AN EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth. Together with A DEFENCE of the REMARKS ON Mr. Whiston's New Theory. By J. KEILL A. M. of Ball. Coll. Oxon. OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER for Henry Clemens Bookseller. 1699. Imprimatur, Will. Paynter VICECAN. OXON. June 30. 1699. An EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth. THE Defence of the Theory which has been lately Published in Answer to my Examination of it, is styled Reflections on the Theory of the Earth; But if its Author had observed the Title, and made more Reflections on the Theory, tho' fewer on the Examiner, he had acted more like a true Philosopher, and perhaps might have saved himself the labour of Publishing any thing more than an ingenuous acknowledgement of its errors, and me the trouble of a Reply. But since the Reflecter has been pleased to follow another course, I must take his work, and consider it in the method it lies. He first sets down three propositions which He calls the foundation of the whole work, viz. That the Primitive or Antediluvian Earth was of a different form from the present. 2dly. That the face of the Earth as it risen from a Chaos, was smooth, regular, and uniform, without Mountains and Rocks, and without an open Sea. 3dly. That the disruption of the Abyss or the dissolution of the Primeval Earth was the cause of the Universal Deluge. To these he adds a Corollary drawn from the primary propositions concerning the position of the Earth; in which he says, that the posture of the Antediluvian Earth or its Axis, was not obliqne TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN or of the Ecliptic as it is now; BUT LAY PARALLEL TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN, and perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptic. These he makes the only fundamental propositions of the Theory, (tho' the Theorist in his ninth Chapter Book 2d. makes one more concerning the oval figure of the Earth) and tells us, That he who will attack it to the purpose, must throw down in the first place these leading propositions, and that if the Examiner had taken this method, and confuted the proofs that are brought in confirmation of each of them, he needed have done no more; but if instead of this, a lose stone be only picked out here and there, or a Pinnacle struck off, it will not weaken the foundation. I cannot imagine how this Author can assert, that I have not followed this method in refuting the Theory; for if these he has mentioned be the substantial and vital parts, I have examined every one of them, as will plainly appear to any one, who will read the Examination; so that what he has said of me in another case, may be very well applied to himself, That either he never read over, or does not remember, or which is still worse, does wilfully misrepresent what I have written on this subject. The design of the first Chapter of the Examination is not as this Defender imagines: to prove that the Deluge might have been made by a miracle, but to answer the general Argument which the Theorist with a boldness little becoming a Divine, brought for the truth of his Theory, viz. * English Theory Ch. 7. Book I. that it could be made no other way, and therefore his method being the only way possible, was the real one. To this I answered, that I thought it possible the Deluge might come by a miracle, and that God Almighty was the immediate cause thereof, the Scriptures having given us such an account of it in these emphatical terms, (Gen. 6.17.) Behold saith God, I even I do bring a flood of waters upon the Earth. But the Defender is displeased because I did not tell him wherein this miracle consisted. The truth is, I never thought it my business to explain miracles; and I wish no Theorists or Philosophers had set up for it. I should be well contented to find in their writings a Mechanical and easy account of the common and ordinary Phoenomena of nature. But it seems this Author will not be satisfied unless I tell him how the increase of waters at the time of the Deluge was made on the Earth. I answer, that according to the Scripture, some of the water was raised from the great deep, and sustained on the surface of the Earth by the hand of Omnipotence, a great part of it descended by forty days continual rain; the waters which occasioned this rain being either newly created, or risen from other matter turned into that Element, or brought from some other place best known to the Divine Omniscience: which of all these three methods was used, I will not take upon me to determine; but I think it might have been done by any of them, notwithstanding the reasons alleged in the second and third Chapters of the Theory, which this Author thinks me obliged to answer. It seems he thinks them very strong and convincing, tho' when I wrote the Examination, I thought them so weak and precarious that it would not be worth while to take notice of them. * English Theory Ch. 3. Book I. The arguments against a Creation of waters are founded on a notoriously false notion of the Cartesian Philosophy, viz. That matter and space are the same: according to which principle 'tis not easy to understand, how either Creation or Annihilation can be possible. Nor do I think the arguments against Transmutation of Air or other bodies into water, of greater force than the former: For if all bodies be only different in their modifications, motions and figures, I can see no reason why any body may not be changed, and put on the form of another; and therefore, if according to the Theorists principle there is no vacuity in Nature, not only the Air may be changed into Water, but also all the subtle matter which fills its Pores; and according to this principle of a Plenum, that subtle matter will make as much Water as if the same bulk of absolutely solid matter were transformed. The Defender alleges, that if I proceed upon such Waters as were already in being, and make them either Supercelestial or Subterranneous, I must tell him WHAT THESE WATERS ARE, and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the second and third Chapters of the Theory; if he means that I should tell him the nature of this Water, and of what sort it was, I answer, that it might be common Water, for that will be sufficient to drown the World; but if He designs that I should tell him from what place it was brought, and how it came there, I must own I know not: For to answer the question which he makes in another place, I have not yet been all over the Universe to make Observations, nor have I had any Revelation made me; it is enough both for him and me to suppose this Water like common Water, and that 'twas brought upon the Earth by the Power of God. The arguments which the Theorist brings against the possibility of any such Waters, are sufficiently answered in the 30th. and 31st. Pages of the Examination. After this, the Defender passes to the second Chapter of the Examination, where I find he has but little to say to the arguments, tho' he would fain have them appear small and trivial. I affirm in that Chapter that most of those bodies which composed the outward Crust of the Earth were heavier than Water, and by consequence must descend both through the Oil and Water also; and that tho' small grains of dust, specifically heavier than Oil, if thrown upon it would not descend because of its tenacity, yet if the weight of these particles chanced to be increased by the additions of more, they must fall down. To this He makes answer, that the parts which form the Crust were not huge lumps of solid matter, but little tenuious particles or small dust. Did not I make the same supposition, and yet showed that tho' these small particles of dust when they first fell, might have been sustained by the Oil, yet when their bulk came to be increased by the falling of a great many others, their weight would be augmented mented proportionally; upon which account they must descend like other huge lumps of solid matter, and that long before ever they could form a solid Crust, that would be necessary to support the weight of all the rest of the descending particles? But the Defender has wisely passed over this part of the argument, knowing it would be a hard matter to answer it. I w●sh the Theorist or his Defender would be so kind as to give us a specimen of this Operation for the making of an Earth, and because it would be too hard a task to make a whole One, I would desire them to make a small portion of One; let them take a Vessel, in which let some Water be poured in, and after that some Oil, and I would have them try if by throwing on the Oil, small grains of Sand, Gravel, Clay, Stone, and other Materials heavier than Water, they can form a Crust: and we shall begin to think the rest of their Theory possible, if this Experiment succeeds. I had another Objection against such a formation of the Crust, upon the consideration of the great height, from which these particles would fall, by which their force and celerity must be very much increased, and therefore of necessity they must pierce the oily liquid, and break through to the bottom; this the Defender allows of, providing these particles descended like stones or any other ponderous bodies; but He affirms these particles descended not in that manner, but rather like flakes of Snow hover and playing in the Air, their course being often interrupted and diverted, and their force broken before they arrived at the end of their journey. To this I answer, that tho' these particles were small, yet they were ponderous, were small, yet they were ponderous, being of the same intrinsic gravity with the matter of which the outward Crust of the Earth is made up, and upon that account we cannot suppose them to be like flakes of Snow, whose weight is but small, and their surfaces very large in proportion to their bulk, which therefore must suffer a far greater resistance than we can suppose these descending particles to have done. Besides, if we consider the great height from whence these particles fell, which the Theorist affirms to be as high as the Moon; and the thinness of the Air at such a height (which must be extremely pure when Mr. Newton calculates that now at a Semidiamaters distance from the Earth; the Air is so rare, that one inch of our common Air near the surface, if so much expanded as that of Saturn) we must of necessity think, that the descending particles would not meet with so great a resistance as the Defender imagines. For what ever interruption or diversion they met with from the Air in their descent, would be inconsiderable. But the greatest part of it would arise from their falling on other particles which were also descending, tho' not so fast, by which, tho' the velocity of the swiftest body would be diminished, yet according to the Laws of motion, the momentum or quantity of motion of both bodies taken together would remain the same, and by consequence their force upon the oily Orb would be also the same. I know no way the Theorist can take to answer these objections, but by supposing that the Creation was neither in Spring, Summer nor Autumn, as is commonly supposed; but that it was in the Winter when both the watery and oily Orbs were frozen, and had consistence enough to sustain these particles till they were form into a solid Arch, able to sustain it self; and if he will embrace such an opinion, I shall not take the trouble of refuting it, having so many others of the same weight upon my hands. The Reader may observe, that He takes not the least notice of the argument I brought against him from Scripture, to prove that there were Metals in the primitive Earth, which he plainly denies. After these things this Author comes to quarrel with me for making insinuations and suggestions, as if the Theorist did not own the hand of a particular and extraordinary providence in the formation of the Earth. I own I did make such insinuations, and I leave the Reader to judge whether I had not reason to make them. He has openly rejected the History of the formation of the Earth as delviered by Moses, and has deduced it purely from natural causes, and the necessary Laws of Mechanism. Now if the matter of the Earth from a Chaotick state did of necessity form and settle itself into a habitable Earth, from the sole necessary principles of Mechanism and Gravitation, as the Theorist has deduced it; I would fain know how this opinion differs from the Epicurean, which the Theorist so deservedly derides? I know the Theorist talks very much of Providence both ordinary and extraordinary, and makes most excellent Discourses against the Epicureans for denying of it, which I was so far from not reading or forgetting, or even wilfully misrepresenting, that I transcribed some of them in the Examination, as an argument against his own Theory. It is a common thing with Theorists and Philosophers, who are great Politicians in their way, to disown any opinion which they think will bring upon them the displeasure of any considerable part of Mankind, tho' it follows plainly from their Principles; or if that cannot be done, they hid and colour it the best way they can, that it may not appear too open and plain. Thus the Theorist protests, that he meant no harm, when he affirmed the History of the Creation as it was delivered by Moses, to be fabulous, and ridiculed the Scriptural relation of the Fall; and I have really the charity to believe him; yet hereby he has set the Atheists and Theists in a method of attacking our Religion, and given them Schemes by which they think they can defend their own Principles. After this the Defender passes to consider what is said in the third Chapter of the Examination about Mountains; He owns it to be a subject that deserves consideration, and He says, that if the Examiner can prove that there were Mountains in the primitive Earth, He will undertake that the Theorist shall make no further defence of his Theory. The Theorists great argument why the face of the primitive Earth was smooth and without Mountains, depended on the supposition that the Chaos from whence it took its original, was perfectly a fluid Mass. This I affirmed to be a precarious Hypothesis without any foundation in nature, since the greatest part of the bodies we have in the Earth, are hard and solid, and there not being a quantity of Water in Nature, sufficient enough to moisten and liquify them, the Chaos could not be so fluid as 'twas necessary ●t should be, to form itself into an uniform smooth body. Besides that, the greatest part of them, such as Stones and Metals, are uncapable of being liquify'd by water. The Defender's reply to this is, Very good, what is this to the Theory? Does the Theorist any where affirm that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos, or that they were liquify'd by Water? The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition. I hope the Defender will not think this any answer to the objection; I am sure none of his Readers can. I thought that it concerned the Theorist very much, to prove his Chaos to be a fluid Mass of matter; for otherwise it is not necessary that it should have its surface smooth, regular and uniform; at least it is fitting that the objections against its fluidity should be answered. For if the Examiner can prove that the Chaos was not altogether so fluid as the Theorist imagines, and from thence show, that there was no necessity that the face of the Earth should be smooth and without Mountains, than the Theorists argument must be of little force, and that objection will still very much weaken the truth of the Theory. I freely own indeed, that the World was produced from a Chaos, such a one namely as is recorded to us in Scripture; but I am far from granting that the Theorist's notion is any ways agreeable to it, he supposes that all the Elements Air, Water and Earth, with all the principles of Terrestrial Bodies were reduced into one fluid Mass, and mingled with one another, so that the parts of any one sort could not be discerned as distinct from the rest. This I suppose is a new sort of Chaos which never existed any where but in fancy. It were easy for me here to assume the Defenders method, and argue against it, by putting him questions, how, when and where, was this mixing and blending together of all the Materials of Heaven and Earth? By whom, upon what design, and for what purpose was this done? Was it to the end that they might all settle themselves again in order, and each take its place, according to its specific gravity; but if the great parts of the World were for the most part so before, what necessity was there for disturbing them, only that they might range themselves orderly again. He would do well also to tell us, from whence he had this account of the Chaos, from Sacred or Profane Writers, if from the latter, we are to value their authority no further than they are agreeable to the Scriptures, since it would be no hard task to prove, that it was from the Sacred History that the Heathen Writers first drew their knowledge of the Chaos, which they afterwards corrupted with their own fancies. In the Holy Scriptures I can find no account of the mixing and reducing of all the Materials of the World into one fluid Mass. Moses indeed tells us, that the Earth was Tohu and Bohu, which we render without Form and Void, and can we from thence