the World, with an
Hypothesis, which he does not believe to be _true_ and _real_? Or, if he
does believe it to be so, why will he not defend it? For we ought to
defend Truth. But he says moreover, (_p._ 302. _lin._ 19.) _Our
Supposition stands supported by Divine Authority; as being founded upon
Scripture. Which tells us, as plainly as it can speak, that the Waters
prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth._ If his Hypothesis be
founded upon Scripture; and upon Scripture, _as plainly as it can
speak_, why will not he defend it as _true_ and _real_? For to be
supported by Scripture, and by plain Scripture, is as much as we can
alledge for the Articles of our Faith; which every one surely is bound
to defend.
But this is not all the Difficulty we meet with. The whole Period which
we quoted, runs thus: _Not that I will be bound to defend what I say, as
true or real; any more than to believe (what I cannot well endure to
speak) that the Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational way of
explaining the Deluge: Which yet the must needs have done, if there be
no other rational Method of explaining it, and no other intelligible
Causes of it, than what the Theory has propos’d._ Now for the Word
_Theory_, put the Word _Exceptor_, or _Exceptor’s Hypothesis_, and see
if this Charge, _that the Church of God has ever gone on in an
irrational way of explaining the Deluge_, does not fall as much upon the
Exceptor’s new Hypothesis, as upon the Theory. If the Church Hypothesis
was rational, what need he have invented a new one? Why does he not
propose that Hypothesis, and defend it? I’m afraid it will be found that
he does not only contradict the Church Hypothesis, but reject it as
mistaken and irrational. For what is the Church Hypothesis, but the
_common Hypothesis_? (_p._ 300. _l._ 24.) The _general standing_
Hypothesis; the _usual_ Hypothesis; the _usual Sense they put upon the
sacred Story_; all these he rejects and disputes against, as you may see
in the Places fore-cited: And also he calls them, _p._ 312. _ult._ such
_Inventions_, as _have been_, and _justly may be disgustful, not only to
nice and squeamish, but to the best and soundest philosophick
Judgments_. And _p._ 319. he says, by his Hypothesis, _We are excused
from running to those Causes or Methods, which seem unreasonable to
some, and unintelligible to others, and unsatisfactory to most._ And to
name no more, he says, _p._ 330. the ordinary Supposition, that the
Mountains were cover’d with Water in the Deluge, brings on a _Necessity
of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood_. Now, whose
Methods, Inventions, and Suppositions are these, which he reflects upon?
Are they not the commonly receiv’d Methods and Suppositions? ’Tis plain,
most of those which he mentions, (_p._ 310, 311, 313, 314, 318.) are not
the Theorist’s: For the Theorist had rejected before, (_Eng. Theor._
_ch._ 2, and 3.) those very Methods and Inventions, which the Exceptor
rejects now; and so far he justifies the Theory[18]: These Reflections
therefore must fall upon some other Hypothesis; and what Hypothesis is
that, if it be not the Church Hypothesis? To conclude, I argue thus, in
short, to shew the Exceptor inconsistent with himself in this
Particular. The Church Way of explaining the Deluge, is either
_rational_, or _irrational_. If he say it is _rational_, why does he
desert it, and invent a new one? And if he says it is _irrational_, then
that dreadful Thing, which _he cannot well endure to speak, that the
Church of God has ever gone on in an irrational Way of explaining the
Deluge_, falls flat upon himself.
Thus much in general, for his Introduction. We proceed now to examine
particularly his new Hypothesis: Which, as we told you before, consists
chiefly in this, _That the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits
higher than the common unmountainous Surface of the Earth._ _This_,
which seems so odd and extravagant, he says, _p._ 301. is the
_Foundation_ of the Hypothesis. And, which is still more surprizing, he
says this Depth, or rather Shallowness of the Waters of the Deluge, is
told us by Scripture, _as plainly as it can speak_, p. 302. l. 23. This
must needs raise our Curiosity, to see that Place of Scripture, which
has been overlook’d by all the Learned hitherto. Well, ’tis _Gen._ vii.
