An answer to the late exceptions made by Mr. Erasmus Warren against The theory of the earth

About this Item

Title
An answer to the late exceptions made by Mr. Erasmus Warren against The theory of the earth
Author
Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715.
Publication
London :: Printed by R. Norton for Walter Kettilby ...,
1690.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Warren, Erasmus. -- Geologia.
Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715. -- Telluris theoria sacra.
Geology -- Early works to 1800.
Deluge.
Cite this Item
"An answer to the late exceptions made by Mr. Erasmus Warren against The theory of the earth." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A30481.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 4, 2024.

Pages

CHAP. XII.

THIS is a short Chapter, and will be soon dis∣patch'd. 'Tis to prove that the Rainbow was before the Flood. And notwithstanding that, a good sign that there should never be a Flood again. This is to me a Paradox, but he confirms it by a greater Paradox: for he says, God might as well (as to signi∣ficancy, or authenticalness) have appointed the Sun, as

Page 54

the Rainbow, for a sign that there never should have been another Flood. So that if God had said to Noah, I do assure thee there shall never be a second Deluge, and for a sign of this, Behold I set the Sun in the Firmament: This would have done as well, he says, as the Rainbow. That is, in my judgment, it would have done nothing at all, more than the bare promise. And if it had done no more than the bare promise, it was superflu∣ous. Therefore if the Rainbow was no more than the Sun would have been, it was a superfluous sign. They to whom these two signs are of equal signifi∣cancy and effect, lye without the reach of all con∣viction, and I am very willing to indulge them their own opinions.

But he says, God sometimes has made things to be signs▪ that are common and usual. Thus the fruit of a Tree grow∣ing in Paradise, was made a sign of man's Immortality. But how does it appear that this was a common Tree: or that it was given to Adam as a sign that he should be Immortal? neither of these appear from Scripture. Secondly, he says, Shooting with bow and arrows upon the ground, was made a sign to Joash of his prevailing against the Syrians. This was only a command to make war against Syria, and a Prophecy of success; both de∣liver'd in a Symbolical or Hieroglyphical way. The command was signified by bidding the King shoot an arrow, which was the sign of War. And the sign of Victory or of divine assistance, was the Prophets strengthening the King's hands to draw the Bow. This is nothing as to a sign given in Nature, or from the Natural World, in confirmation of a Divine Promise: which is the thing we are only to consider.

All the rest of this Chapter is lax discourse without proof. And as to the significancy of the Rainbow, upon supposition that it was a New Appearance: And its insignificancy upon supposition that it was an Old Appearance, we have spoken so fully in the Theory it self, that it would be needless here to make any lon∣ger stay upon this argument.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.