conclude, that all the parts of it were fluid and mixed together? We may allow, that the Jews understood the sense of these words better than we, or any Heathen Writers, and they give them a contrary meaning; for according to the Syriack Translation, those words signify, that the Earth was without either Habitation or Cultivation, Terra erat deserta & inculta; in the Paraphrase they signify, deserta & vacua. The Targum of Jonahan B. Vziel, supposes their meaning to be this, Terra autem erat stupor & inanitas, vasta à filiis hominum & vacua ab omni jumento; with which the Jerusalem Targum does well agree, according to which Paraphrase they signify, that the Earth was stupor & inanitas & desolatio à filiis hominum, & omni bestia vacua, as that Paraphrase is rendered in Latin. We may conclude from thence therefore, that the Jews thought that all that was meant by the words Tohu and Bohu was, that the Earth was Void and Uncultivated, without out Ornaments and Inhabitants, Men or Beasts, or any sort of Ammals. Nor was the opinion of the ancient Christian Fathers any wise different from that of the Jews as to this matter, Tertullian in his book against Hermogenes says, Vnde compertus es Hermogenes uniformem & inconditam illam fuisse 〈◊〉 ateriam quoe ut invisibilis latebat; and in the 30th. Chapter he plainly proves from Scripture, that there was not a confused heap of matter mixed and blended together, out of which all things were made. St. Ambrose in the 8th. Chapter of his Hexameron says, that the Earth was incomposit a utpote solertis agricolae inarata culturis, quia adhuc deerat cultor, and again, Terra crat incomposita quia nuda gignentium, nec thoris herbosa riparum, nec opaca nemoribus, nec laeta segetibus, nec umbrosa superciliis montium, nec odora floribus, nec grata vinetis. St. Basil tells us, that the true beauty and composition of the Earth arises from its great fertility, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In his 2d. Homily in Hexam. near the beginning. whereby it is productive of all sorts of Vegetables, such as Plants of all kinds, lofty and tall Trees, as well those that bear Fruit as those that afford us none, fragrant and sweet Flowers differing both in colour and smell; and the Earth says he, being naked and unfurnished with any of those sorts of Ornaments, might well be said by the Scriptures, to be Void and without Form. In those discourses of the ancient Jews and primitive Fathers, there is not one word of a perfectly fluid Mass of matter out of which all things were made, there is nothing there of the mixing and blending together of the Elements, and all the Materials of Heaven and Earth; in their Writings we cannot see that such a Chaos as the Theorist fancies, was ever either delivered or supposed: we find that their notion about the origination of the World was very different from the Theorists, whose Hypothesis is not therefore founded on any authority which is sufficient to induce us to believe it. Nor has his opinion any more foundation in reason than authority, for if we should allow of the Theorists account of the Waters that are in the Earth, and from thence by computation compare the solid bodies with those that are fluid, we shall find, that the liquids are not the hundred thousandth part of the solid bodies in the Earth; nay, if we should take in the Atmosphere, the whole System of fluids will not amount to the thousandth part of the solid bodies: from which it plainly appears, that the Chaos cannot be thought to have been in any manner an entirely fluid Mass, but rather a hard and solid one. For if we take hard bodies as Earth or Clay, and fluid as Water or Oil, and mix them together in the proportion of eight thousand to one, or even in that of a thousand to one; that is, take one inch of fluid matter for a thousand inches of solid matter, the fluids will have but a very small effect on the solids. Since therefore the whole composition of the Chaos, when all its parts were mixed and blendeed together, must not have been fluid, but rather hard and solid; I hope the Defender will allow the objection to be to the purpose, and of force against the Theory, which is founded on a contrary supposition. Having thus proved that the far greatest part of those bodies which composed the Chaos, were firm and solid, I think it easy to show, why there is no necessity that an Earth formed from such a composition, should be smooth and regular; for it is not so with solids as with fluids, where all range themselves according to their intensive gravities, and settle themselves into a regular and even surface; whereas solids take their place according to the order they happen to be in, that body coming soon to its rest, which is nearest the Centre, without any respect had to gravity or levity, and where these bodies happened to be thickest or highest, or their parts less coherent, there also after their fall would their surfaces be highest, and the face of the whole would be very rugged and mountainous; the liquids, if we should allow them to separate from the solids, would descend and fill the Holes, Cavities, and Caverns that were made by the falling of these irregular pieces on one another, and what was more than sufficient for this, might spread its self upon the Valleys, and leave great protuberances of the solid Mass, as great as any of our Mountains standing out above the surface of the Water. But granting, that the greatest part of the Chaos was a fluid Mass, I brought another argument in the Examination to show, how the face of the Earth might be mountainous and uneven, by supposing in the Chaos a great many bodies, which, by being in a great measure hollow, or fastened to some other matter of less gravity than that of the fluid Chaos, would swim on the surface of it, after the subsiding of all the rest, and some parts of them standing above the surface of the watery Orb, would form Mountains. The Defender answers this, as he does most other objections, by a question, Who told me that these lumps of matter were hollow? Is not this precarious, or rather Chimerical and ridiculous? I answer, I came to know this after the same manner, that the Theorist knew there were neither Mountains nor Seas in the Primitive Earth; if it be a precarious Hypothesis I cannot help it, but it is my comfort, that if every thing that's precarious be also Chimerical and ridiculous, I know whole Theories that will be so likewise. After this he falls into a strain of very learned questions, What made those solid lumps hollow, when, or where, or how were their inward parts scoped out of them? I know none but Theorists that can give a positive answer to such nice questions; I am content to say, they might have been so ordered by God Almighty at first, for that very end that they might swim on the Abyss: tho' another Theorist says, that the fluid Abyss was much denser and heavier than the Mountains, and therefore they could not sink: and it is indifferent to me which of these answers he takes, or if he find out some other of his own, which he can easily do if he has a mind to it, that he will like better. It is enough for me to show, that there is no necessity that an Earth arising from a Chaos, should have its surface smooth and uniform, as the Theorist pretends it must. But this Defender thinks that it is my opinion, that Mountains were really sormed after this manner, and from thence he proceeds to collect, from my Principles and Concessions, that there could be no Sea in the Primitive Earth, and that an Orb of Earth must have been built over the Abyss, and after all he concludes, that I have no good hand in making Mountains. This way of writing would almost tempt me to believe, that he had never read over that Chapter which he pretends to answer; for by the reading of it, one may plainly see that it was not my design to settle this, or any other new Theory of my own, about the formation of Mountains; nay, I positively declared, that I thought there were other principles concurring to the formation of Mountains, besides gravitation and the known laws of motion: my business was only to show the weakness of the Theorist's arguments, and that an Earth arising from a Chaos, might have been uneven, rugged, and mountainous, notwithstanding he asserted, that it must necessarily form its self into a smooth, regular, and uniform Figure. For my part, I think it absolutely indifferent to the question, what way Mountains were made at the beginning of the World, whether by Mechanical causes, or by the immediate hand of God Almighty, or if by hollowing and making a channel for the Sea, the Earth was raised and laid upon the dry land to form Mountains; (which by the by, is not so ridiculous or so repugnant to Calculation, as the Theorist imagines) it was sufficient to my purpose to show, that there was no necessity that the face of the Primitive Earth should be without Mountains. Having thus laid open the weakness of the Theorists arguments, I endenvoured in the next place to show, the great use and advantage that Mountains afforded to mankind: The Theorist asserted, that they did not consist of any proportion of parts, that is referable to any design, or which had the least footsteps of Art or Counsel. This I thought was a bold and ill grounded assertion, since it is certain, that they are so far from being placed upon the Earth without any design or contrivance, that they are justly reckoned by the Philosophers, amongst the most useful, as well as the most stupendous parts of nature; without them we could have had no Rivers or Springs, which are things necessary to us, not only for our Commodious living, burr for our very subsistence. One would think that this consideration was a sufficient argument to make us believe that Mountains were not great Ruins, or the rubbish of a broken World; but that they had been placed upon the Earth at the Creation, with a design that they might serve the Antediluvian World, with the same advantages and uses they afford us in the present One. For it is certain, that they had Rivers and Springs as well as we, which they could not have in a smooth Earth, where there were no Mountains; in which, Rivers were to have their origine, no upper and higher grounds from which the water was to descend on the face of the Earth. Instead of answering the argument, He makes a long declamation against me for asserting that it is impossible to live without Rocks and Mountains. He accuses me for confining the Divine Omnipotence and Omniscience, to one single mode or fabric of a World, and of thinking all the Planets cast in the same mould: Who (s●ys he) ever observed Mountains and Rocks in Jupiter, or in the remains of Saturn? I answer, who but those that have observed Men or other Animals there, that must have Water and Rivers, as things necessary for their sustenance? Tho' the Defender is very Eloquent and Witty on this Subject, quotes Virgil and Cicero, and complains much of the narrowness of some men's Souls, yet I think I can make it appear, that this assertion, as I delivered it, was no limitation of either the Divine Omniscience or Omnipotence. None ever doubted but that God Almighty could make Men subsist without Mountains, Rivers, Water, Meat, or any other sustenance; but yet, one may boldly say without confining the Divine Power, that it is naturally impossible for such Creatures as we are, to live without those things; for our Natures and Constitutions require them; and he must be without doubt in a preternatural state that can live without them. The subject I was then handling was in Natural Philosophy, where we are not so much to consider what is absolutely possible or impossible for God Almighty to perform, as what is agreeable or contrary to the ostablished Laws and Rules of Nature. Thus it is naturally impossible that Men or other Animals of such Constitutions as we have, can live without fresh Water, Rivers and Springs; it is contrary to the natural order of things, that these should be without Mountains and Rocks, Upper and Lower grounds, for Water cannot naturally run upon an Horizontal Plain; and therefore we may rightly conclude, that where there are Men, there must be Mountains and Rivers, Upper and Lower grounds, and all other things necessary for life. It is absolutely indifferent to me, what sort of mould the rest of the Planets are cast in, or what Inhabitants there are in Jupiter, Saturn, or Mercury, or if there are any in either of them, (which I am sure is more than he can prove) yet I would think it no hard matter to show, that it is impossible for us Men, or other Animals of the same Nature and Constitution that we have, to subsist in either of these places. For Saturn being very near ten times further from the Sun than we, must have a hundred times less of his influence; and the distance of Mercury from the Sun, being but one third part of our distance, the heat of the Sun upon that Planet must be nine times greater than it is upon ours, (the action of the Sun upon any subject being always reciprocal to the square of its distance) both which extremes are by far too great to be endured by Creatures of our texture and frame of parts; and therefore we may rightly conclude, that whether they be mountainous and rocky, or have their surfaces smooth and even, yet it is impossible that they should be Habitable by us, or Creatures of our Constitution; tho' yet we know not but there may be some sort of Inhabitants in these Planets, whose frame and temper will suit with the nature and position of their respective dwellings. Thus we generally account the places that are near either of the Poles uninhabitable, because no Men can dwell there; tho' it is certain, that Bears, and several other Animals, whose natures agree best with such a Climate, live in these places; and perhaps, if ever the Theorists Earth had existed out of his own imagination, it might have been furnished with some sort of Inhabitants, tho' it had been naturally impossible for men to have subsisted there. 'Tis somewhat hard that a Man cannot descent from the Theorist and his opinions, without being taxed for narrowness of Spirit. But whatever the Defender may imagine, I am sure, there are some who esteem it as a sign of a weak and narrow Spirit, to believe easily any Hypothesis, without sufficient evidence of its being true; which cannot be produced by the Theorist in this point. For my part, I think Virgil's Shepherd, whom the Defender laughs at for not letting his imagination rove, to fancy things he had never either heard or seen, much wiser than some Theorists, Philosophers, and Free-thinkers, who take the liberty to imagine and believe any thing, but that to which in all reason they ought to give a firm assent. After a long declamation against consigning the varieties of Providence to a narrow compass, (which I know none that do) the Defender asserts, that my arguments run upon impossibilities; which he says is a nice Topick, that lies much out of our reach; and he thinks, that there may be Rivers without Mountains, notwithstanding my reasons. All that I can say to this is, that if he will not be convinced by reasons, which he cannot or does not pretend to answer, he may think as he pleases; but I hope he will allow me the freedom to descent from him, till those arguments be answered. THE design of the 4th. Chapter, was to show the inconveniences that would fall upon the Earth, in case it had such a posture as the Theorist assigned the Antediluvian World, namely, an Axis perpendicular to the plane of its Orbit. To this Chapter the Defender makes some general answers; but first, according to his usual custom puts a question, viz. If I will vouch that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe that have such a posture? Jupiter he says, is known to have a perpetual Equinox, and his Axis parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptic; here he is mistaken, for it is not parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptic, but that of its own Orbit; Mars says he, has little or no obliquity, and must we suppose that these Planets have no Inhabitants, or that their habitations are very bad and incommodious? Jupiter is the noblest Planet in the Heavens, whether we consider its magnitude, or the number of its attendants; and if a Flanet of that order and dignity have such a position to the Sun, why might not our Earth have had the same? What is all this to the purpose? Are the Inhabitants of Jupiter the same with the Inhabitants of our Earth? Or how does he know that there are any at all there? It seems this Gentleman is mighty in love with Jupiter and its Inhabitants; what degree of nobility and dignity it has obtained I know not, yet if he was in the most pleasant country house in all Jupiter, so far I dare vouch, that he would not be pleased with his habitation, but would desire to change and come down again to his old Rocky Mountainous Planet the Earth, and rather than stay there, he would be contented to live in Lapland. I make no question, but that the present position of Jupiter is very fit and well suited to the nature and temper of its Inhabitants, Plants, and Vegetables, (if there be any there) but what is sitting and commodious for them, may be very inconvenient for us; if we were in Jupiter our blood perhaps would stagnate and freeze, and a Jovian if he were brought hither, would melt