20. in these words, _Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail._
This, methinks, is somewhat general; for the Basis of these _fifteen
Cubits_ not express’d in these Words. But why does our Author stop in
the middle of a Verse? Why does he not transcribe the whole Verse; for
the last Part of it is as good Scripture as the first? And that says
plainly, that the _Mountains were cover’d with the Waters_. The whole
Verse runs thus: _Fifteen Cubits upwards did the Waters prevail; AND THE
MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED._ Now, if the Basis of these fifteen Cubits was
the common Surface, or plain Level of the Earth, as this new Hypothesis
will have it; how could fifteen Cubits, from that Basis, reach to the
Tops of the Mountains? Are the highest Mountains but fifteen Cubits
higher than the common Surface of the Earth? 1 _Sam._ xvii. 4. _Goliah_
was six Cubits and a Span high; so _Pic Tenariff_ would not be thrice as
high as _Goliah_: Yet _David_ flung a Stone up to his Forehead. Take
what Cubit you please, sacred or common, it does not amount to two Foot.
So the Height of the greatest Mountains, from Bottom to Top, must not be
thirty Foot, or ten Paces, according to this new Hypothesis. Who ever
measured Mountains at this Rate? The modern Mathematicians allow for
their Height a Mile perpendicular, upon a moderate Computation; and that
makes three thousand Foot: How then could Waters that were not thirty
Foot high, cover Mountains that were three thousand Foot high? That the
highest Mountains of the Earth were cover’d with the Waters, you may see
express’d more fully in the precedent Verse, _Gen._ vii. 19. _And the
Waters prevailed exceedingly upon the Earth. And all the high Hills that
were under the whole Heavens were cover’d._ There can scarce be Words
more plain and comprehensive. The Exceptor says, the Scripture tells us,
as _plainly as it can speak_, that the Waters were but fifteen Cubits
high from the common Surface of the Earth: And I say, the Scripture
tells us as _plainly as it can speak_, That _all the high Hills under
the whole Heaven were covered with Water_. And it must be a strange sort
of Geometry, that makes fifteen Cubits of Water reach to the Top of the
highest Hills. Lastly, the same History of _Moses_ says, the Tops of the
Mountains were discover’d, when the Waters begun to decrease, _Gen._
viii. 5. Is not that a plain Demonstration that they were cover’d
before, and cover’d with those Waters?
We may therefore safely conclude two Things: First, that this new
Hypothesis, besides all other Faults, is contrary to the general
Exposition of the Text of _Moses_[19]. Secondly, that it is contrary to
the general receiv’d Doctrine of the Deluge. And if he has deliver’d a
Doctrine, contrary to the two, methinks it should be hard for him to
maintain his Ground, and not pronounce, at the same Time, what he dreads
so much to speak, _That the Church of God has ever gone on in an
irrational Way of explaining the Deluge_. But let’s reflect a little
upon this fifteen-cubit Deluge; to see what Figure it would make, or
what Execution it would do upon Mankind, and upon other Creatures. If
you will not believe _Moses_ as to the overflowing of the Mountains, at
least I hope you will believe him, as to the universal Destruction made
by the Deluge. Hear his Words, _Gen._ vii. 21, 22, 23. we’ll take only
the last Verse, which is this, _And every living Substance was
destroyed, which was upon the Face of the Ground, both Man and Cattle,
and creeping Things, and the Fowl of the Heavens; and they were
destroyed from the Earth; and_ Noah _only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the Ark_. Now I would gladly know, how this could be
verified in a fifteen-cubit Deluge? The Birds would naturally fly to the
Tops of Trees, when the Ground was wet; and the Beasts would retire, by
Degrees, to the Mountains and higher Parts of the Earth, as the lower
begun to be overflow’d: And if no Waters could reach them there, how
were they all destroy’d, while they had so many Sanctuaries and Places
of Refuge?
Or if you suppose some of these Creatures had not Wit enough to save
themselves, (though their Wit and Instincts lie chiefly in that) at
least Mankind would not be so stupid; when Men see the Waters begin to
rise, they could not fail to retire into Mountains: And tho’ the upper
Stories of their Houses might be sufficient to save them from fifteen
Cubits of Water; yet if Fear made them think themselves not secure
there, whither could it drive them, but still into higher Places? And an
House seated upon an Eminency, or a Castle upon a Rock, would be always
a safe Retreat from this diminutive Deluge. I speak all this upon the
Suppositions of the Exceptor, _p._ 215, 216, 292, _&c._ who allows, not
only Mountains and Rocks, but also Castles and Cities before the Deluge,
built of good Timber, and Stone, and Iron, and such substantial
Materials. But how, in such a Case, and in such a State of Things, all
Mankind (except _Noah_ and his Family) should be destroy’d by fifteen
Cubits of Water, is a Lump of Incredibilities, too hard and big for me
to swallow.
