CHAP. XVI.
1. Objections must be answered. 2. Our Exposition of Scripture not to be made an Objection by the Theorist, or any that hold with him. 3. The First Objection from the Hills being covered, answered. 4. The Second, from the Arks resting upon the Mountains of Ararat, answered. 5. The Third, from the appearing of the Tops of the Moun∣tains, upon the decrease of the Waters, answered. 6. The Fourth, from the possibility of Mens being saved from the Flood without the Ark, answered. 7. The Fifth, from the likelihood of other Crea∣tures escaping, answered. 8. The Sixth, from the imaginary excess of Water, answered. 9. The Seventh, from the Raven which Noah sent out of the Ark, answered. 10. The Eighth, from dan∣ger of Shipwrack which the Ark would have been in. 11. A General Answer to farther Ob∣jections.
1. WE have seen a New way of explaining the Flood proposed: or a New Hypothesis concerning it erected. We have seen how it is built; upon what Grounds it stands; and with what rea∣sons and considerations it is supported and establisht. But as things that are new and any whit strange, are commonly received with more than ordinary Notice; so new Doctrines, and strange Hypotheses, are usually entertain'd with Disputes and Objections. It will be necessary therefore to look out a little, and to see what Objections are like to meet us in the Page 325 way that we go: and so to apply Answers to them respectively; at least to the chief of them.
2. But first, I must premise, that we have no reason to take this for an Objection (I mean from the Theorist, or others who take their measures from him) that we expound a Text or two of Scripture so as none ever did; and deserting the common received sense, put an unusual Gloss upon them (not to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a private interpreta∣tion.) This, I say, is not to be urged against us by the Theorist, or by those that think fit to abide by his Hypothesis. For himself exceeds us in the same thing. We only take a few steps, out of the beaten path of Expositors; and that with open and professed diffidence: whereas he has advanced, in as untroden a way, with a great deal of boldness.
3. The First Objection may be raised, from the Hills being covered. So we read Gen. 7. 19. That all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. And verse 20. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. Whence it has been concluded, That the Waters of the Flood prevailed to such an height, that they covered the tops of the highest Hills under Heaven Fifteen Cu∣bits upward. But the Holy Text says no such thing. It tells us indeed, That the Waters prevail∣ed fifteen Cubits upwards; but this might be meant as to the Earth only: upon which, it had told us just before, the Waters prevailed 〈◊〉, and pre∣vailed exceedingly. And truly when they came to be fifteen Cubits upward on the highest parts of the surface of the Earth; whereby they might be Page 326 four or five times as high above its general Super∣ficies (as we have observed) this was really a great and exceeding prevalence. But where it speaks of the high hills and mountains, it says no more of them, than, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they were covered. And so in∣deed they were, and fifteen Cubits upward too, that is, on their sides. For the Waters prevailing so high above the surface of the Earth whereon they were founded, the bottoms of them must needs stand up so deep in those Waters. But to affirm the Tops of them did so, is perhaps to make the Comment out-run the Text, they being not said to be covered.
And as the Original may bear this Interpretation; so the Septuagint seems not to disallow it. For that renders the Hebrew thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the water was lifted up fifteen Cubits up∣wards. But it does not in the least express, that it was lifted up so many Cubits above the tops of the high Hills and Mountains. Nor will the Vul∣gar Latin dissent from it, if rightly understood. It says, Quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes quos operuerat. The Water was fifteen Cubits higher upon the Mountains which it had covered. But then, altior super montes, may not signifie, that it was higher upon the tops (as was said before) but only upon or about the sid•s of the Mountains. And so (I remember) when Q. Curtius would express Peo∣ples sitting about a Table; he says, They were su∣per mensam. And when he would express their sitting about a Banquet; he says, They were super vinum & epulas. According to which, Water fifteen Cubits high super montes; may be Water so high about the Mountains: and so high indeed it had co∣vered them.