with heat. The inconveniencies I showed, would arise from a perpendicular position of the Earth's Axis to its Orbit, were only in respect of the Inhabitants of the Earth, and did not in the least concern those of Jupiter or Mars, to whom such a posture might be more convenient than any other. Conveniencies and inconveniencies are relative terms, and therefore to prove a position incommodious, we must not only consider the consequences of the position its self, but the Nature and Constitution of those Animals to which it is to be adapted; and I hope I may affirm (without any reflection on Divine Providence) that the present position in which God hath put the Earth, is more suitable and agreeable to the Nature and Frame of our Animals and Plants, than any other, and especially than that which the Theorist assigns to the Primitive Earth: I am sure that several Divines have asserted this, and were never thought by such an assertion, to prescribe to God. Almighty what was best to be done. I censured the Theorist indeed for enquiring into Physical causes, when there are none that can be known, and neglecting the final ones, which were the only real principles by which the question was to be determined. For as I showed in the Examination, there is no reason that can be assigned why the Axis of the Earth should have one position more than another; the two motions of the Earth round the Sun, and round it's own Axis, being perfectly independent on one another. God Almighty would order that which was most fitting and convenient for its Inhabitans; and I laid it down as an Axiom, that God Almighty did always choose such positions as brought with them the greatest good and advantage to the Universe; and therefore, since the obliqne posture of the Earth's Axis was that which its Maker was pleased to choose, I thought it might be undoubtedly presumed, that it was the best. Proceeding on this principle, I enquired into the several advantages which we reaped by the present obliqne position, and showed, that it was preferable to any other; and surely this cannot be (as the Defender thinks) a prescribing to God Almighty, and telling him what is best to be done in this or that World. When from the Wisdom and contrivance of what is already done, we argue that it could not have been done in a better manner. He goes on and says, That some men cry out mightily against reason; and yet none are more fond of it than they, when they can get it on their side. Some men inveigh against Physical causes, when others use them, and yet as gladly as any make use of them, when they can make them serve their purpose; and when they cannot reach them, they despise them, and are all for final causes. I never knew any that cried down either reason or Physical causes, when they were plain and obvious. But it is no wonder if there are some that are displeased with the reasons and causes that are assigned, by a set of Philosophers who think they can give a Mechanical account, how an Animal, a Mountain, a Planet, or a World may be made; and yet they know not so much of the principles of Staticks and Geometry, as to explain the most common and ordinary appearances of nature, which are really explicable by Mechanical principles. And tho' one would think that it were but reasonable, that a man who pretends to give the Physical causes of all those things, should be very well skilled in Arithmetic, Geometry, Mechanics, and the Laws of motion; yet it generally happens, that those that are least acquainted with those Sciences, pretend most to the solution of such intricate problems, whereas they, who know them best, can best discover how far they may proceed upon Physical causes, how far their principles will lead them in the discovery of truth, and where it is that they must be content to be ignorant; they know that they have not sufficient Data to determine such problems, nor a great many others that have not the hundredth part of the difficulty of those I have mentioned; and they are well pleased if they know their final causes, the uses for which they were designed by their wise Contriver, and never trouble themselves with that which it is impossible to discover. Monsieur Hugens I think, was at least as great a Philosopher as the Theorist, and it may be easily supposed, that he understood Mechanism somewhat better; yet he says, that he would be contented, and should think, that he had done a great matter if he could come to the knowledge of things as they are now, never troubling himself about their beginning, or how they were made, knowing that to be out of the reach of humane knowledge, or even conjecture * Hugenii Cosmotheeros. This Author it seems is very angry with me, for denying, that the Primitive Earth had such a position as the Theorist assigned it; and upon that account he says, I follow the very doctrine of those Scoffers mentioned by St. Peter, who said, Since the Fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were. Why so? Did these Scoffers assert, that the Earth had never any perpendicular position to the Plane of the Ecliptic? and did St. Peter affirm the contrary? Did he say that the old World had a perpetual Equinox, the Equator being coincident with the Ecliptic, and its Axis parallel to the Axis of the Sun, as this Gentleman phrases it? I can find no such discourse in either of his Epistles, nor can I see how such a thing can be deduced from them. A man that had no Theory, or any particular System of his own to defend, would think this the plain meaning of St. Peter, that there were some men then in being, that denied a Providence, or that God Almighty had any care in the Government of the World, because they thought, that since its Creation, every thing went on still in the same method, without any particular manifestation of a Providence; these the Apostle refutes, by telling them, that the World once perished by a Deluge of Waters, and that it was to perish again by Fire; both which are arguments enough for a Providence, and of gods particular care of the World: this I take to be his plain meaning; except St. Peter be to be understood in an Allegorical sense as well as Moses. After this general discourse, he comes to a more particular consideration of the inconveniencies alleged against the parallelism of the Axis of the Earth, with the Axis of the Ecliptic. One argument I brought was, that by the present position of the Earth's Axis, we received more of the Sun's heat, than if it had moved always in the Equator; and if our heat at present is not too great for us, (as without doubt it is not) it was a very good reason why the present position should be esteemed better than that the Theorist calls a right one, wherein we should not have so much of the Sun's influence, as we have. The Defender thinks this is no argument against the Theory, for says he, if the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates, who would desire the extreme heats of Summer? I answer, every one that observes how necessary the Summer's heat is to the production of Vegetables, and the ripening of their seed, which could never be brought to any perfection, did the Sun shine always in the Equator, whereby the action of the Sun in our Latitude, would be little more than half of what it is at present in a Summer's day, which therefore could never be sufficient for the growth and perfection of Vegetables. But (says he) how does this appear, supposing the heat constant? Are there no Vegetables in Jupiter which has still the position the Theorist gave the Primitive Earth, and which is vastly further distant from the Sun, and by consequence must have much less of his heat? Whether there are Vegetables in Jupiter, neither the Theorist nor I can determine, for we were never there to see, and I believe it was never revealed to him or any body else, that there are. But supposing there are vegetables there, what is that to us? Does he think them of the same nature and texture of parts that ours are of? Or that ours, if they were transplanted thither could grow and ripen in such a cold soil, when it is certain, that they require at least twenty five times a greater heat or influence from the Sun, than is in that Planet? Besides, it is requisite (as I showed in the Examination) that our plants and vegetables should have very different degrees of heat, and therefore there must be such changes and alterations in the seasons, as are necessary to produce the designed effect; for that heat which is required for the first growth and vegetation of a plant, will not be sufficient for the ripening and perfecting of the seed thereof, and that which is necessary for the bringing the seed to perfection, would quite whither the green and tender herb; and therefore, since this variety of seasons and alterations of heat, cannot be obtained either in Jupiter or in the Theorist's Antediluvian Earth; it is plain, that our plants could never have been brought to perfection in either of those places. But it seems this Defender is of the opinion, that the plants and vegetables of the Primitive Earth, were of a different nature and constitution from those we have now; so that he must think, that the nature of all our plants was perfectly altered and changed, or that God Almighty having destroyed the old, was pleased to give us a quite new species of vegetables and plants; this is a miracle that is recorded no where in Scripture, or any where else that I know of, and I hope he will not think us obliged, on his word to believe it. I affirmed also, that if the Earth had such a position as the Theorist assigned it, that the greatest part of it would not be habitable. For he himself acknowledges, that the Torrid Zone was uninhabitable in that Earth; and I am sure, that the greatest part of the two temperate Zones would not have sufficient heat to ripen their Corn and Fruits, and consequently would be nothing else but a Desert. To this he replies with this question, How much less habitable would it be than the present Earth, where the open Sea which was not then, takes up half its surface? I answer, that upon the same consideration I cannot see how any part of it should be habitable; for there being no open Sea, whose surface is exposed to the heat of the Sun, I cannot imagine how there could be vapours enough drawn up to furnish the Earth with Waters, Dews, and Mists. For when it is requisite that one half of the Earth's surface should be covered with water, on purpose to furnish vapours enough for Rain and Rivers, how can it be supplied if there were no Sea at all? Can any Man suppose that the Sun acted as freely through a Crust of an immense thickness to raise vapours, as it does now upon the surface of the open Sea? This by the way, I think is a very good argument against the Theorist, who asserted, that the Primitive Earth had not Sea. But the Defender thinks, that it would be very hard, if the seasons of the Year were the same as they are now; that the Inhabitants of the Earth should be confined to Herbs, Fruits and Water, especially in the colder Climates, where the Winters are so long, and the cold vehement; this he thinks, would be a most unmerciful imposition. Really as hard and unmerciful as it is, there are a very considerable number of people in these cold Countries, the greatest part of whose Food, is Bread, Herbs, Roots, Milk, Cheese, and the like; and who seldom taste any Flesh-meats. And why might not the Antediluvians lead the same kind of life? I cannot see that the imposition is harder upon one than the other. The Defender says, that the change of the position of the Earth's Axis, is matter of fact, and must be proved from History. And he wishes the Examiner would consult Antiquity, which would give him a more favourable opinion of the Theory as to this point. One would imagine by this, that this Gentleman had the Observations of some Antediluvian Astronomers to produce, who had found, that the inclination of the Earth's Axis was changed from a perpendicular, into the present obliqne posture: But instead of those, he only quotes some Philosophers, that did not live within some thousands of Years of the time, when this change was supposed to be made. What credit is there to be given to such a Tradition? Can we imagine, that there can be any thing certainly known from Authors that lived so long after the time of this change? Especially, when these men have said a thousand other things, that neither the Theorist nor any body else can believe? And yet, if we consider what they have said, we shall find it but very little to his purpose. Diogenes, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Leucippus, talked of the inclination, declination, or depression of the World towards the South, so that the Northern parts were raised higher, while the opposite parts slid towards the South. We may easily observe, that these Philosophers from their way of speaking, were no great Astronomers; it is hard to guests what they meant by such sentences: But if we should take their meaning as the words at first seem to import, that one Pole of the Earth was more depressed, or inclined towards the Sun or the Ecliptic, than the other; the thing is absolutely false, for both the Poles are equally inclined to the Sun, or the Plane of the Ecliptic: (as I have sufficiently shown in the Examination * Pages 79, 80, 81. ) But whatever their meaning may be, I am sure, it is easier to draw any other consequence, than that which the Theorist has deduced from their words; nay it is probable, that they meant the direct contrary to what he says they did, namely, that the Sun formerly came more towards the North, than it does at present, and that its distance from them towards the South, is now greater than it was at first. This, one may easily deduce from the words of Leucippus as they are quoted by Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Leucippus terram in parts austrinas prolabi putat ob istarum raritatem, quip gelu concretis partibus Septentrionalibus, dum oppositae interim ardent. So that it seems according to Leucippus, the Sun acted more strongly upon the Northern Hemisphere formerly, than it does now, and that it does not now come so near the Zenith of those that live towards the North-Pole, as it did at first; whereby the waters of these Northern parts are quite frozen and turned into Ice, while the parts toward the South, (being on the contrary exposed to too great heat) are burnt and scorched: that is, the declination of the Ecliptic from the Equator (at least toward the North) was greater formerly than now. Thus, we see how little favourable these Philosophers are to the Theorist's opinion; and that their sentiments are at least as capable of being brought as arguments against him as for him. It it true, that Plato speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a disharmony or irregularity in the motions of the Heavens, that was not under the reign of Saturn. But this signifys nothing to the Theorist's purpose, for if we should admit of his position, yet still there would be the same apparent irregularities in the motions of the Heavens. For the Planets would not in that case move uniformly round the Earth, but would have their directions, stations, and retrogradations, as they have at present; and none of them but the Sun would move precisely in the Equator. The other quotation the Theorist brings from Plato, is nothing to his purpose, and is alleged by another Theorist, to prove a quite contrary Hypothesis. These are the testimonies the Theorist has produced from the old Philosophers, to prove the truth of his Hypothesis, which in my mind, if it were not for pomp and show, he might have as well let alone; for I think, they will prove any thing else just as well as what he designed. If these Gentlemen had spoke of a coincidence that was at first between the Equator and the Ecliptic, or of the Axis of the Earth or World, being perpendicular to the Ecliptic, or if they had said, that the Sun at first moved always in the Equator, or that the days and nights throughout the the whole Year were equal, (which might have been easily said and much easier understood, than what they have delivered) they had spoke something to his purpose; but instead of this, we have some dark sentences, whose real meaning it is hard to guests at, and some of which seem to be so far from proving the Theorists position, that they seem rather to infer the contrary, and that the Sun's declination was greater formerly than now. Sure a man must be put to a hard shift for ancient Traditions, that will bring such Testimonies to prove his point. But the Defender alleges, that these places will at least prove that there was some change made in the state of nature formerly; and if I will not allow that which the Theorist has assigned, I must show some other which will have the same effects. Why so? I hope he does not suppose me to be like some Philosophers, that think themselves obliged to give an account of every appearance, and fancy it a stain in their reputation and honour, to be ignorant in any thing: If he supposes such a thing, I assure him he is much mistaken; for I am sensible that there are more things which neither he nor I know than what we do. The Poets are the next witnesses the Theorist produces to prove the truth of his position: And these indeed talk of the continual spring and verdure of the