But there is still another Difficulty, that we have not mention’d: As
those that were upon the Land might easily save themselves from Ruin, so
those that were upon the Sea in Ships, would never come in Danger. For
what would it signify to them, if the Sea was made a few Fathoms deeper,
by these new Waters? It would bear their Vessels as well as it did
before, and would be no more to them than a Spring-Tide. And lastly, how
shall we justify the Divine Wisdom, which gave such punctual Orders, for
the Building of an Ark, to save _Noah_, and a Set of Creatures for a new
World, when there were so many more easy and obvious Ways to preserve
them without that Trouble?
These Objections, in my Opinion, are so plain and full, that it is not
needful to add any more: Nor to answer such Evasions as the new Theorist
attempts to make to some of them. As, for Instance, to that plain
Objection from _Moses_’s Words, _p._ 330. that _the Mountains were
covered with the Waters_; he says, first, that it is a _Synecdoche_,
where the Whole is put for a Part: Or, secondly, ’tis an _Hyperbole_,
where more is said than understood: Or, thirdly, ’tis a _poetical
History:_ Or, lastly, if none of these will do, by the _Tops_ of the
Mountains is to be understood the _Bottoms_ of the Mountains, _p._ 331,
333. and that cures all. The Truth is, he has taken a great deal of
Pains in the next Chapter, to cure an incurable Hypothesis. We will give
you but one Instance more: ’Tis about the _Appearance of the Tops of the
Mountains at the Decrease of the Deluge_; which argue strongly that they
were cover’d in the Deluge. But take it in his own Words, with the
Answer, _p._ 337. _It is recorded_, Gen. viii. 5. _that the Waters
decreased continually until the tenth Month, and on the first Day of the
Month WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN. Now if the Mountains had not
been quite under Water, and so invisible for the Time they were
overwhelmed, how could they be said to become visible again, or to be
seen upon the Floods going off?_ This is a plain and bold Objection: And
after two Answers to it, which he seems to distrust, his third and last
is this, _p._ 339. _If these two Considerations will not satisfy, we
must carry on the Enquiry a little farther, and seek for a third. And
truly some one or other must needs be found out.—Thirdly, therefore we
consider, that the Tops of the Mountains may be said to be seen at the
Time mentioned, upon account of their EMERGENCY OUT OF DARKNESS, NOT OUT
OF WATERS._ This is his final Answer. The Tops of the Mountains, at the
Decrease of the Deluge, were seen; not that they were covered before
with Water, says he, but with Darkness. Where finds he this Account:
’Tis neither in the Text, nor in Reason. If it was always so dark, and
the Tops of the Mountains and Rocks naked and prominent every where, how
could the Ark avoid them in that Darkness? Moreover, if the Deluge was
made in that gentle way that he supposes, I see no Reason to imagine
that there would be Darkness, after the forty Days Rain. For these Rains
being fallen, and all the Vapours and Clouds of the Air discharg’d,
methinks there should have ensued an extraordinary Clearness of the Air,
as we often see after rainy Seasons. Well, ’tis true: But the Rains he
supposes were no sooner fallen, but the Sun retracted them again in
Vapours, with that Force and Swiftness, that it kept the Air in
perpetual Darkness. Thus he says afterwards, _p._ 341. He’s mightily
beholden to the Sun, upon many Accounts; and the Sun is no less beholden
to him; for he gave him a miraculous Power to raise Mountains, and draw
up Waters. ’Tis well the Sun did not presently fall to his old Work
again, of raising Mountains out of this moist Earth, as the Exceptor
says he did, when the Earth was first drain’d. _See Chap._ 10. That he
contented himself to suck up the Waters only, and let the Earth alone:
We are not a little beholden to him for this. For he seems to have had
the same Power and Opportunity, at the Decrease of the Deluge, of making
new Ravages upon the Earth, that he had before when it was first
drain’d. But let’s see _how_, or _when_, these Waters were suck’d up, or
resolv’d into Vapours.