Page 327 And the truth is, the Waters of the Flood never were, nor could be fifteen Cubits above the Tops of the highest Mountains; though we allow the Assertors of the Old Hypothesis, to expound the Story of the Flood their own way. To make this out,
We read, Gen. 8. 4. That the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says the Hebrew; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say the LXX. it sat there. That is (as the As∣sertors of the Old Hypothesis will have it)* The bulk of the Ark pierced through the Waters, and so the bottom of it stood upon the Mountain under it. Nor could it rest or sit there otherwise, because the Tops of the Mountains were not as yet above Water, the Flood being at its height. For when was it that the Ark thus rested? Why, in the Se∣venth Month, on the seventeenth day of the Month. And then was the Deluge at the highest. For it is said (Chap. 7. 24.) That the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. That is (according to the Assertors of the Old Hypothesis) they were increasing, or kept as high as ever for so long time. Which (as the Iews used to reckon their Months, making them all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to consist of thirty days apiece) will amount to five Months pre∣cisely. So that count from the seventeenth day of the Second Month, when the Flood began to come in; to the sev••teenth day of the Seventh Month, when the Ark sat upon the Mountains of Ararat: and the hundred and fifty days will be expired just. But then if the Ark rested upon those Mountains at that time, and in that manner, as is said; it is most certain that the tops of the highest Hills, could never be covered by Water, fif∣teen Cubits upward. For then if the bottom of Page 328 the Ark had rested on the Mountains, the whole Body of it must have been quite under Water, and we know not how deep. The reason is, because there are Mountains in the World, very much higher than those of Ararat. For by those Moun∣tains, the Assertors of the common Hypothesis, ge∣nerally understand the Mountains of Armenia. And the Vulgar says expresly, That the Ark rested upon the Mountains of Armenia. And the Septuagint sometime renders Ararat, Armenia. Yea, the Chaldee Paraphrast uses the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as pointing at the Cordiaean Hills. But that there are Moun∣tains much higher than they, is evident enough from most considerable Writers.† Sir Walter Ra∣leigh declares that the Mountains of Ararat, or any parts of them, are not of equal stature to many other Mountains in the World. And again, That the Mountains of Gordiaei—are the highest of the World, the same is absolutely false. Nor does he deliver this as his own judgment only, but presently adds,* That the best Cosmographers, with others that have seen the Mountains of Armenia, find them far inferior and underset to divers other Mountains even in that part of the World, and else∣where. And then he instanceth in Athos as one •ar surmounting any Mountain that ever hath been seen in Armenia: and cites Castaldus for it. And to that he adds Mount Olympus, 〈◊〉 to be of that height, as neither the Winds, Clouds, or Rain over∣top it. Solinus, I confess, says as much, and his authority, I presume, has given credit to the thing. But Ludovicus* Vives seems to confute it; and tells us of one, who going up the Mountain to search out the truth of the report, found it to be false. Though when Sir W. Raleigh preferred Olympus, Page 329 as to its height, before the Armenian Hills; he was certainly in the right. He brings in Antandrus al∣so, averring that for height, to be of a far more admiration, than any in Armenia. And also the famous Mountains of Atlas, so high that the eye of no mortal Man can discern the top: for which he quotes Herodotus. And lastly, he concludes the Pike of Teneriff, to be the highest Mountain of the known World. And so do others as well as he, whereof Varennius is one. Yet some again take the American Andes to surpass all. Though Cau∣casus alone might have done our business. For as that is a part of Taurus, as the Mountains of Ararat are; so it is known to all (who know any thing of that nature) to be much higher than they.
Now the Mountains of Ararat being certainly much lower than several others; here is perfect de∣monstration (to the Assertors of the general standing Hypothesis of the Flood) that the Waters could not (according to their Hypothesis, and their own Ex∣position of the Story of the Flood) cover all the high Hills under heaven fifteen Cubits upward, I mean, the tops of them. For then the Ark could not have rested on the lower ones of Ararat, without being plunged under Water, and wholly swallowed up; the Flood being at its highest pitch when it rested there.
And since it is evident, yea, plainly demonstrated, that the tops of the highest Hills could not be covered according to the tenor of the usual Hypo∣thesis; it is absolutely necessary, not only in regard of our Hypothesis, but in respect to the very Story of the Flood; to interpret the Mountains being covered, to some other sense than has been put up∣on Page 330 it. And that will bring on a like necessity of setting up a new Hypothesis for explaining the Flood; whether ours may be it or no.
Let us now therefore (as it is necessary) en∣quire after another sense of the Mountains being covered. And First, there is a known Figure that frequently occurs in the Holy Volume (as might be proved by a large Induction of instances) whereby what is true of a thing but in part; is notwithstanding affirmed of the whole. And in this sense all the high Hills under Heaven might be said to be covered; because in part they were so, that is so far as the Waters reach'd up the sides of them. Or,
Secondly, If there be not a Synecdoche in the case, there may be an Hyperbole. The Mountains may be said to be covered, to raise the representa∣tion of the Flood, and make it more stately, by put∣ting an Air of excessive greatness into it. so we may observe, that there are few very grand and re∣markable things in Scripture; but the Mountains or Hills are brought in, to bear a part in their Character: to adorn and signalize, or set off their magnificence or excess. Thus a great steadiness is express'd by the stability of Mountains, Psal. 125. 1. They that trust in the LORD, shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed. A great safeguard or protection; by an inclosure or incompassment with Mountains: as in the next Verse. The mountains are round about Ierusalem; so the LORD is round about his people. A great destruction; by the trembling of Mountains and removing of Hills, Jer. 4. 24. I be∣held the Mountains, and lo they trembled, and all the Hills moved lightly. So a great fear is expres∣sed by Mens calling out to Mountains to fall on Page 331 them, and to hills to cover them, S. Luk. 23. 30. A great change; by the passing away or disappear∣ing of mountains, Rev. 16. 20. A great victory; by threshing the mountains, and making the hills as chaff, Isai. 41. 15. A great joy; by the singing of mountains, Isai. 44. 23. A great slaughter; by Blood reaching to the Mountains. So GOD threatens to water the land of Egypt with blood, even to the mountains, Ezek. 32. 6. And that the mountains shall be melted with the blood of nations, Isai. 34. 3. As if Blood were not only to swim about the Mountains, and to run over the tops of them, as Noah's Waters (are presum'd to have done) but even to dissolve them and wash them quite down. Well might Moses hyperbolize as he did, in de∣scribing the Deluge of Water; when the Prophet thus exceeds him in foretelling an Inundation of Blood.