Earth that was under the reign of Saturn. We know the Fable of the four Ages, of which the Golden was the first and best; in it they fancied every thing that was pleasant and delightful, and therefore they removed from it all extremities of heat and cold; and upon that account they would allow neither of Summer or Winter, but a perpetual Spring wherein every thing was fresh and blooming. But it is easy to perceive that all this was a figment: For when they or other Writers were to describe any pleasant places, they continually endowed them with such qualities. Thus Homer describes the Elysian Fields as he is quoted by the Theorist, Archaeol. pag. 263. and Virgil supposes that there were fine green Meadows there. This Poet also in summing up the praises of Italy and preferring it before all other Countries, among other excellent qualities he endows it with a perpetual Spring, Hic ver assiduum atque alienis mensibus aestas. Virg. Georg. Lib. II. Thus Plutarch describes the fortunate Islands, and Pliny the Loca Hyperborea. From which we may clearly see, that there was no other foundation for any such assertion, but the fancy of the contrivers, who were to set forth their places of happiness to the best advantage. But the Defender thinks, that if none of those he has mentioned will pass for sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact; yet I will certainly allow of the Testimonies of some ancient Astronomers, who have said something relating to this matter. Well, let us see what they say. He quotes Baptista Mantuanus from the Archaeolog. whose words are these. Erant illis (nempe Autediluvianis) ut Astronomiâ & experimento constat, Caeli propitiores; volunt namque Astronomi duos esse Zodiacos, unum in nona sphaera, alterum in octava, quod firmamentum vocant; & initio rerum & temporum sic à Deo dispositos ut Aries Arieti, Taurus Tauro, Gemini Geminis jungertur, & amborum coeuntibus in unum viribus fortior fiebat in terris influxus, unde & herhas tunc salubriores, & fructus terrae meliores. As also Petrus Aponeusis in his Conciliator Diff. has these words, Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis & immobilis ordinate & directe concurrebant, tum virtus perfectiori modo, à primo principio per medias causas taliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora, cum causae tunc sibi invicem correspondebant. These Testimonies I own do sufficiently convince me, not that the Theorist's position of the Primitive Earth was the true one; but that the Defender who has alleged them to prove his point does not understand them. For he could not have quoted any thing that was less to his purpose than they are. I know not what skill this Author has in the new Astronomy; but I am sure he does not understand it if it be put into an old fashion dress. No doubt he thought that these Authors meant by such words that at first the Equator and Ecliptic were coincident; when they never dreamt of any such thing. They as their own words inform us, suppose with all the old Astronomers two Zodiacs, the one of which is exactly placed under the other, and (the uppermost being ) the lowest in which the fixed Stars are placed moves exactly under it, and performs its course from West to East, according to some in the space of 25000. Years. At first these two Circles had the same beginning, the Constellation Aries being exactly in the sign of the Ecliptic of the same name, and the Constellation Taurus was exactly in the sign Taurus; the Stars also that make up the figure of Gemini, were exactly under the sign Gemini of the Zodiac, and so in the rest. By which these Astrological Gentlemen thought, that both their forces being united, their efficacy and virtue upon the Earth would be very strong. But now that the movable Zodiac has moved, these two Circles have not the same beginning, and the Stars that make up the figure of Aries, are not in the sign Aries but in Taurus, and those Stars which compose the sign of Taurus, are no more in Taurus but in Gemini, so the Stars of Gemini are got into Cancer, and those of Cancer into Leo, etc. as may plainly be seen on any Celestial Globe. Which they suppose to be performed by the motion of the eighth Sphere or the movable Zodiac, of which all the old Astronomers speak, whom if he pleases he may consult; particularly he may read Clavius' Notes on Sacrobosco de Sphaera, which is as common and as good a Book as he can find on the subject. But it seems the Defender thinks that this would appear more to his purpose, if the old fashion disguise were taken off, and the business applied to the true System of the Heavens. Well let us see if it is so. The new Astronomers suppose that the Stars are , and that the Earth turns round the Sun, so that its Axis makes always the acute Angle of 66½° with the Plane of its Orbit: if this Axis were perfectly directed to the same point of the Heavens, or moved always precisely parallel to its self, than the fixed Stars would seem to have no other motion but the diurnal: But because the Earth's Axis varies a little from an exact parallelism, and does not precisely point to the same Star when it is in the same place of its Orbit; but makes a small Angle with a line that obtains the position it had formerly in the same place; hence it happens that the Equinoctial points or the common section of the Equator and the Ecliptic, retrocede or move backwards from East to West; and this is that which the Astronomers call the precession of the Equinox, by which the fixed Stars seem to move from the West to the East with a very slow motion, and the Constellation Aries which at first was in the sign Aries, has now got into Taurus, and Taurus has seemed to move into Gemini, Gemini into Cancer, etc. From hence it appears, that according either to the old or new Astronomers, the fixed Stars change their Longitude daily but not their Latitude, and they have always supposed that the Axis of the World has kept still the same Angle with the Plane of the Ecliptic. I will now leave it to any indifferent Reader, or even to the Theorist and his Defender to judge, if these quotations signify any thing to the purpose, or if they are not stronger arguments against the Theorist's position than for it. Since the Defender has advised me to consult Antiquity, I suppose it will not be amiss to allege the testimony of a very ancient Philosopher, whose authority ought at least to be as great as Leucippus', Anaxagoras', Empedocles, or even Plato's; I mean the Divinely inspired Moses, who is the most ancient Writer that is now extant, and the only one who gives us an account of the state and condition of the Primitive World, of which the Philosophers adduced by the Theorist were altogether ignorant; in his Writings there is not one word of the coincidence of the Ecliptic and the Equator, or of the perpetual Equinox and Spring that was observed in the Primitive Earth. Moses supposes no such thing but rather the contrary, for in giving an account of the Creation he tells us, that God said let there be lights in the firmament of the Heavens to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days, and for years; from this it is observable, that Moses supposes that there were different seasons from the very Creation, and that their variety proceeded from the different motion of the Heavenly bodies, and more particularly of the Sun, whereas if the Theorist's Hypothesis had been true, the motion of the Sun could have made no variety of seasons; but the Year would have remained with the same face and tenor, having but one continued season. Thus it is evident, that the Theorists supposition in this matter, is directly contrary to that of Moses, and I think that his testimony ought to be of greater force with any candid Reader, even supposing that he had no Divine Inspiration, than any thing that could have been said by such Philosophers as the Theorist has brought, who lived not till many hundred years after Moses' time. diagram I found fault with the Theorist for saying the Earth was inclined to the Ecliptic, it being impossible to conceive how a Sphere can be inclined to a Plane, passing through its Centre as the Ecliptic does through the Centre of the Earth. The Defender endeavours to excuse himself in this matter, telling us, it is the expression of the ancient Philosophers, tho' he thinks it may be properly called an obliquation. I would not have him raise a scandal on the ancient Philosophers without good grounds, which I scarce believe he has for his assertion; yet if they said any such thing, I did not think that the Theorist was so great an admirer of the old Philosophers, that in complaisance to them he would have spoken nonsense. He tells me that Situs rectus is another expression I quarrel with; really tho' perhaps it is not very proper, I do not remember that I any where found fault with it; and he might have spared himself the trouble of citing a passage out of Hugens nothing to his purpose, for Mons. Hugens who always speaks sense, does not say that Jupiter himself but that his Axis is right to the Plane of his Orbit. But tho' the Defender endeavours to excuse the Theorist for his improprieties of expression, yet he passes over without any excuse the great error which he made in assigning the cause of the supposed change of position, which the Earth's Axis suffered at the Deluge. The Theorist said, that at first the Earth was equally poised, and therefore he thought it must keep its Axis steady and parallel to the Axis of the Eliptick; but at the Deluge it lost the Equilibration as he calls it, and one end or Pole becoming heavier than the other, the heaviest end inclined towards the Sun, in which said posture he says the Earth has ever since continued. I must acknowledge that I could not read this without some indignation, and am ashamed to find one who pretends to give a Mechanical account of the Creation, and of the changes the World has since underwent, discourse in so crude a manner, that it may clearly be seen that he has not so much as a common insight into that learning, which would have taught him the present posture of the Earth and its Axis. For I showed in the Examination, that every one that understood the Elements of the new Astronomy, knew perfectly that one Pole of the Earth was not more inclined to the Sun than another; and that if such a change had really happened to the Earth, viz. that one Pole of it had become heavier than the other, that Pole had always inclined to the Sun and made a perpetual Summer in all the places of the Hemisphere, while the other enjoyed a continual Winter; and because no such thing happened, but both the Poles were equally inclined to the Sun, it was a demonstration that no such change of Gravitation happened to the Earth. The Defender is pleased to take no notice of this argument, and yet has the confidence to assert, that he thinks the Theorist's reasons very probable for the causes of the supposed change of the position of the Earth's Axis. But the Theorist in the last Edition of his English Theory, seems to have found out another cause which he thinks in some measure contributed to the change of the Earth's position, and that it is the change of the Direction of the Magnetic particles, which he says followed upon the dissolution of the Earth. But before we can know if this would do, we must discover what these Magnetic particles are, what their direction is, what it was before the Deluge, what afterwards, how it came to be changed, and how this change produced a change in the position of the Earth's Axis. And till he pretend to give a Mechanical account of these things, he can no more expect a distinct answer from me, than if he had said all this had been done by some occult quality. For lose and general Harangues about Effluviums, Particles, subtle Matter, Modes and Motions, signify very little more to explain Nature, than the Qualities and Attractions of the old Philosophers, (whom the Theorist upon this account so often derides) 'tis indeed but another sort of Cant, and affords as little satisfaction to the mind. Before I proceed and further, I must own I was mistaken when I said, that the Axis of Jupiter was obloquy to the Plane of its Orbit. In reading of Hugen's Systema Saturninum, I remembered that this position was affirmed of Saturn, and I thought that I had read there that Jupiter had a like position, which I wrote down without consulting the Book itself, which I had not then by me. The Defender has mistaken my meaning, when he imagines I said, that according to the Theorist both Jupiter and Saturn were Antediluvian Planets; for the particle whom in the parenthesis, refers only to Jupiter, tho' in the mean time I own the expression is ambiguous, and may refer to both. At last the Defender comes to give us a short account of the Theorist's Creed as to this point, which he conceives to be thus, The Earth was at first in an even and parallel posture with the Axis of the Sun, or (as he explains himself in the 2d. Page of his Reflections) its Axis was not obliqne to the Axis of the Sun or the Ecliptic, but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun, and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptic. Then the Earth had a perpetual Equinox and unity of Seasons, and the Heavens and fixed Stars moved uniformly and concentrically with the Earth; but when the earth changed its posture into that which it has now, it had the position of its Axis changed into a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator, and the Heavens seemed to turn round upon another Axis different from those of the Sun or the Earth. I must beg this Author's leave to say, that he has grossly misrepresented the Theorist, who, so far as I can discover never expressed himself to any such purpose. I thought that there were already errors enough in this Theory, so that he needed not have made them more by false misrepresentations. For I can find no such thing in either the Latin or English Theory, as that the Axis of the Earth was ever parallel to the Axis of the Sun. It is said indeed that the Axis of the Earth was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptic, and perpendicular to its Plane, and this I must own is false; but were it trne, yet what the Defender advances upon it would be impossible, viz. that the Axis of the Earth would also be parallel to the Axis of the Sun, for since the Axis of the Sun is not perpendicular, but stands at obliqne Angles upon the Plane of the Ecliptic, as is evident from Gallileo in his Book de Macchie Solari, Scheiners Rosa Vrsina, Kepler, Mons. Cassini, Mr. Flamstead, and most of the Astronomers who have wrote upon this subject: but even his own Master Des Cartes, (from whom he seems as industriously to descent when he is in the right, as he is always sure to transcribe him when he is in the wrong) tells us, that the Axis of the Sun makes an Angle of seven degrees with the Axis of the Ecliptic: If I say what these Learned Men have observed be true, then either the proposition advanced by the Defender, or the 8th. of the 11th. of Euclid must be false. This Author also tells us, that before the Deluge (the Earth having a right position) the Heavens with the fixed Stars moved or seemed to move concentrically with the Earth. I cannot suppose that he meant by this, that all the fixed Stars seemed to turn round the Earth in Circles, that have the Axis of the Earth for their Axis, for they do so now, and must do so whatever position the Earth obtains, if the motions of the Stars be only apparent and caused by the real rotation of the Earth round its Axis. I fancy therefore that by a concentrical motion he means, (if he means any thing) that which is performed in a Circle which has the same Centre that the Earth has, (as the word implys) and I am confirmed in the opinion, that this or some other strange thing is meant by this word, because the Theorist in his Archaeolog. asserts, that in his Primitive Earth all its Inhabitants would be Ascii, that is, they would have no shadow at twelve of the Clock, or they would have the Sun vertical to them at that time. This I dare venture to say is impossible in this or any other of the numberless Worlds, that the Defender dreams of among the fixed Stars, unless the Sun can be multiplied or made to appear at many different places at the same time. For every one that ever read any one Page about the first principles of Geography knows, that all those who live under the same Meridian have twelve of the Clock at the same time, and consequently if the Sun were at twelve of the Clock vertical to all those who live under it, he must be in every point of that Meridian at the same time. I leave the Reader to judge if these men whose notions in Astronomy and Geography are so distinct and clear, are not very capable of making Theories and discourses about the posture of the Primitive Earth, and the position of its Axis? They should be advised before ever they venture again to make another Theory, or defend this, to learn something of the common principles of the Sphere. Perhaps they think them too common and easy, and such as every body may know that will be at the pains to study, and therefore they despise them, and go upon higher attempts to find out something that no body else can discover; as the method how the Earth was made, and what was the state and condition