Upon the Expiration of the forty Days Rain, whether was the Air purg’d
of Vapours and clear, or no? Yes, it was purg’d, he says, (p. 343.) _The
Atmosphere was never so exhausted of Vapours, and never so thin, as when
the Waters were newly come down._ Then, in that clear Air the Tops of
the Mountains might have been seen, if they lay above Water. But _Moses_
says, _Gen._ viii. 5. it was in the _tenth Month_ that they begun to be
seen, when the Waters were decreas’d; ’twas therefore the Waters, not
the gross Air, that hinder’d the Sight of them before. And according to
this Method of the Exceptor, after the first forty Days, the Deluge
begun to decrease. For the Sun forthwith set his Engines a-work, and
resolv’d the Waters into Vapours and Exhalations at such a Rate, _p._
341. that he presently made the Atmosphere dark with thick Mists and
Clouds; and, in Proportion, lessen’d the Waters of the Deluge. But we do
not read in _Moses_, of any Abatement in the Deluge, till the End of one
hundred and fifty Days; (_Gen._ viii. 3.) which is four Months after
this Term. The Truth is, the whole Notion of _spending the Waters of the
Deluge by Evaporation_, is no better than what the Exceptor suspected it
would be thought, p. 343. _A mere Fancy, a whimsical groundless
Figment._ For what could the Sun do, in the Northern and Southern Parts
of the World, towards the exhaling of these Waters? And in the temperate
Climates, why should they not fall again in Rains, (if he had a Power to
exhale them) as they do now? Was not the Earth in the same Position, and
the Sun of the same force? Besides, where does he find this Notion in
Scripture, that the Waters of the Deluge were consum’d by Evaporation?
_Moses_ says, the _Waters returned from off the Earth, in going and
returning_, Gen. viii. 3, 5. That is, after frequent Reciprocations,
they settled at length in their Channels; where _Bounds were set them,
that they might not pass over; that they return not again to cover the
Earth_. Seeing therefore this Notion hath no Foundation, either in
Scripture or Reason, ’tis rightly enough stil’d, in the Exceptor’s
Words, a _mere Fancy_, and _groundless Figment_.
But I think we have had enough of these Shifts and Evasions. Let us now
proceed to the second Part of his new Hypothesis, which is this, _p._
303. That the _Abyss_, or _Tehom-Rabbah_, which was broken open at the
Deluge, and (together with the Rains) made the Flood, was nothing but
the Holes and Caverns of Rocks and Mountains; which open’d their Mouths
at that Time, and pour’d out a great Quantity of Water. To support this
new Notion of _Tehom-Rabbah_, he alledgeth but one single Text of
Scripture, _Psal._ lxxviii. 15. _He clave the Rocks in the Wilderness,
and gave them Drink, as out of the great Depths_; that is, copiously and
abundantly, as if it were out of the great Deep. So the next Verse
implies, and so it is generally understood: As you may see both by
Interpreters, and also by the _Septuagint_ and _Vulgate_ Translations,
and those of the _Chaldee Paraphrase_, and the _Syriack_. But the
Exceptor, by all Means, will have these Holes in the Rocks to be the
same with the _Mosaical Abyss_, or great Deep, that was broken open at
the Deluge: So the _great Deep_ was not one Thing, or one continued
Cavity, as _Moses_ represents it, but ten thousand Holes, separate and
distant one from another. Neither must the great Deep, according to him,
signify a _low Place_, but an _high Place_: For he confesses these
Caverns were higher than the common Level of the Earth[20]. But I do not
see how, with any tolerable Propriety, or good Sense, that which is
higher than the Surface of the Earth can be called the _great Deep_. An
Abyss in the Earth, or in the Water, is certainly _downwards_, in
respect of their common Surface, as much as a Pit is _downwards_; and
what is downwards from us, we cannot suppose to be above us, without
confounding all Dimensions, and all Names of Things; calling that low
which is high, a Mountain a Valley, or a Garret a Cellar.
Neither is there any Thing in this Text, _Psal._ lxxviii. 15. that can
justly induce us to believe the _great Abyss_ to be the same Thing with
Caverns in Rocks. For whether you suppose it to be noted here as a
miraculous Thing, that God should give them Water _out of a Rock, or out
of a Flint_[21], as plentifully as if it had been out of the great
Abyss; or whether you understand the Original of Fountains to be noted
here, which are said in Scripture to come from the Sea, or the great
Abyss; neither of these Senses make any Thing to the Purpose of the new
Hypothesis, and yet they are the fairest and easiest Sense that can be
put upon the Words; and that which agrees best with other Places of
Scripture, where the same Matter of Fact, or the same History is
related: And therefore there can be no Necessity, from this Text, of
changing the general Notion and Signification of _Deep_, or _Abyss_;
both from that which it hath in common Use, and that which it hath in
Scripture Use.
I say, as in the common Use of Words, _Deep_, or _Abyss_, signifies some
low or inferior Place; so the general Use of it in Scripture is, in the
same Sense, either to signify the Sea, or some subterraneous Place. _Who
shall descend into the_ (Abyss, or) _Deep_? says the Apostle, _Rom._ x.