By no means, may some object: and you have hinted the reason of it. Even because what Isaiah spake was in way of Prediction; and such Hyper∣boles though they be common in Prophecies, are not used in History. I answer, Such Hyperbolical Schemes of Speech, are used in Historical, as well as in Prophetical matters. Thus the Psalmist re∣ferring to the majestic or great solemnity at the Promulgation of the Law; says, the hills melted like wax, Psal. 97. 5. And relating some circumstances of Israels passing out of Egypt, he says the moun∣tains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs, Psal. 114. 4. And if against this it be ob∣jected, that the Psalms are Poetical, and so these may be flights of Phancy, allowable to Poets only; (though to inspired ones, as well as to other:) I answer, The like occurs in other Books of Page 332 Scripture. Isaiah, for instance, reflecting upon great and terrible things that GOD had done for his Peo∣ple; sets them forth by this Expression, The moun∣tains flowed down at thy presence, Isai. 64. 3. And Habakkuk commemorating GOD's miraculous pro∣ceedings in bringing the Israelites into Canaan; says, the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow, Hab. 3. 6. And at the tenth Verse, the mountains saw thee, and they trembled.
So that when Moses described the Deluge, in so superlative or transcendent a strain, as by its cover∣ing the mountains, and all the high hills under heaven; it might be but to ingrandize or amplifie the thing. It might be but an high flying orna∣mental Hyperbole, used to grace and greaten the Flood in his Description of it, and to render it the more stately. Or,
Lastly, We must know; that to cover a thing in Holy Style, is not always to surmount and over∣whelm it: but very frequently to surround it only, or to be about it in great plenty or abundance. For so the HOLY GHOST does commonly ex∣press the copiousness of one thing by its covering another. Thus precious stones, are said to be a co∣vering to the Tyrians, Ezek. 28. 13. because they wore them in great plenty about them. And the Iews are said to cover the altar of the LORD with tears and weeping, and with crying out, Mal. 2. 13. because they shed their Tears, and uttered their complaints very freely and plentifully thereabouts. So (in the same sense) some are said to be cover∣ed with shame; and others, to be covered with confu∣sion; and others, to be covered with violence. Whence it is evident, that it is a Phrase whereby Page 333 is expressed the plenty or exuberance of one thing above another. And so the Mountains and high Hills being covered with Waters, will signifie no more, than that they were surrounded with vast quan∣tities of them. But a more adequate and evictive in∣stance of this, Moses himself (the fittest Man that could be in the case) has given us. Who, setting down the Story of the Quails, Exod. 16. 13. says, That at even the quail came up and covered the camp. And how did these Quails cover the Camp? He informs us, Numb. 11. 13. they fell by the camp as it were a days journey on this side, and a days journey on that side, round about the camp. But then as the Camps being covered with the Quails, was no more (in Moses's language) than its being surrounded with a multitude of them; so the Mountains being covered with Waters, was no more than their being surrounded with great plenty of them. And, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies, covered, Gen. 7. 19, 20. and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that signifies, covered, here, Exod. 16. 13. do both spring from, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and are but one and the same word. As if by using the same word in both places, he would inti∣mate, that he meant but the same thing in both Stories.
4. A Second Objection, may be the arks resting upon the mountains of Ararat, Gen. 8. 4. For that implys that the Waters of the Flood did certainly swell up above the tops of those Mountains; else how could the Ark have been carried up thither, and have rested there? I answer,
Page 334 First, That, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is there rendred, upon; does sometimes in Scripture, signifie, by. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the rivers of water, Psal. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the camp, Numb. 11. 13. And so here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may signifie no more than, by the mountains of Ararat.
Secondly, If we yield the Ark to have rested upon the Mountains of Ararat; yet then it might rest somewhere upon the foot or lowest part of those Mountains: for it is no where said to rest upon the top of them. And so this passage in the Divine Story, will not infer the least necessity of that vast height of the Flood, which it has usually been set at.
And then as to Civil Story, which tells how the Ark rested on the top of those Mountains; we take leave to observe, that it is all-a-long charge∣able either with incertainty, or with incongruity. It is still either Doubtful, as to the Thing; or incon∣sistent with it self. Thus, for example,* Iosephus gives account out of Berosus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that a part of the Ship (the Ark) is in Armenia, on the Moun∣tain of the Cordiaeans. But then this is ushered in with a, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so it is said; which makes the thing doubtful. And then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may as well be rendred, near the Mountain, as on it. The same Iosephus, in the same Chapter also, thus certifies out of Nicolaus Damascenus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Above Minias there is a great Mountain in Ar∣menia called Baris, on which many that fled thither were saved in time of the Flood: and that a certain Man brought in an Ark, arrived at the top of the Mountain, and that the reliques of the Timber were kept there a long time. But then this is delivered Page 335 incertainly again, with a, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so it is reported. And for a matter to be reported, is one thing; and really to be so, is another. And indeed this report agrees not with truth. For it says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that many flying to this Mountain were saved. Whereas Scri∣pture on the contrary assures us that but few were saved: and that not one was saved by flight, but all by the Ark alone. And then it is inconsistent with it self too. For how could the Ark drive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, up the very tip-top of a Mountain if there were no Water upon it; but so much dry ground, as that many might be saved there, living together, not only Days, and Weeks; but several Months, one after another.