of the Antediluvian World. But for my part I would rather be quite ignorant of the posture of the Primitive Earth and the position of its Axis, than not know the common principles of Astronomy and the doctrine of the Sphere. I am sure if this Author had spent but half the time upon this subject that he has done upon the Theory, he might have avoided many absurdities, and would not have talked of the Axis of the Earth being changed into a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator, and the Heavens seeming to turn round upon an Axis different from that of the Earth. For it is well known, that the apparent motion of the Heavens is about the Axis of the Earth, and that the Axis of the Equator is the same with the Earth's Axis, and it is impossible that they could ever have been distinct. It seems this Defender's acquaintance is only with the Antediluvian World; for one would think by his way of writing, that he knew nothing at all of this World's position or motions. His discourse and terms are so odd and strange, that I sometimes believe they were terms that were used by the Antediluvian Fathers; for I am sure they cannot be accommodated to the present mode and manner of speaking. The design of the fifth Chapter of the Examination is, to consider the Theorist's method of forming Rivers in the Primitive Earth; which, according to him were furnished with Vapours drawn from the Abyss through the Crust by the heat of the Sun. Against this I objected that from thence it would follow, that there could be no Rivers for a considerable time after the first Creation of the Earth. For one would think that it must necessarily require some time before the Sun's heat could penetrate through a thick Crust to raise vapours from the Abyss; all which time the Inhabitants of the Earth must be without Rivers. The Defender thinks this objection may be answered by saying, that the Earth was at first soft and moist, and therefore could not but furnish store of vapours to supply the Rivers. But this is nothing but a shift; for if we bring it to a Calculation, we shall find the cause no ways answerable to the effect. I showed in the Examination, that the quantity of water evacuated by all the Rivers every Year, was at least equal to 263080. Cubical Miles; now if we allow no more Rivers in the Primitive Earth than there are now in ours, (whereas in our proportion to the surface of the Land they ought to be double) so many Cubical Miles of water will likewise be necessary every Year to supply the Primitive Rivers; and if we admit that the Sun had penetrated the thick Crust in the space of ten Years (which is a time little enough in all reason for such an effect) the quantity of water that would be necessary to supply the Rivers for such a time, must not be less than 263080. Cubical Miles; which is such a quantity as would make the Earth very soft and moist indeed: But it would be much rather a Marsh and Mire than an habitable Earth. I objected also that it was impossible that the Rays of the Sun could ever reach through a vast thick Crust, so as to be able to raise vapours from the Abyss. Or if we should suppose that it did raise them, yet it could not do it in such a quantity as would be requisite to furnish the Antediluvian Rivers. For who can imagine that the Sun could act as freely upon the Abyss, as it does now upon the open Sea? Whose surface is exposed to the continual heat of the Sun, whereas the Abyss was enclosed by a thick Crustation, in which were all the Materials of Earth, Sand, Day, Gravel, Oars, and Metalline substances? And seeing the Sea as it is now laid open to the action of the Sun, is but just sufficient to supply us with Rain and Vapours; does it not seem a thing against common sense to suppose that the Abyss enclosed with a thick shell could have sent out a quantity of Vapours great enough for such an effect? But I passed from these general words, and reduced the matter to Calculation; where I showed, that if we allowed the mouths of all the Pores, Cracks and Chaps, through which the Sun must have acted on the Abyss to have been 1/10000 part of the Earth's surface; there would then have been five thousand times less Vapours to have served twice as great a quantity of dry Land; and therefore that in a Country as big as Britain, there would not have been so much as one River, nor so much Rain in a Year as does now fall in a day. All the answer the Defender makes to this, is, that I suppose great cracks and pits through which the Vapours ascended, whose dimensions and capacities I examine at pleasure, whereas he does not find that the Theorist makes any mention of these Cracks for that purpose; The only question is, whither the heat of the Sun could reach so low as the Abyss, when the Earth was dried and its Pores enlarged. Here he is mistaken, this is not the only question; for there is another material one besides, viz. That supposing the heat of the Sun had reached the Abyss, whether there could have been vapours enough extracted from it to furnish the Earth. And I think I have proved that there could not. But it seems he will not allow of the Calculation, because it supposes, that the Sun acted through large cracks, fissures and chaps, which he says the Theorist did not mention for any such purpose: but he will have the Sun to have acted only through the Pores of the Earth. Well, let us grant his supposition, that the Sun did not act through large cracks and fissures, (which I thought would best serve his design) but only through the Pores of the Earth; and we will see how much the Theorist will gain by it. diagram I am accused of dealing unfairly with the Theorist, when I make him suppose that Mountains make way for the motion and dilatation of vapours. If this is unfair dealing, I cannot tell what will be fair; for the Theorist himself has expressly said so, in his Book 11. Chap. 5. Parag. 4. of the English Theory. Where, speaking of the North and South parts of the World, which he says draw the vapours to them; his words are these, The cold of those parts attracting them, as we call it, that is making way to their motion and dilatation without resistance, as Mountains and cold places usually draw vapours from the warmer. Tho I quoted these words in the Examination, yet the Defender assures us, that the Theorist supposes no such thing. It seems then that he can say one thing, and suppose another. If so, I wish the Defender would give us two Catalogues, one of those things which he says and supposes to be true, and another of those things he says without supposing them to be true; I hope in this last we should find what is said in the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Chapters of the Archaeologiae, concerning the Mosaical account of the Formation of the World, its Primitive State, and the Fall of Man. Our next dispute is about the course of the vapours. The Theorist asserted, that it would be towards North and South. Now I proved that it would be from East to West; because I demonstrated, that there must be a continual wind blowing that way, in an Earth where there were no Mountains to change the direction of the wind; just as it is now in the Atlantic and Pacisick Oceans. And seeing the vapours swim in an Air of the same intensive gravity with themselves, it is demonstrable that they must follow the motion of that Air, and be likewise carried from East to West. The Defender grants, that their motion would be at first that way; But (says he) the question here is, where they would be condensed or where they would fall. I think it does not signify any thing where they fall; for I am sure they would not fall or be condensed in a place to which they were never carried, that is, towards either of the Poles. The Theorist was of the opinion that the cold in the North and South parts attracted the vapours thither, that is, (as he explains it) made way for their motion and dilatation. But because I showed that this method savoured a little of absurdity, our Theory-mender says, that the vapours were diverted towards North and South, by an impulse of new vapours. This opinion seems to me to be as unnatural as the other, for if the vapours were crowded on one another by their mutual impulses, they would condense one another, and fall down in the places where they were crowded. I am sure it is impossible, that an atom of vapour however impelled, should make its way through an Atmosphere of the same gravity with its self, for some thousands of Miles towards either of the Poles; when a stone which has some thousand times more density than vapours, and consequently some thousands of times also more force to break the resistance of the medium, if it were to move to Eternity in the Air, yet it would never make any considerable way in the medium, by reason of the continual loss of its motion. It seems to contradict our senses to suppose, that vapours can move through the Air without suffering such a resistance as must condense them. We observe, that those vapours which are in the Clouds, when the Air grows light, begin to fall, no doubt in the form of vapours; but afterwards suffering a considerable resistance from the Air, they are condensed into drops of Rain. If then the resistance the vapours meet with for so small a way, be sufficient to condense them, is it not naturally impossible that they should travel some thousands of Miles and not be condensed till they arrive at the Poles? Our Author proceeds in the next place to consider the seventh Chapter of the Examination, and answer the arguments that are brought against the Theorist's way of making a Deluge. It is supposed in the Theory, that after some ages the heat of the Sun must have pierced through the Crust of the Earth, and reached the Abyss, where it must have rarified the waters there, and raised an immense quantity of them into vapours, these endeavouring to expand themselves, and the Pores of the Earth not being sufficient to let them pass through, would press upon the Crust and break it into pieces, so that its fall upon the Abyss, would produce an universal Deluge. Against this I objected, that it is impossible the heat of the Sun could reach far into the Earth, so as to perform any considerable effect, since by observation it was found, that in Caves and Vaults there was not any sensible alteration of heat in Summer and Winter; and therefore seeing that the heat of the Sun had so little effect in places of the Earth that were so near its surface, how could any one imagine that it would have any upon the Abyss which was covered over with a thick Crust. But because this argument was proposed in general terms, I endeavoured to bring it to Calculation, in order to which I assumed one postulatum, viz. That fewer Rays of heat passed to the Abyss through the Crust, than if it had been composed of several surfaces at some considerable distance from one another, (suppose 10.20. or 30. feet.) every one of which reflected half the Rays which fell upon them, and transmitted the other half. ' This I thought was a postulatum which every body would have granted; and if we consider how much of the Sun's light and heat is diminished by a thin Cloud of vapours, placed between it and us, and how much light is reflected by the common Air, when it passes through it, we cannot but own that the diminution of heat in passing through every 20. or 30. foot of a solid Crust, must be at least the half of what falls upon it. Upon this supposition I showed, that if there were but one hundred of these surfaces, the number of Rays which fell upon the first, would be to the number of Rays which fell upon the last, as 2 99 to I or as the 99th. power of 2. to unity; from whence it followed, that if we took the distances as the Logarithms, the heat of the Sun at each of these distances, would be as the absolute numbers belonging to these Logarithms; Thus, if A B represented the thickness of the Crust, A C the number of Rays which fell upon the surface at A, D E the number of Rays which fell upon the surface at D; and if we draw through the points C and E the Logarithmick curve to the Asymptote A B, the Applicate B F will represent the number of Rays which will fall upon the surface at B, which in our present case is vastly less than AC. diagram Perhaps the Defender will say, that the Rays are diminished in passing through a medium; but yet he does not see how they should be diminished in the proportion I have assigned, viz. so that the Applicates to the Logarithmick curve are always as the quantity of Rays which pass through. Well, that he may see that this is not a precarious assumption, I will give him my reason for it. diagram Tho' this way of reasoning by a Calculus, seems to be plain and obvious enough to those who understand the common principles of Calculation, (which as I think aught to be unknown to none that pretend either to write or defend a Theory, as the Theorist himself owns) yet the Defender does whatever he can to find shists and evasions for such arguments; and here he tells us, that we ought not to consider surfaces but pores. Well, that he may see how ready I am to please and obey him, I have done this already in the 71. Page of this Treatise, where I have showed, that if the Sun shined, upon any surface that is exposed openly to it, its heat on that surface would be 202500. times greater than its heat upon the surface of the Abyss, when it shined only through the Pores of the Crust. Which disproportion is great enough to show, that no great store of vapours could be rarified in the Abyss. But says he, those that allow a Comet at its nearest approach to the Sun, to be pierced through and through, so as to become hotter than red hot iron, will not think it strange that at our distance, it should have some proportional effect upon the inward parts of the Earth. Let us illustrate his similitude by another; Those who allow that a ball of iron ten inches thick, when put in a good fire may be made red hot, and be pierced by the fire through and through, will not think it strange, that this ball of iron removed 10. feet from the fire, should receive some proportionable heat even in its inward parts, as without doubt it would. But the question is, if this effect is any way sensible, or if we should suppose some water enclosed in the middle of this ball, whether the heat of the fire could raise it into vapour at such a distance, so that the force those vapours have to expand themselves, would break or burst the ball. I thought that this Gentleman had known so much of the new Experimental Philosophy, as not to be ignorant, that heat does not pass into the interior parts of a solid of considerable thickness, till it has quite dissolved the Exterior parts; and if the solid is combustible, (as wood) it consumes the outward parts, before it has any sensible effect upon the Interior; but if its parts are compact, (as Metals or Stone) it loosens and dissolves the frame and texture of the outward parts, and so makes its way to the inward. But our Philosopher thinks he has found out one remarkable Phoenomenon, by which he can prove effectually, that the heat of the Sun peirces deep into the Crust, and that is in the case of the Earthquakes. He considers the cause of them, and their depths, and he says, that all agree that they arise from the rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations; This rarefaction (says he) must be made by some heat, and no other is proved to us yet by this Author, than the heat of the Sun. Why should I be obliged to satisfy him in all his difficulties in Philosophy? Did ever I set up to be a Theorist, and give an account of all the Phoenomena of Nature? Well; but it seems he expects it from me, and tho' I am no ways obliged to it, yet out of abundance of good nature, I will give my opinion in this matter. I think then that the rarefaction of Vapours within the Earth, may arise from another heat than that of the Sun. We know that there is an actual fire which always burns in several places of it, which sometimes bursts out and makes an horrible eruption, as in all Vulcano's and Fiery Mountains; and why may not this fire be the cause of the rarefaction? This appears to be more probable, because Earthquakes are most common in those places where these Vulcanos are, as in the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily. But supposing there were no actual fire under ground, yet I am of the opinion, that heat may arise from other causes than that of the Sun. It is observed, that from a due mixture of some particles of matter with those of another sort, there will arise a very considerable heat: Some places underground are observed to be exceeding hot, as some Mines, (where there is a mixture of Sulphureous, Nitrous, and Mineral principles) the heat is so considerable, that a Man cannot easily endure it, even in the extremity of Winter. There are other places so warm, that the waters that run through them will scald a Man's hand. And may we not suppose, that there are some Cavities deeper underground, where the Earth is of the same frame and texture of parts? Now if some Sulphureous and Nitrous Exhalations, should be gathered together within any of these Cavities, and by motion, or any other accident, they should happen to be kindled, it is plain they will expand themselves, rarify the Air, and make that Concussion of the ground we