7. Is that as much as if he had said, Who shall _ascend_ into the Holes
of the Rocks? And when _Jacob_ speaks of the Blessings of the Abyss, or
of the Deep, he calls them the Blessings of the _Deep that lyeth under_,
_Gen._ xix. 25. In like Manner, _Moses_ himself calls it the _Deep that
couched beneath_, _Deut._ xxxiii. 13. And I know no Reason why we should
not understand the same _Deep_ there, that he mentioned before in the
History of the Deluge; which therefore was subterraneous, as this is.
Then, as for the other Use of the Word, namely, for the Sea, or any Part
of the Sea, (whose Bottom is always lower than the Level of the Earth,)
that is the most common Use of it in Scripture. And I need not give you
Instances which are every where obvious.
One must needs think it strange, therefore, that any Man of Judgement
should break thorough both the common Use of a Word, and so many plain
Texts of Scripture, that show the Signification of it, for the sake of
one Text, which, at most, is but dubious; and then lay such Stress upon
that new Signification, as to found a new Doctrine upon it: And a
Doctrine that is neither supported by Reason, nor agrees with the
History of the Deluge. For, as we noted before, at the Decrease of the
Deluge, the Waters are said to _return from off the Earth, Gen. viii.
3_. Did they not return to the Places from whence they came? But if
those Places were the Caverns in the Rocks, whose Mouths lay higher than
the Surface of the Deluge, as he says they did, _p. 303, 305_. I see no
Possibility of the Waters returning into them. But the Exceptor hath
found out a marvellous Invention to invade this Argument. He will have
the _returning_ of the Waters to be understood of their returning into
their Principles, (that is, into Vapours,) not to their Places: In good
Time: So the Dove’s _returning_ was her returning into her Principles;
that is, into an Egg, not into the Ark. Subtleties ill-founded, argue
two Things, Wit and Want of Judgment. _Moses_ speaks as plainly of the
local Return of the Waters, _in going and returning_; as of the local
going and returning of the Raven and Dove. See _Gen. viii. 3, and 5_.
compar’d with Verse seventh and ninth.
Lastly, That we end this Discourse; the whole Notion of these Water-Pots
in the Tops of Mountains, and of the broaching of them at the Deluge, is
a groundless Imagination. What Reason have we to believe, that there
were such Vessels then, more than now, if there was no Fraction of the
Earth at the Deluge, to destroy them? And he ought to have gag’d these
Casks, (according to his own Rule, _Ch. 3._) and told us the Number and
Capacity of them, that we might have made some Judgment of the Effect.
Besides, if the opening the Abyss at the Deluge had been the opening of
Rocks, why did not _Moses_ express it so; and tell us, that the _Rocks
were cloven, and the Waters gushed out_, and so made the Deluge? This
would have been as intelligible, if it had been true, as to tell us that
the _Tehom-Rabbah_ was broken open. But there is not one Word of
_Rocks_, or the _cleaving of Rocks_, in the History of the Flood. Upon
all Accounts, therefore, we must conclude, that this Virtuoso might have
as well suspected, that his whole Theory of the Deluge, as one Part of
it, _p. 343._ would be accounted _a mere Fancy_, and _groundless
Figment_.
Footnote 18:
The Exceptor rejects, first the _Waters of the Sea_: Then the _Waters
in the Bowels of the Earth_: Then the _supercelestial Waters_: Then a
_new Creation of Waters_: Then the _Mass of Air_ chang’d into Water:
And lastly, a _partial Deluge_. And therefore he puts Men fatally,
either upon the Theory, or upon his new Hypothesis.
Footnote 19:
This he acknowledges, _p._ 325. (_We expound a Text or two of
Scripture so as none ever did; and deferring the common received
Sense, put an unusual Gloss upon them_, not to say, ἰδίαν ἐπίλυσιν, _a
private Interpretation_,) and p. 359.
Footnote 20:
P. 303. _But though these Caverns be called Deeps, we must not take
them for profound Places, that went down into the Earth, below the
common Surface of it: On the contrary, they were situate above it._
Footnote 21:
Psal. cxiv. 7, 8. _Tremble, then Earth, at the Presence of the Lord,
at the Presence of the God of_ Jacob: _Which turned the Rock into a
standing Water, the Flint into a Fountain of Waters_.
Numb. xx. 10, 11. _And_ Moses _and_ Aaron _gathered the Congregation
together before the Rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, you Rebels;
must we fetch you Water out of this Rock? And_ Moses _lift up his
Hand, and with his Rod he smite the Rock twice, and the Water came out
abundantly_.