Eusebius likewise and Cyril do both recite out of Abydenus the Assyrian, how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ship (Ark) in Armenia, did out of its Wood afford Amulets to them that dwelt thereabouts. But then the other circumstances of the account are strangely odd and fabulous. Namely, That Saturn who reigned at that time, forewarned Sisithrus (Noah) that there should fall abundance of Rain on the fifteenth of De∣sius; and commanded him to hide what learned writings he had, in Heliopolis. Which, Sisithrus having done, he sailed directly into Armenia, and there quickly found what the GOD had told him, to be true. But then on the third day after the Tempest, sending out Birds to try whether they could see any Land that was not covered with Sea; they returned again, as not finding any place where they could rest. After them he sent forth others; and when he had sent the third time, the Gods took him away from amongst Men. Where the absurdities and Page 336 incongruities of the Story (if brought home to the truth of things) are so many, and gross, and obvious; that time would be perfectly lost, should I spend any in noting them.
I pass therefore to Benjamin the Iew, from whom I borrow the last citation of this nature. He says in his Itinerary, that the Ark of Noah rested upon the Hills of Ararat; and that one Omar, of the Mate∣rials of it, built a Mahometan Synagogue. But then he adds that the Prince took it down, è Ca∣cumine duorum montium, from the top of two Moun∣tains. And that the Ark should be divided into two parcels, and the remains of it lodg'd upon the tops of two Hills at once; is a passage that gives but small Credit to the Traveller's Report; but is enough, methinks, as to this Particular, to call his fide∣lity into question.
Notwithstanding therefore what we meet with in History concerning it, we may lawfully conclude, that the Ark might not rest upon the top of the Armenian Mountains. Only one or two Writers of note, mistaking Moses, it may be, at first; and telling the World with confidence, That the Ark rested on the top of these Mountains (when he might mean no more than that it rested by them, or on some low Ridge of them) others might fol∣low them, and others them again; and so all might run on in a Track of error, as smoothly as if they had been in the way of truth. Thus, when St. Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Isidore, and others, tell that the Ark rested upon the top of these Moun∣tains; and that certain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, remnants of it were to be seen there in their days: they were proba∣bly over-rul'd by History or Hearsay; and so easily Page 337 mis-led by such as went before them. And indeed that the thing was utterly false, we have great reason to conclude; when if it were true, it must either impeach Scripture, which (in the sense of all Men hitherto) taught all-a-long that the Flood was fifteen Cubits above the tops of the highest Mountains; and that in the height of this Flood the Ark rested on the top of Ararat: or else clash with Geography, which never allowed the Hills of Ararat to be (by a great deal) the highest: or else sink the Ark quite under Water, to make it rest upon those Hills.
5. A Third Objection may be formed from the ap∣pearing of the tops of the Mountains upon the de∣crease of the Waters. So it is recorded, Gen. 8. 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?
In answer to this, we may consider, First, That by the tops of the Mountains, in Scripture, are not always meant the higher, but sometimes the inferior parts of them. Thus it is prophesied, Amos 1. 2. That the top of Carmel shall wither. Where by top, the sides or lower parts of that Hill may be intended chiefly. For the withering of the meer top of it only, would not ('tis like) have either caused or signified such a scarcity of feed, as should have occasioned such affliction to Shep∣herds, as is there foretold; the principal part of Page 338 an Hill for Pasture, being usually towards the bot∣tom of it. So Exod. 19. 20. it is said, That Moses went up to the top of mount Sinai. But that he did not go up to the very top of that Mount we have great cause to believe, for Two reasons. First, Because the LORD descended upon it in fire, ver. 18. in such a fire as was not only real, but raging; for it made the Mountain smoak as a furnace. Yea, it is said, Exod. 24. 17. to be like devouring fire on the top of the mount. And so de∣vouring was it, that it seiz'd most terribly upon the Mountain; insomuch that it is said to have burnt with fire unto the midst of heaven, Deut. 4. 11. But how then could Moses go up to the top of this Mountain? Nor, Secondly, could he well do it, by reason of its height, and the great difficulty of its ascent. For Iosephus assures us, That it is the highest Hill beyond comparison of all that Country, and long of its strange height, and its steep inaccessi∣ble craggy Rocks, is not only unfrequented by Men, but not to be lookt up to, it puts the eye to such pain. And yet if Moses did not go up to the top of this Hill in strictness, we know not how much be∣low it he might present himself. And in case he stood on any lower ridge or part of that Mount; it is clear that by the tops of high Hills in Scripture, may be meant but the lower parts of the same. And therefore where we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deut. 33. 15. from the top of the mountains; the Arabic reads it, from the roots of them. And so by the tops of the Mountains being seen upon the drying up of the Flood; will be meant no more, than that some lower parts of them, not far from the bottoms, were made bare and expos'd to view Page 339 again, which before were hidden under Wa∣ter. or,
Secondly, By the tops of the Mountains, said to be seen on the first day of the tenth Month; may be meant, but the tops of some lower Mountains, which were quite overwhelm'd with Water, by its ascending fifteen Cubits upward upon the highest parts of the plain of the Earth. If these two Considerations will not satisfie; 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. For certain it is, that the tops of the highest Mountains could not be said to be seen, by reason of the Waters sinking down below them; because, as we have sufficiently proved, they could not pos∣sibly be above them. That is, according to the common measures Men have taken of the Flood, and the usual sense they have put upon the sacred Story of it.