usually observe in Earthquakes. Now it is plain, that these Exhalations may be kindled without the heat of the Sun, from observations that are daily to be made in our Atmosphere; where the Sulphureous Exhalations that are the cause of Thunder and Lightning are kindled in the Air, when the action of the Sun is not strong. This is also observed of Meteors, (which we commonly call falling Stars) whose matter is kindled in the nighttime, when the immediate heat of the Sun can have as little effect as it has within the bowels of the Earth: and I hope this will be sufficient to safisfy him, that Earthquakes may arise from other causes than the heat of the Sun. Tho' the arguments I have already given, clearly prove, that there was no rarefaction of the vapours, caused by the heat of the Sun within the Abyss, yet I showed, that granting the Sun's heat had reached the Abyss, even than an Universal Deluge could not follow from thence; because I demonstrated by a Calculation, that if the Sun's heat drew vapours from the Abyss sufficient to furnish the Rivers on the Earth, it must have exhausted this great treasure long before the time of the Deluge. This manner of Examining the Defender calls contention, and going from one extreme to another; tho' for my part, I think there cannot be fairer dealing, than first to prove that his Principles and Hypotheses are false and disagreeable to Nature; and then (supposing them true) to show, that his reasonings upon 'em are false and inconclusive, and the causes he assigns, are no ways proportionable to the effects he would account for. However, our Author assures us, that there are a great many uncertainties in the computation. He knows I did not pretend to give an exact estimation of the Water that the Rivers sent into the Sea. I can suppose that I have not come within the truth by one, two, or three Cubical Miles of Water, (which is as much as I need to allow) nay, I will grant him, that I have erred a twentieth part, or even one half if he pleases, and yet the argument will be strong enough. For according to the computation, the Abyss ought to have been exhausted in the space of 460. Years; now from the Creation to the time of the Deluge, there were 1600. Years. By which it is evident, that which ever of these Hypotheses he takes, the Abyss must have been empty long before the time of the Deluge. But he thinks I go in this Calculation on principles that are not allowed by the Theorist, because I suppose the Waters of the present Sea equal to the Waters of the great Abyss; whereas (says he) there was near twice as much Water in the great deep, as is now in the Ocean, seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth, and the Sea reaches but to the half of it. I always presumed that it was the Theorist's Hypothesis, that the Crust fell down upon the Abyss and drove the Waters from their place, so that the greatest part of the Waters in the Abyss (after they had overflowed the Earth) came and settled at last in the Sea. There might indeed have been some Water left in the Hollows and Cavities of the Earth, but 'twould be inconsiderable in respect of the whole; and the Theorist himself asserts, that if the Earth should disgorge all the Waters in its bowels, it would not amount to above half an Ocean; and in the Latin Edition he thinks, that it is altogether incredible, that the Water within the Earth should be as great as what is in the Sea and Rivers. So that this Gentleman, who asserts that there was almost twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean, seems never to have read the Theory, or to have understood the Theorist's Hypothesis which he endeavours to defend. But what if there were twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean; yet even in that case the whole must have been exhausted long before the Deluge, since one Ocean could have been drawn up in the space of 460. Years: Nay, if we suppose that there were but just so many Rivers in the Primitive Earth as there are now in ours; (whereas in proportion to the dry Land there ought to have been twice as many) yet in the space of 1600. Years, there is time enough to have the whole Abyss exhausted, as is evident by the Calculation. The Defender alleges, that the Rivers were not supplied by the vapours, only from the Abyss, but also from the Earth and Waters upon it. This evasion was foreseen, and obviated by me in the 165. Page of the Examination; where I proved that there must be at least the same quantity of vapour exhaled from the Abyss as was before, because the same cause still continuing to act, would still produce the same effect, and the Abyss having at first furnished the Rivers with a sufficient quantity of Water, would still continue to furnish 'em in the same quantity, nay rather in a much greater; since (according to the Theory) the heat of the Sun was stronger and stronger every day upon the Abyss, and the vapours exhaled were so many at last, that not being all of them able to crowd through the Pores, they broke the thick Crust of the Earth with their violent effect to expand themselves and fly upwards. Thus we see all the shifts and evasions which this Author makes, are not of the least weight against my computation. But supposing that all the Water in the present Ocean was then in the Abyss, yet I proved, that from the fall of the Crust, there could arise no Universal Deluge, because the Theorist himself proved, that there must be at least eight Oceans of Water required to cover the Earth. The Defender confesses, that the Water in the Abyss was not sufficient to make a Deluge in the nature of a standing Pool, over-topping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains; (as it is usually conceived) but the Deluge that risen from the fall of the Crust was rather like a rushing Sea, overflowing and sweeping them with its Raging Waves and Impetuous Fluctuations. I beg the Theorist's pardon for mistaking him: I thought that he designed to explain Noah's Deluge, and not one of his own imagination. Now I can easily prove, that such a Deluge as this Gentleman conceives, is no ways like that which happened in the days of Noah. For tho' the Theorist computed but eight Oceans of Water that were sufficient to cover the whole Earth above the tops of the highest Mountains, yet I determined the quantity more nicely in my Remarks on Mr. Whistons' Theory, where I proved, that there must be at least three and twenty Oceans of Water that were necessary for such an effect. From which it is evident, that the Water in the Abyss could but cover one part of twenty three at a time, and the other twenty two parts must remain dry; and that after the Water had overflowed this part, it must have proceeded to the next, and so successively, till at last it had overflowed the whole Earth. This is the way that our Author must conceive the Deluge. Let us see now what account the Scriptures give us of Noah's Deluge. Genes. Chap. 7. v. 2. it is said, That the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights. And again, vers. 17. And the flood was forty days upon the Earth, and the waters increased and bore up the Ark, and it was lift up above the Earth. vers. 18. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the Earth, and the Ark went upon the face of the waters. vers. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the Earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered. vers. 20. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. vers. 24. And the waters prevailed upon the Earth an hundred and fifty days. Chap. 8. ver. 1. And God made a wind to pass over the Earth, and the waters assuaged. verss. 2. The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. vers. 3. And the waters returned from off the Earth continually, and after the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were abated. ver. 5. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen. We may observe from this, that the Scriptures inform us, that the whole Earth was under a Deluge at the same time, that the waters increased and prevailed gradually every where for the space of 150. days, that all the high hills under the whole heavens were covered, that all these Mountains lay under Water for several months, that the Ark swum and was carried up above the Mountains, and when the Waters began to abate, it rested at last upon one of them; that it was the eighth month from the beginning of the Deluge when the tops of the Mountains first began to appear, till which time they lay all of them hid and covered with Water. Now in the Theorist's imaginary Deluge, it is plain, (as I have already observed) that there was but a twenty third part of the Earth covered with Water at the same time; it is also evident, that the Waters could not increase gradually in any one place for the space of 150. days, since the whole Earth was to be covered over with waters in that time. His single Ocean of Water could not stay but the three and twentieth part of that time in one place, and therefore it must have gone off from that place, and left it dry long before the end of those days. Nor is this Idea of a Deluge less consistent with Reason and Philosophy, than it is with Scripture. Is it possible to conceive a moving, wand'ring Mountain of Water? For Water naturally settles its self into a surface concentrical to the Earth; and by whatever force, or however it should be raised into an heap, it will immediately spread itself uniformly upon the surface of the Earth, and descend by whatever ways it can. If therefore we should suppose all the waters in the Abyss drawn or forced up to cover the hills of any one place, it will immediately descend and form itself into a surface parallel to the Horizon, and so spread its self equally every where upon the Valleys of the Earth, leaving the Mountains quite uncovered. The Theorist himself acknowledges, that a Mountain of Water is an impossible thing; and indeed, this notion of a Deluge seems to be so extravagant, that I can scarce think that any body will be so credulous as to believe it; and yet it is impossible that it can be any other ways, if we suppose all the Mountains of the Earth to have been covered with an Ocean of Water, of no greater dimensions than that assigned in the Theory, which cannot cover more than the three and twentieth part of the Earth's surface. The Defender in vain alleges, that we are to conceive this Ocean as a mighty rushing Sea, overflowing and sweeping with its Raging waves and Impetuous Fluctuations, all the Mountains; for this will not at all take away the absurdity, because motion can never multiply any body, nor make it to be at more places than one at a time. Water can only by motion be in many places successively, which will give us the Idea of such a moving heap or Mountain of waters, as we have just now proved impossible. Nor is this notion of a Deluge agreeable to the principles of the Theory. For let us suppose the Crust to have been broken by the force of vapours endeavouring to expand themselves, it must immediately fall down and drive the Water of the Abyss out of its place, some one way, and some another; this Water will ascend with a very considerable force, let us suppose as far as five Miles perpendicular height, after which it will descend again and fall to the ground; and all this will be by computation in much less time than one day. These waters having acquired a great force by their fall, will descend very swiftly into the Valleys and Cavities of the Earth, and leave both Mountains and Upper-grounds quite uncovered. And as the Waters that were raised by the fall of the Crust, could cover no more than a twenty third part of the Earth's surface, so it is evident it could remain but a very short time upon the tops of those Mountains it overflowed; whereas in Noah's Deluge, all the Mountains of the Earth lay under water for the space of 150. days. Thus I have proved, that the Deluge the Defender endeavoured to explain, is neither consistent with the holy Scriptures, true Reason and Philosophy, nor the Principles of the Theory, from whence he pretends to deduce it. Of the Figure of the Earth. THO' what the Theorist has said in relation to the Figure of the Earth, be one of his grossest and most palpable errors, and tho' there is a positive demonstration that it is of a Figure directly contrary to that he assigns, yet his Defender thinks himself obliged to maintain it, and therefore spends more time and paper about it, than upon any other point. He is not contented with what has been said by several Mathematicians and Philosophers of the present Age upon this Subject; tho' one would think that they knew the methods to determine the Figure of the Earth much better than either the Theorist or himself. He is afraid that they will give it against him, and therefore he appeals from them to some farther Observations, that He and the Theorist point out and direct us to make. As to observe for instance, whether the extent of a degree be the same in different Latitudes, or whether the shadow of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round; as also to observe if towards the Poles, the return of the Sun to their Horizon be according to the rules of a Spherical Surface of the Earth. These are the Observations the Theorist would have made to determine the controversy. Which I will now consider, leaving the Defenders Observations to be examined in a proper place. I noted in the Examination, that I did not think any Observations that could be made upon different measures of a Degree in different Latitudes, could be so nice and exact, as would be necessary to determine the point in controversy. For supposing that the greatest Diameter of the Earth were to its least as 101. to 100 by which one Semidiameter would be very near 40. Miles greater than the other; (a difference which his friend who was so kind as to write him a Letter, thinks to be much too great) and then the greatest Degree upon the Meridian, would be to the least very near in the same proportion; that is, it would be 1 part of 100 greater than the other; but this difference is so very small, that I believe no Observations in order to this discovery, are nice enough to be relied upon. For where the length of a Degree in Miles is determined either by the resolution of many right-lined or Spherical Triangles, it is scarcely probable, that the errors in Observations and Measuring, will amount to less than ⅔ of a Mile. Tho' therefore we can scarce hope of ever attaining to a knowledge of the Earth's Figure by measuring of it, yet to satisfy the Theorist in this matter, I took notice of one Dr. Eisenschmidt, who compares the magnitude of Degrees observed in different Latitudes, and finds that they are greater at the Equator than at the Poles, and that they gradually decreased from the Equator towards either of the Poles; from which he infers, that the Earth is of such a Figure as the Theorist has assigned to it, whereas I following the Theorists principles, demonstrated that the Earth must have another Figure, and that the Diameter of the Equator must be greater than its Axis. But our Defender says, that my demonstration proceeds upon a supposition, that the Vertical Lines or the Lines of Gravity (I suppose he means the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies) are to be drawn directly to the Centre. Does not the Theorist admit of the same supposition? Does not he make the Water descend from the Poles to the Equator, that it may be so much nigher to the Centre? Since therefore according to the Theorist, the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies are towards the Centre of the Earth, and (if we proceed upon that Hypothesis) where the Degrees are greatest, there the Earth must have its Diameter greatest, it will evidently follow from Eisenschmidts Observations, that the Earth must not be an oblong Spheroid but a broad one, and have its Axis shorter than the Diameter of its Equator. Our Defender tells us, that Dr. Eisenschmidt supposes the Vertical Lines or Lines of Gravity, to be drawn at right Angles to the Tangent of each respective Horizon. What Dr. Eisenschmidt does really suppose I know not, but I am sure he cannot suppose a thing more absurd than what our Author makes him suppose in this place. For that the Line of direction of heavy Bodies is at right Angles with the Tangent of the Horizon, is to me such an incomprehensible supposition, that I shall excuse myself from considering of it, till the Defender (who I suppose would have us think he understands it) is at leisure to explain it. I have not seen Dr. Eisenschmidts own Book, to know upon what principles he proceeds: It is said in the Acta Eruditorum, that he embraced the Theorist's opinion about the Figure of the Earth; and I believed that therefore he would also follow his and the common opinion, that all heavy Bodies tend toward the Centre of the Earth; because it seems most reasonable, that the direction of heavy Bodies should be towards the Earth's Centre of Gravity, which we may suppose to be the same with its Centre of Magnitude. Nor can we suppose this direction to be any ways changed, but upon the account of the centrifugal force, that all Bodies in the Earth have acquired by being turned round the Earth's Axis. Now if he had taken the Centrifugal force into his consideration, he must have