Thirdly, Therefore (in way of answer to the Objection) we consider; that the tops of the Mountains may be said to be seen, at the time menti∣oned, upon account of their emergency out of dark∣ness, not out of the Waters. Nor let it seem strange, that at the time of the Flood, there should be darkness over the whole face of the Earth. For then there was a solution of the continuity of the Atmosphaere: all the vapours almost contained in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or comprehension of it, turning into Clouds, and resolving a great pace into Rains. And as it is but reasonable, to think it was dark then (con∣sidering the state of the Atmosphaere) so it was very requisite it should be so. For when the Rains began to fall, and that at such a rate, as to threaten Page 340 in good earnest to make that Deluge which Noah had foretold: this must needs startle and alarm Men dreadfully. Then, had there been light in the World, in any good degree; what could have been expected, but that People who dwelt nearest to that place where the Ark stood; should have run directly to it, and rudely assaulting and in∣vading it, have turned out Noah, his Friends, and all Creatures; and have taken immediate possession of it themselves, as the only probable means of their own preservation. And therefore that the Earth was then wrapt up in nightsome darkness (it be∣ing not only likely in respect of Nature, but neces∣sary in point of Providence) we need not fear to conclude.
And as it was dark all the time that the Flood was coming in and waxing; so the Air might well be very foggy and misty during the conti∣nuance and decrease of the same. For the At∣mosphaere being put into so great a disorder (and even dissolution) as it was; it could not quickly resettle into its wonted clearness.
And then we must heedfully attend to that ac∣count of the Floods abatement and drying up, which the HOLY GHOST has given us. The waters returned from off the Earth continually, says he, Gen. 8. 3. Where, the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, returned, does often signifie in Scripture, the returning of a thing into its Principles. So Psal. 90. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, return ye sons of men. As much as to say, be re∣solved into Dust and Spirit, the primigenial parts, or constituent principles of your Nature. And Gen. 3. 19. it is used in the like sense; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dust shalt thou return. And Psal. 146. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Page 341 he returneth to his Earth. According to which, where it is said, That the Waters returned from off the Earth continually; we are to understand their continual version or return into that Principle out of which they were made; namely, Vapours. And the same is to be understood concerning them, where it is said, Gen. 8. 5. That the waters decreased con∣tinually. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They were going and de∣creasing. And so the Expression does not denote a violent motion or agitation of those Waters (as hath commonly been thought) so much as a constant wasting or diminution of them, by going quite away. And indeed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies, it went away: and as * Schindler notes, is spoken de rebus evanescentibus, of things that are vanishing. Yea, the learned Lexi∣cographer brings in this very Passage, as one in∣stance of that its signification. Which farther in∣sinuates, That when the Waters of the Flood de∣creased, it was done by their vanishing or going away into their first natural Principle: by their re∣turning or being converted into Vapours. Now this being done at a great rate, or very fast (as we may gather from so much Water being dried up in so short a time; and from the miraculous Wind, Gen. 8. 1. sent on purpose to hasten the work, by helping forward the attenuation of the liquid Ele∣ment) it must (in likelihood) overcast and be∣mist the Air; and so conspissate and obscure it, as to render things invisible at a little distance from the beholder's Eye. Whence it will follow, That when the tops of the Mountains were seen, this might come to pass, not by the Waters sinking be∣low those tops (whither they never ascended) but by the clearing up of the Sky, and the wearing Page 342 off of its unusual thickness and fogginess. And yet this their visibility or new appearance might proper∣ly be ascrib'd to the decrease of the Waters too: inasmuch as till they were so diminisht, as not to afford Vapours enough, to thicken and darken the Air any longer, at the rate they had done; the Mountains tops could not be seen.
Should it here be objected, That according to this way of explaining their appearance, they could not have been seen so soon as in the tenth Month; because the Waters were then upon the Earth in great abundance: that Objection might be thus taken off. Though there were waters* upon the face of the whole earth then; yea, and† forty days after that (which was the reason why Noah's Dove could find no rest) yet these Waters were so far exhaled, drawn so low, and grown so gross and muddy; that now they did not return or go away into vapours, half so fast as before. The Atmosphaere also was now come pretty well to its old consisten∣cy again; and so the attractive power of the Sun was much damped and weakened, and he did not draw vapours so briskly and plentifully as he had done. And yet the lower Regions of the Air might be very thick and foggy still; so that the Mountains might not be seen by looking right on, but ra∣ther by looking upward. And so the highest parts of the Mountains, that by thrusting up aloft did intercept the lightsomeness of the glimmering Skie, and terminate the eye-sight; might by that means be discerned. And therefore indeed only the tops of them were said to be seen.
Page 343 Nor let it be thought a meer phancy, a whim∣sical groundless Figment of ours, that the Waters of the Deluge did decrease in this manner. I mean by going or returning into Vapours, and that at such a rate, as to fill the Air, for a time, with con∣stant Mists, and make it very caliginous and dark. This is so far from being an empty fiction or con∣ceit; that I may venture to say, It was a necessary Phaenomenon. For when the Earth was so general∣ly drown'd, the Water being of a smooth Super∣ficies, if the Air had been clear, yea, if it had not been more than ordinarily thick, it would certainly have been most exceeding cold. Even as cold as it is now in its middle Region, where Icy Meteors are continually floating. So that in the Natural Course of things, the Waters of the Flood would presently have been frozen extreamly hard. And if we can suppose they should ever have been melted again (as by the force of meer Nature they hardly could) yet they could not have been so in that space of time, wherein the Deluge went off, and the Earth became dry.