concluded (as I have done) that the Earth had the Diameter of its Equator greater than its Axis, which is still contrary to the conclusion he made. So we see, that whether this Author supposes the direction of heavy Bodies to be towards the Centre of the Earth, that then by Observations he must have concluded, the Earth to have been of a broad Spheroidical Figure; or whether he supposes the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies to be changed by a Centrifugal force, he ought to have drawn the same consequence from thence, tho' not indeed from his Observations of a degree measured in several Latitudes. The Defender not daring to trust much to his own skill in this matter, has obtained a Letter from a Gentleman of his acquaintance concerning it. But all that Gentleman's reasons depend on a supposition which the Theorist cannot allow, viz. That the Tangents of the Ellipse are in the Horizontal Plane; whereas it is evident, that according to the Theorist's Hypothesis, these Tangents can never represent the Orisons, for he makes the Water to run from them down to the Equator: now it is certain that Water will not run if it be placed upon an Horizontal Plane; and if we are to make Water run any way, we must always make its Channel inclined to the Horizon. This Gentleman indeed reasons truly, provided the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies were always perpendicular to a Plane, touching the Spheroid in the point where the Body falls; but as I have already observed, this supposition is not to be admitted by the Theorist, and we can no more suppose a Plane touching a Spheroid to be the Horizon of the point where it touches, than we can suppose a Man who stands upon the side of a Hill, to have that plain for his Horizon which touches the side of the Hill in the point of his station. Thus, I think I have plainly proved, that there is no certain way to determine the Figure of the Earth from the observations of a degree taken in several Latitudes; yet I have shown, that if either the Theorist or his Defender will depend upon those observations which are already made; we must conclude from their own principles by evident demonstration, that the Earth is of a very different Figure from what they assign it. The next way the Theorist would take to determine the Earth's Figure, is by its shadow upon the Moon: But it is easy to prove this way as uncertain as the other. For let us suppose (as we have done already) that the greatest Diameter of the Earth is to its least, as 101. to 100 (which is a much greater proportion than what is allowed either by Mr. Newton or Mons. Hugens) because by observation, the Diameter of the Earth's shadow, is three times the Diameter of the Moon, and the Moon appears under an Angle of 30. minutes, therefore the Diameter of the Earth's shadow seen at that distance, will appear under an Angle of 90. minutes or a degree and half; and therefore if we suppose the Diameter of the shadow to be divided into an 100 equal parts, (the whole appearing under an Angle of 90. minutes) every one of these parts will be seen under an Angle of 90/100 or 9/10 parts of a minute; that is, in our present case, one Diameter of the shadow will appear under a greater Angle than the other, by 9/10 parts of a minute. Now by experience we find, that any object that appears under an Angle that is less than a minute, is seen as if it were a point. It is therefore plain, that if there were a Lucid Body whose Disk is large enough to receive the whole shadow of the Earth, that we could observe no sensible difference between the length of its Diameters; but if this Lucid Body had its Disk but just big enough to receive a 1/8 part of the Earth's shadow, (as it really is in the Moon) it is most evident that we could not determine the Figure of the shadow near so nicely, as in the former case. We see then that by the Earth's shadow upon the Moon, its Figure is not to be determined with any tolerable exactness. The third observation the Theorist would have us make, is about the return of the Sun to the Polar parts of the Earth, whether that be according to the rules of a Spherical surface. But this method is as little to be relied upon as any of the rest. The various refractions of the cold and thick Atmosphere, make all observations that are made there, very doubtful and uncertain: Besides, the Latitudes of those places that are near the Poles, are not exactly determined, so that there is no trusting to observations that have been already made, and I believe no body will go now to these places and Winter in them, on purpose to make new and more exact observations to determine this controversy. The Defender, having thus pointed out the Theorist's own observations, comes now to consider the arguments that are brought by those, who say that the the Earth is of a broad Spheroidical Figure. He tells us, that the learned Mr. Hugens thinks it may be proved by experiments made about the different Vibrations of a Pendulum in different Latitudes; and brings an instance of an experiment made at Cayen in America, where it was observed, that a Pendulum Vibrating in a second is shorter than one at Paris that performs its Vibrations in that time; from which he says, he concludes that Gravitation is less under and near the Equator than towards the Poles, and from thence, that the Figure of the Earth is protuberant and rises in the middle, its shortest Diameter being betwixt Pole and Pole. We see here that our Author ascribes the observation about the Figure of the Earth, drawn from an experiment of Pendulums to Mons. Hugens, whereas it was Mr. Newton who first made the discovery, from whom Mr. Hugens had it; and this Writer in justice ought to have ascribed it to its true and genuine Author. But this is not the first time that the honour of several noble Inventions, which the World owes to that excellent Geometer and Philosopher, has been given to others. The Defender tells us, that there are several things to be considered before we come to the conclusion; first the matter of fact, concerning the inequality of Vibrations of equal Pendulums in different Latitudes; and then the inferences made from that inequality. As to the matter of fact, he tells us, that it was Mr. Richer who made the experiment, whose Person or Character he does not know, or whether his relation be extant in Print. 'Tis strange, that the Defender thinks that no body is to be trusted in a Philosophical experiment; but those whose Persons and Characters he knows. Has he such an universal acquaintance, as to have an exact knowledge of all those who are sit to make Observations and Experiments in Natural Philosophy? Certainly he must think, that the Gentlemen of the Royal Academy are better Judges of that than he is. Mons. Richer was chosen by them, and sent at the command and charges of the French King, to make Observations in the South parts of the World; and doubtless, when these Observations were to be made by order, and at the expenses of their King and Patron, they would never choose any but one whom they knew to be well qualified for such an undertaking. And Mons. Richer himself has justified the judgement of those that chose him, by his excellent Observations, both Astronomical and Physical, that have been so well received by the Learned. Among the rest, he gives us an account of this Observation about the Pendulum very exactly; He tells us, that during the ten months he stayed at Cayen, there scarce passed a week in which he did not make the Observation, and found it always the same. Mons. Vaun, Mons. Hays, and Mons. Du Gloss, were also chosen by the same Academy, and sent to the Island Goree in afric. They had it particularly in their instructions, to make Observations about the Pendulums; which they did, and confirmed the Experiments made by Mons. Richer. We may see a particular account of all their Observations in the Recevill des Observations faites in divers Voyages per l'ordre de sa Majesty, in fol. Printed at the Royal Press in Paris. To all this we may add, that the ingenious Mr. Halley when he went to St. Helena, (having first fitted the length of his Pendulums for Vibrating seconds at London) found afterwards that length at St. Helena to be too great; and therefore he was forced to shorten it, that it might Vibrate seconds there; tho' he did not then observe the exact difference between them. These repeated Experiments I hope will put the matter of fact past all doubt. But (says our Author) even Mons. Hugens speaks dubiously of the Experiment. This I deny; for Mons. Hugens never in the least doubted of the Experiment, viz. That a Pendulum Vibrating seconds at the Equator, must be shorter than a Pendulum performing its Vibrations in the same time at Paris; for he has given evident demonstration that it must be so. Mons. Hugens only doubted whether Mons. Richer had observed exactly the difference of their lengths; being fully assured in the mean time that there was a difference, as will be plain to any body that will be at the pains to read his Book. The reason why he doubted if Mons. Richer had given us the exact difference was, because he found that the difference observed by him, did not answer the numbers he brought from his own Calculation, which proceed upon a supposition that Gravity at all distances from the Centre is the same. But it seems the Defender does not see the consequence which is drawn from thence, viz. That Gravity must be less at the Equator than at the Poles, and therefore wishes, that it were proved by other Experiments. It is strange and surprising, that this Author should know exactly how the Earth was made, by what Principles and Laws of Mechanism the World was framed, how the Deluge overspread the World, and what way the Mountains arose, and yet should be ignorant of so plain and easy a piece of Mechanism as this, which has not the hundredth part of the difficulty or intricacy of those which he pretends to know. Well, to convince him I will here repeat the demonstration somewhat plainer than I did in the Examination. Let us suppose two bodies moving in two equal Cycloids; it is demonstrated by Mr. Hugens that the time of the descent through these Cycloids, is to the time of the descent through the Axis of the Cycloids always in a given proportion, viz. as the Semiperiphery of a Circle is to its Diameter; and therefore if the time of the descent or vibration in these two equal Cycloids, should be unequal the time of the descent through their Axes will be also unequal. Now the Axes of the Cycloids being equal, and the time in which the Bodies move through them, unequal, it is evident that the two forces which move these two Bodies must also be unequal; that is, the accelerating force of Gravity in the one, will be greater than the accelerating force in the other; or which is the same thing, (supposing the Bodies equal) the Conatus that the one has to go downwards, will be stronger than the Conatus that the other has to go downwards, that is, the Gravity of the one will be greater than the Gravity in the other. Now this is the very case in hand; for we find by the Observations of Pendulums, that a Body Vibrating in a Cycloid here, will perform its Vibrations in shorter time, than when it Vibrates in the same Cycloid at the Equator; and therefore it is a demonstration that the Gravity at the Equator is not so great as it is here. Which if the Defender had well understood, he needed not to have troubled himself about the making of other Experiments, since there can be none that are more nice than this. For tho' the difference of time for one single Vibration be very insensible, yet this difference being often repeated, will come at last to be very sensible, and by observing it for a longer time, we may come to as great exactness as we please. From this we may conclude, that there can be no experiments made which will more nicely determine the different Gravities at the Equator and here, than what is to be done by observations from Pendulums; and that no body will speak against such Experiments, but they who do not understand them. But however we will now consider the Experiments the Defender would have made to examine the different Gravities here and at the Equator. He tells us, he would not have it made by a Balance or Scales, but by such powers as do not immediately depend upon Gravity, as Springs or other Engines, Rarefactions, or whatsoever has the force to raise, sustain, or remove, ponderous Bodies. But how does this Author know, but these Springs and Engines may change their force also at the Equator, and so be able to raise no greater weight than they will do here. Has not the weather a very great effect upon the Elasticity of all sorts of Springs, which it altars according to the dryness or dampness of the Air? And can we be sure that the same Spring in so different Climates and seasons, will preserve the same Elasticity? But granting that Springs would not alter their Elasticity in different Climates and seasons, yet the difference between the Gravity here, and that which is at the Equator is so small, (the one being to the other as 690. to 689.) that the difference of their effects would be scarce sensible. For let us suppose that a weight here extended a Spring to the length of an inch, the same weight would not draw it out so far at the Equator; by 1/690; of an inch; which quantity is so small, that we should need good Microscopes to perceive it. The next Experiment the Defender would try, is that of the Barometer; for he thinks the Mercury should sink much lower there than with us, or indeed, to nothing if the height be comparatively so great as is supposed. It is hard to conceive, why the Mercury should sink lower at the Equator than it does here. I cannot suppose he concludes so, because it is lighter there than here; for upon that account it ought to rise higher, neither can I suppose that he thinks it ought to sink, because the Air is not so high there as here; for the Air turns round the Earth's Axis as well as other Bodies, and therefore it must have a Centrifugal force as the rest have; and where this Centrifugal force is greatest (which is under the Equator) it will rise highest from the surface of the Earth. Since than we can see no way by which he can prove this paradox, we must leave it, and desire him to make it out in his next Book. There are some other Experiments, that the Defender would try to know the exact Figure of the Earth; as for instance, He says, the height of the Equator should make a different Horizon (as to the Heavens, or the Earth and Sea) East and West, from North and South, the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way, and a Spheroid the other, the Sea also must be seventeen miles deeper at the Equator than at the Poles. Then in reference to Rivers, the motion of those that rise near the Equator must be swift and rapid, but very slow must the motion be of those that ascend to it, if at all they can be supposed to climb so great a Hill. The great River of the Amazons rises five degrees from the Equator, yet runs up to the Equator with a vast load of Waters. Rio de Nigro has a longer course against the bent of the Earth, and crossing the Equator falls into the Southern Sea. The Nile in afric crosses the Line, and has a long course on this side of it. Rivers do not rise higher by a natural course than the Fountains head, and Hydrographers do not assign above two foot in a mile for the descent of Rivers: but upon this Hypothesis, there will be fourteen or fifteen foot for every mile in Rivers descending from the Equator; which is a precipitation rather than a Navigable Stream. Suppose (says he) a Canal cut from the Equator to the Poles; it would be a paradox to say, that water would not flow in this Canal having fourteen or fifteen foot descent for every mile; but it would be a greater paradox to suppose, that Rivers would rise to the Equator, and with the same celerity as we see they do upon an ascent of so many feet. These are the Defenders thoughts on this subject: it is scarce imaginable how any one should be so forward in defending the Theory, that appears so entirely unacquainted with Natural Philosophy, as this Author does. However, if it be not too late for him to learn, I will do what I can to inform him, and consider what he has said. His first thought, that there should be a different Horizon, as to the Heavens, the Earth and the Sea, East and West, from North and South, the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid another, is such unintelligible language as would puzzle a Mathematician to imagine, how it were possible for a man to put such words together, with a design to mean any thing. But however, if I may humbly guests at what this incomprehensible Gentleman intends; I suppose he would say that the Section of the Earth is a Circle one way, and an Ellipsis the other. diagram As for his other thought, viz. That the Sea ought to be seventeen miles deeper at the Equator than at the Poles; he would have done well to have offered us some of his abstruse reasons why it ought to be so, for a common Reader, that is not used to his profound way of thinking, cannot easily perceive any, for he will not suppose without any arguments for it, that the Channel of the Sea is exactly of a Spherical surface, but rather think with the rest of mankind, that