And that a vehement Frost would have seiz'd the Waters of the Flood, as soon as they were come down (if the Air had not been strangely thick) is but reasonable to conclude upon this ac∣count. Because the Atmosphaere was never so ex∣hausted of Vapours; and so never so thin; and so never so sharp and terribly cold, since the World began; as it was at that time.
And then lastly, that the closeness and thickness of the Air was such, as to darken and benight the whole Earth at once; may fairly be inferred from Gen. 8. ult. For there GOD promiseth that Page 344 while the Earth remaineth, there shall be day, as will as seed-time, and harvest. Implying, That during the Flood, there was as perfect an inter∣mission of day upon Earth, as there was of seed-time, and harvest.
6. A Fourth Objection may be framed from the Possibility and easiness of Mens escaping the Flood. For if the Waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits up∣wards upon the Plain of the Earth; and the tops of the spacious aspiring Mountains stood bare (ex∣cepting a little of the lower parts of them) all the time of the Deluge: how easily might Men have run up those Mountains, and so have been saved from the violence of the Waters? and then what need of an Ark to preserve them.
To this it may be answered. For People to ascend these high Mountains, when the Flood was coming in; could be no such easie matter. For at what rate soever the Rains descended in other places; it is not to be doubted but they fell in great abun∣dance about the lofty Mountains. For the pitchy, swollen, loaden Clouds, which then hung every where bagging in the Air; driving and crouding, and squeezing against those Mountains, could not but empty themselves there (like full Spunges when pressed or nipped) in prodigious Showres, that would have run down in furious and mighty Tor∣rents. Yea, 'tis more than probable, that these squeezed Clouds, would not only have discharged themselves in immoderate Showres thereabouts; but in kind of Ecnephiae, or Exhydyriae. (such as some∣times fall in the Pacific Ocean) very terrible Tem∣pests; wherein Rain pours down as it were out of Page 345 Spouts or Buckets, and falls in whole Sheets of Water at once. So that the sides of the Hills would have been full of Cataracts, and the Waters would have come roaring and gulling down them so for∣cibly, that no living Creatures would have been able to stand, much less to climb up against them. And then the higher sort of Mountains, as the Alpes, and the like, being covered with huge quan∣tities of Snow; that would have melted a great pace too, and contributed to the dreadful Tor∣rents we speak of. And then the Waters of the Great Deep, being no other (as we suppose) than such as flowed out of the Caverns of high Rocks and Mountains, when the power of Heaven had broke them up: these also would have augmented the mighty De•luxions, and made them more vio∣lent and irresistable. And this was one main end of GOD's breaking up those Fountains; even to increase the Downfals of Water off the Mountains, and to make them so copious and fierce, as that Men might not be able to ascend the Moun∣tains. And truly for them to have fled to the Mountains to be saved from the Flood, down which such impetuous Streams came rolling and roaring in most hedious sort: would have been like plunging themselves into the Sea, to prevent drowning.
And truly if any Houses, Towns, or Cities, stood so high upon Mountains, as to be above the Water-mark of the Flood: yet the aforesaid Downfals of Water, would have ruined them all. Or if any could have supported themselves by their great strength, the Inhabitants would still have been drowned in them. Which might be one Page 346 main Reason, why GOD appointed Noah to build an Ark (and not an House, or a Castle upon any high Mountains) to save himself, and such other Creatures as were to be preserved.
7. A Fifth Objection may be drawn from the likelihood of some other Animals escaping the Flood. That is, such as lived within the Earth, in the up∣per and undrowned parts of the Mountains. For however they could not get up on the Hills, or if they had been upon them, could not have har∣boured there; but must have been washed down into the common Gulf that swallow'd all: yet having their aboad under ground, and perhaps a good depth under it too; they might be secure in their subterraneous Dwellings. For though the Waters fell in great plenty, and with as great vi∣olence; yet shedding off the Mountains apace, and hasting downward swiftly; they could not soak so far into the Earth, as to incommode, much less destroy the Creatures there lodg'd, and so well intrencht and fortified against them. The Consequence would be no less, than that Moses must faulter in what he relates; That every living substance was destroy∣ed, Gen. 7. 23.
I answer. Where the Historian tells this, that every living substance was destroyed; he immedi∣ately puts a restriction or plain limitation upon it; adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was upon the face of the ground. So that if any creatures were so deep under ground, as to continue alive and safe, notwithstanding the Deluge: this would be no con∣tradiction or repugnancy to the Inspired Writer. For still every living substance might be destroyed Page 347 which was upon the face of the Ground: and that was as much as he affirmed.
Lest that Answer should not satisfie, let me put in another. The Waters falling so plentifully and violently on the Mountains; where they could not soak in, and drown the Creatures earthed in them; by their continued beating and running upon the Ground for forty days together, they did either so settle it, that it squeezed them to death: or else so stop up the pores of it, that they were smo∣thered.
8. A Sixth Objection may be taken from the Quantity of Waters as like to exceed very much (some may imagine) even so as to surmount our supposed limit. For they that issued from the Fountains of the Great Deeps, joined with those that fell in the forty days; must needs have raised a Flood much higher than fifteen Cubits above the Plain of the Earth.
But the answer says, No. For besides the huge deal of Water which the Earth drank up (especi∣ally in its sandy Regions) before its thirst could be quenched; and the vast deal that sank into its invisible hollownesses, before they could be filled; and the abundance that was absorpt by its numberless pits and capacious valleys, before they could be re∣plenisht, and the Water brought to a level: And besides how much it then took up, to raise the Flood one Cubit around the Globe, as well upon the Sea, as dry Land; and how much more to raise a second Cubit, than the first (the higher cir∣cumference being still the larger;) and how much more to raise a third Cubit, than the Second; and Page 348 so on till the fifteen Cubits were full: Besides all this, I say, the Rains by which the Deluge was chi•fly caused, might not descend at any extraordi∣nary rate of violence. For however about the Mountains, they might be monstrous and intole∣rable; yet every where else they might be quite otherwise: and the immensity and destructiveness of the Waters they raised, may be imputed to the generality and duration of them, rather than to their excessive greatness. We are told indeed, Gen. 7. 11. That the cataracts or windows of heaven were opened. Yet that might betoken nothing ex∣traordinary in the Rains, save their continuance. For Mal. 3. 10. GOD promiseth his People (as a signal mercy) to open (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the cataracts or windows of heaven for them. And what does the Expression there import? Why, no more than that he would send such moderate Rains, as should make their grounds fruitful. So says Lyra; GOD opened the Cataracts of Heaven,* by giving rains and dews convenient to make the ground fruitful. And if the opening of the cataracts of heaven, im∣plys but an ordinary descent, or moderate down∣fal of gentle fructifying Rains and Dews: then notwithstanding these Cataracts were opened at the Flood, the Rains might then in most places distill, with a wonted gentleness and moderation. Which granted, there would be no danger of their swel∣ling the Flood above that height to which our Supposition limits it. And though according to Marsennus's account, forty days Rain might raise the Waters an hundred and fifty Feet: yet who can tell whether the Rains fell so fast in those forty days; as they did at the time, and place, when, Page 349 and where, he made his Experiment and Calcu∣lation? Others I am sure are of the mind (and Osiander for one) that they were only sufficient to set the Ark afloat. And they quote that Passage for it, Gen. 7. 17. The flood was forty days upon the Earth: and the waters increased, and bare up the Ark, and it was lifted up above the Earth.
9. A Seventh Objection may be made from the Raven which Noah sent out of the Ark, Gen. 8. 7. It is there said, That that Raven went forth to and fro until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Whence some conclude, That he was forced to return into the Ark again and again, still as he went out, be∣cause by reason of the Waters, there was no con∣venient place of abode for him abroad. And con∣sequently they infer, That the Waters which were so high then, could not but cover the tops of the Mountains, when they were at their full height. To this it might be answered,
First, That if the Raven did return, this does not argue that the Waters were then at such a mighty height (and so that they had been higher than the loftiest Hills) because it is said, That he went to and fro (that is, to and from the Ark, as our Objectors would have it) until the waters were dried up. So that his returning was not occasioned by the excess of Waters, not suffering him to remain at large; nor does it prove them to have been so excessive as they would make them. For even when they were abated, and so abated that the tops of the Moun∣tains were seen (ver. 5.) where he might have had both rest and prey; still (according to the Hebrew Phrase) he was going and returning from and to the Page 350 Ark. Yea, he continued to do thus all-a-long, even untill the waters were dried up from off the earth. Which makes it plain, that as the excess of the Waters could not be the cause of his returning to the Ark; so his continual returning could not argue the Waters to be so excessive: inasmuch as he never ceased returning, till the Waters were quite dried up. But,
Secondly, I answer. The Raven in likelihood returned not at all. And therefore the Vulgar is positive in the case; egrediebatur & non revertebatur; he went out, and did not return. And so is the Septuagint; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Bochart says, That if the Negation be taken out of the Origi∣nal Text, there will be no sense in it. And there∣fore he thinks that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ putting the Future Tense for the Praeterperfect. And then the Raven for certain did never return to Noah. And the Arabian Proverb intimates as much, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he stays as long as Noah's Crow. To which the Latin one is near akin, Corvus nun∣cius: Or, Corvum misimus. So that the Objection against us, will at last be a piece of an Argument for us. So far, that is, as the Raven's not coming home again, after he was sent out; shows the Waters were low: and that he had Food enough to live upon, and Room enough to fly up and down in from place to place; which might be that going and returning of his, mentioned, ver. 7.
Indeed the Dove which was sent out after, found no rest for the sole of her foot, and therefore she re∣turned to Noah into the ark, verse 9. And no won∣der. For though the Waters were much abated, yet still they were on the face of the whole earth, covering its Superficies in most places. And the Dove being a Page 351 more nice and tender Creature than the Crow; might want proper Food and a warm Roost, and for the sake of these, be glad to fly back to the Ark where it had found both. And therefore the second time that it was sent forth, it returned not till the evening; that is, till the coolness of the ap∣proaching night, made it sensible of the want of a convenient Lodging. And for the same reasons (especially it being a tamish Bird) it might per∣haps have come back to Noah, when he sent it out last: only the Earth and Air being now grown more dry, and warm, and pleasant; probably it was tempted to fly so far from the Ark, as not to be able to find the way to it again. Yet its not re∣turning might be really to Noah, what he took it to be; a sign that the Waters were dried up.
10. An Eighth Objection may be the Danger the Ark would have been in, of being stav'd or wrackt. For if during the Flood, the tops of the great Hills had been all above Water; how easily might the Ark have run aground, and have been broken and shattered all to pieces?
It may be answered thus, The great Deluge from the Beginning to the End of it, was in great mea∣sure a miraculous work. Yea, even where GOD was pleased to make Nature his Instrument; He took her, as I may say, into his own hand, and wielded her by his own Omnipotent Arm; and so inabled her to do, what in her own way, and by her own strength, she could never have effected. Look into the inspired Story, and what a great deal of miracle shall we see, in the very Praelusories or preparatives to that mighty Inundation?
Page 352 Thus, as GOD preacquainted the Patriarch Noah, with his design of bringing it in; so he ordered him to build an Ark against it came, to save himself and his Family, from that fearful ruine which was to attend it. He directed him of what Timber to make it, and of what Dimensions; how to frame it without, and to fashion it within: and the whole Vessel seems to have been all of his wise contriving. Such Creatures also as were to be kept alive for future propagation, he appointed Noah to admit into this Ark; inclining them at the same time, to come in their several species, and offer themselves to him. For as the Father says; * Noah did not catch them and put them in, but when they came and went in, he suffered them to do so. And thus much he will have signified, Gen. 6. 20. Two of every sort shall come unto thee. Non scilicet hominis actu, sed Dei nutu. Not by the dili∣gence of man, that is to say, but by the disposition of GOD. And as he injoined Noah to receive these Animals into the Ark, and harbour them there; so likewise to provide sustenance for them, instructing him as to the quality and quantity of the same. So says the same Father.a What wonder, if that wise and righteous man who also was divinely taught what was agre•able to every creature; did procure and lay up sutable nourishment to every kind? And to the end he might have all in a due readiness against the time, GOD gave him a weeks notice, just before the irruption of the fatal Waters, Gen. 7. 4. And lastly, when the good Man and his Relatives entred the Ark (whose Cargo was such, as no single Ship, nor the mightiest Fleet could ever boast Page 353 of, though the Sea it navigated was as wonderful, as its Lading) the LORD himself is said to shut them in, Gen. 7. 16. That is, by the Ministry of his Holy Angels.
And when the ALMIGHTY was thus miracu∣lously ingag'd in ordering the Preparatives to the Flood; we may be sure it was no less concern'd in bringing in the Flood it self. And therefore GOD openly proclaims it to be his own Fact, and challenges and appropriates it to himself alone, as peculiarly belonging to his Providential Efficience, Gen. 6. 17. and 7. 4. And St. Peter expresly de∣clares, That GOD brought in the flood upon the world, 2 Pet. 2. 5. Where (upon view of the Con∣text) it will appear, that the Apostle makes the bringing in of the Flood, to be as much GOD's Work, as ever it was to cast the sinning Angels down to Hell, to save Noah; to burn Sodom; or to deliver Lot: all which were undeniably immedi∣ate and miraculous Acts of his. And truly that the Windows of Heaven should be opened; and all the Fountains of the Great Deep broke up: that they should be opened and broke up on the same day: that they should be so opened and broke up, as to yield such a quantity of Water at that time, as they never did before, and never did since, and never shall do again: what could this be but a spe∣cial and wonderful Work of GOD?
I might farther observe the like miraculous workings of the DEITY, in shutting up those Windows of Heaven again; and in stopping the aforesaid Foun∣tains of the Deep; and in drying up the Waters of the Deluge so fast, &c. but I wave that (as I have done other things) to avoid prolixity.
Page 354 Now when the Flood in all the periods of it, was thus disposed and govern'd by an Omnipotent and Miraculous hand; that the same hand should at once defend and direct the Ark; and so guard and steer it, as to keep it from Ship-wrack: is not at all to be wondred at. We may rather wonder, and wonder very much, if any should think otherwise.
To which add, That a miraculous protection and care of the Ark, would have been altogether as necessary, according to the Theory, or the Old Hypothesis. For, according to the Theory, the Ark must have sunk as low as the falling Earth; and then have been thrown up higher than the highest Mountains; and have been toss'd with such terrible and hideous jactations, as that the worst which are suffered on the roughest Seas, would scarce be shadows to them. So that unless a miraculous Pro∣vidence superintended it, how could it be safe? And therefore indeed the Theory represents it, with its Guardian Angels about it, in the extremity of the Flood. And then according to the Old way, the tops of the Mountains must have been above Water, all the time that the Deluge was waxing. And so without such a Providence again, the Ark would have been as much imperill'd by those Mountains (if not more) as if they had been drown'd no deeper than we suppose them. Yea, in that very juncture when the Flood (according to the common account) was at its highest; the Ark struck upon the Mountains of Ararat, and was stranded there. And to save it in such circumstances, a most miraculous Providence was necessary indeed. But then the same may as lawfully be challenged by, and ought as readily to be allowed to, our Hypothesis likewise.
Page 355 11. Which grant; and then if in this memorable Flood, any difficulties be started, that Men are puzzled to make out: any Phaenomena's arise, that are too big to proceed from Nature alone; and too intricate to be understood by Reason: lo, here's a general Answer to them, if not solution of them. The Flood was a Miracle in good measure. Or had so much miracle running through it, and in∣terwoven with it; that all passages in it, are not to be accounted for by Reason and Philosophy. And truly where Nature was over-ruled by Providence; it is but fit that Philosophy should give place to Omnipotence: and Faith sway out Minds to assent to those things, which Reason is unable to apprehend and explicate.