it is raised after the same manner that the surface of the Sea is, and is further distant from the Centre at the Equator than at the Poles. His next is a very strange thought about Rivers. For (says he) if the Earth were of a broad Spheroidical Figure, and if we should suppose a Canal cut from the Equator to the Poles, it were a paradox to say, that the water will not descend from the Equator to the Poles; but it would be a greater to suppose, that Rivers would rise from thence to the Equator. Well, if this be a paradox, I hope he will thank me if I teach him how to solve it. diagram Now this being the Figure which arises from the force of Gravity joined with the Centrifugal force, it is evident, that as long as these two causes continue to act, this Figure will remain the same, and the fluid will not alter its position nor descend from A to P; but that cause which first brought it into such a posture, will always preserve it in the same. Or if we should suppose this Figure altered or changed by any external force, so that the Diameter of the Equator was made shorter; it is evident, that assoon as this external force is taken off, that the fluid being acted by the two already mentioned forces, will immediately restore its self into its former natural figure; and the parts of the fluid will never come to an equilibrium one with another, till they settle so as that the Spheroid have the same surface it had before. Let us next suppose this fluid Spheroid to be changed into a solid one, all except one Channel extended from A to P, and as deep as you please: The fluid in this Channel having the same forces to act upon it, according to the same direction, and in the same manner, will still keep the same position, without ever changing its figure, and every part will remain in the same place that it was in before; it being indifferent to the fluid in the Channel A P whether the matter next it be fluid or not fluid, solid or not solid. diagram Before I leave this subject, I cannot but observe, that tho' our Author perhaps is very well acquainted with the Antediluvian Geography and the rise of its Rivers, yet it seems that his skill is not very great in the modern. For he makes Nile in afric to cross the line, whereas if he had consulted the modern Geographers and their observations, he had seen that the Nile rises some degrees on this side of the line, as it is to be seen in Ludolphus' Map of Aethiopia. After this fine discourse of our Authors about the ascending of Rivers towards the Equator, to conclude the argument he says, that if this difference of Pendulums were found, it will still bear a dispute from what Physical causes it proceeds. He indeed may dispute it, and perhaps will never come to know it as long as he lives, but I believe very few else will ever doubt, but that it proceeds from a greater Gravity in the one place than there is in the other; especially since it can be proved from demonstrative principles, that if there be two Pendulums of equal lengths that perform their Vibrations in unequal times, that the Gravity where the swiftest Pendulum Vibrates, is greater than where the slowest is. This I say can be demonstrated from most evident and Geometrical principles; and if the Defender does not understand them, it will be his wisest course to suspend his judgement till he has learned as much of the Elements of Geometry and Mechanism, as will qualify him to comprehend them. I not only proved this variation of Gravity, from its effect upon Pendulums, but I also showed the cause of it, and that it must be so, upon supposition, that the Earth turns round its own Axis. For all Bodies that turn round an Axis, endeavour to recede from that Axis; and because at the Equator Bodies moved swiftest, the Circles there being greatest, this Conatus or Centrifugal force would be also greatest; now this force at the Equinoctial acting directly against the force of Gravity, (which it does no where besides) it is evident, that upon this account Gravity must be less there than any where else. Upon the account of this diminution of Gravity it must follow also, that the Diameter of the Equator will be greater than its Axis, or that the Matter at the Equator rises higher than at the Poles. The Defender says, that this is agreed and owned on all hands, in case there were no impediment to hinder the rising or retrocession of the middle parts; but (says he) the Theorist did believe, that the Vortex was of a shorter Diameter there than through the Poles, which hindered the rising of the fluid. What this impediment is, or what should occasion this straitness of the Orb at the Equator I know not; I hope the Theorist does not suppose that there is a great iron hoop at those parts, a solid ring like that of Satur's, which keeps in the fluid from rising. Yet how it should be else kept in is beyond my skill to guests; I wish he would explain this more at length, that we might know what he means by it. diagram The Author tells us, that those who affirm that the Earth is in form of a broad Spheroid, will allow of no Vortices to the Planets; but then (says he) they must assign some other sufficient cause to carry the Planets in their Periodical motions with the same velocity for innumerable Ages about their common Centre; and the secondary about the Primary; as also what gives them their diurnal rotation, and the different position of their Axes. I thought that this Defender had been better acquainted with the history of Philosophy for these twelve years past, than it seems he is. One would think that he had done nothing but poured upon the Theory all this time, since he is not acquainted with what is known to every body that pretends to Philosophy now a days. He may find several hundreds of people that can tell him, that there are other causes found for the Celestial motions than the Vortices, which will easily explain all those Phoenomena he has just now mentioned. The causes why the Planets move in Elliptical Orbits are now discovered; it is known why they move swiftest at their Perihelia, and slowest at their Aphelia. The cause of the procession of the Equinox is now no longer a mystery; and (which is for our purpose) it depends upon principles that ruin the Theorist's Figure of the Earth, and assert the direct contrary, making it in the form of a broad Spheroid. The motion of the Moon's Apogeon forward and of its Nodes backwards, its variation, and all its other motions, are easily accounted for by the same causes, none of which could ever be made out by the Vortices. For by them we can't answer the first question the Defender puts, viz. What is it that carries the Planets round the Sun with the same velocity for many Ages? Nay, supposing that we were altogether ignorant of any other cause, yet it is no hard matter to prove, that the Vortices can never be the cause of the Celestial motions; and therefore there being no Vortex, there can be no such thing as a straitness in the Orbit at the Equator, which the Theorist and the Defender suppose. But if I should allow them both their Vortices and the straitness of their Orbs, I have already proved, that they will signify nothing to their purpose. The Defender tells us, that this reasoning about the Figure of the Earth depends upon the Theorists Hypothesis, that the Globe of it was once fluid; and from thence he pretends to confirm the Theory: For (says he) neither Figure of the Earth, oblong or oblate, can be proved from the rotation of the Earth and its Gravity, without supposing the Globe form into that shape before it came to be hardened, before it came to be loaded and stiffened with Rocks and stony Mountains, and therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allowed, that there was such a time; such a state of the Earth when its tender Orb was capable of these impressions and modifications, and that Orb must have lain above the waters not under them, nor radicated to the bottom of them; and in the last place, this concretion upon the waters (says he) must have been throughout all the parts of the Earth, for there is no reason why one part of the fluid should be covered more than another; so (says he) that in effect we must suppose, that all the watery Globe was at first covered over with an Earthy concretion: Now this being admitted (says he) we have confirmed the main point of the Theory, namely, that the Abyss was at first covered over with an Orb of earth; and if we will grant him this he will compound for the rest. He is a little too unreasonable in expecting grants of such things as are altogether precarious, and affirmed without so much as a show of an argument. My business was to prove, that he had deduced a wrong conclusion from his own Hypotheses and Principles; and therefore, supposing that the Globe of the Earth was once fluid, I proved from thence, that it must have settled itself into the figure of a broad Spheroid, and not of an oblong one. But yet I demonstrated, that supposing the Earth to have been partly fluid and partly dry, as it is at present, that even in that ease, the Figure of the Earth must be Spheroidical, because we observe that the Land is very nearly of the same Figure with the Sea, (only raised a little higher, that it may not be overflowed) and composes with it the same solid, but the Sea being fluid will settle its self into just such a figure, as if the whole Globe were fluid, that is (as I have demonstrated) its surface will be the same with that of a broad Spheroid; and therefore the Land which is of the same figure will be so likewise. And thus I hope I have proved, that whether we suppose the Earth to have been at first entirely fluid, or to have been composed of parts some solid and some fluid, that from either of these suppositions it follows, that the Figure of the Earth must be directly contrary to what the Theorist assigns. But (says our Author) if the Earth was from the beginning in this present form, firm and solid, (as it is now) Rocky and Mountainous, than the question is, how the Parts or Regions of the Earth about the Equator, could be raised above a Spherical figure or into an oblate Spheroid; suppose then the waters raised by the circumvolution of the Earth, how was the Terra firma raised, or how could it be raised by that or any such cause. These questions (says he) are no matter of difficulty to the Theorist, who supposes the first Earth to have covered the Waters, and to have taken their shape (whatever it was) as upon a mould. However easy they may be to the Theorist, I assure him that they are much easier to me, who suppose that God Almighty raised the Land at the beginning, when he formed the Earth into the Figure it has at present, which otherwise could never have risen of its self. The dry Land therefore was raised and form into a Spheroidical Figure by its wise Creator, on purpose that it might not be overflowed by the Sea at the Equator, which (as I have proved) must of necessity have been higher there than at the Poles; and therefore if the Land at the Equator had remained in a Spherical Figure, no higher than that which is at the Poles, the Sea must of necessity have risen above it, and spread its self upon it like an Inundation. It was therefore wisely ordered by the Divine Providence, that not only the Sea but the Land also should be formed into a broad Spheroidical Figure, on purpose that it might not be overflowed with Waters. That the Readers might observe the Theorist's great skill in drawing of consequences, and how well his Oval-figured Earth was supported with reasons; I gave them his argument thus, All bodies by reason of the Earth's diurnal rotation, do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion, but by reason of the pressure of the Air, and the straitness of the Orb, they cannot recede from the Axis of their motion, therefore they will move towards the Poles where they will come nearer to the Axis of their motion, that is, Because all bodies endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion, therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion. In answer to this, the Defender says, that the Theorist asserted, that all Bodies did conari à centro sui motus recedere, which I have rendered, endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion; and by changing the word Centre into Axis, of plain sense (says he) I have made nonsense; and then he is so free as to own, that the conclusion will follow from my own words, but not from those of the Theorist. I own, that I changed the word Centre into Axis, not carelessly but wilfully, with a design not of making it nonsense, but better sense than it was before. For we never say that a Sphere turns round about its own Centre, for that would be plain nonsense indeed, but round about its own Axis; for we cannot so properly say, that a Body moves round a Centre as round an Axis, unless we abstract from its Magnitude, and conceive it as a point. The reason is plain, for when any Body revolves, it is evident that every point of it which does not lie in the Plane of another points Orbit, must describe a different Periphery, which must have also a different Centre, so that all those Centres are placed in one line, which is therefore called the Axis of the Body's motion; about which, Bodies are said to revolve much more properly than about a Centre: however, this Author says, that by changing the word Centre into Axis, of plain sense I have made nonsense. This Gentleman seems to be so extremely paradoxical, that I have often suspected he must have a different method of judging what is sense or nonsense from other people, if he has it, it were but fair to show it, that we may know when things will be agreeable to his Criterion, or when they will not; if he thinks it nonsense to say, that Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion, it is my comfort to have some good Mathematicians on my side, who think otherwise: I need only mention one of them, whose very name is enough to defend me, viz. The greatest Geometer and Philosopher of the Age, who uses this way of speaking very often in his Philisophiae Naturalis principia Mathematica, for which he needs go no further than page 8. where it is said, Gyrantium partes omnes conantur recedere ab Axe motus. But however, let us reassume the word Centre, and see if the argument will appear more plausible, or seem to conclude better than it did by using the word Axis: All Bodies by reason of the Earth's diurnal rotation, do endeavour to recede from the Centre of their motion, but by reason of the pressure of the Air and the straitness of the Orb, they cannot recede from the Centre of their motion, therefore they will go towards the Poles, and move in a Circle where they will be nearer the Centre of their motion. I hope I have not now changed his words, but have delivered his true meaning; I leave the Reader to judge if it is not excellently well concluded, and if the connexion be not so evident, that it needs no Comment to make it out. Now supposing, that the Theorist had reasoned well all this time about the Earth, and had deduced its true Figure from its true causes; yet I demonstrated, that all this will not make Rivers run from the Poles to the Equator, for a reason that I will take the liberty here to repeat, that we may compare it with the Defenders answer; The demonstration is this: diagram The Defender thinks he has transcribed this reason very briefly thus; Pag. 55, 56. The same causes which cast the Abyss or the Ocean towards the Poles, will also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles; and then he answers, that there is no parity of reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean, and the Rivers. We see (says he) in the flux and reflux of the Ocean, it hath not that effect upon Rivers nor upon Lakes, nor upon lesser Seas, yet the circumrotation of the Earth continues the same: He adds, That my confounding the Ocean and Rivers in the Antediluvian Earth is so much the worse, seeing there never was an Ocean and Rivers together in that Earth; while (says he) there was an open Ocean there were no Rivers, and when there were no Rivers there was no open Ocean, but an enclosed Abyss; He concludes at last, That though I make large transcripts there and elsewhere out of the Theory, yet I do not seem always to have well digisted the method of it. I hope the Reader will observe how unfairly this Author is pleased to deal with me, for in all the argument I have not so much as once mentioned the Ocean: but the demonstration was universal and reached all sorts of Bodies, whether they be in the Abyss or on the surface of the Earth. My words were, that whatever Bodies either fluid or solid, if brought and laid upon the furface at B, being drawn or pushed with the same accelerating force, that the first fluid had which was constituted at B, the same causes continuing to act upon both, they will rest there also, and not descend to the Equator. Where is it now that I have confounded the Ocean with the Rivers? Or is there any thing in these words, by which it appears that I have not digested the method of the Theory? There is one of this Author's acquaintance, that is pleased to tell us, that disingenuity in examining the Writings of another Person falls more heavy in the construction of fair Readers, upon him that uses them, than upon him that suffers them: If it be so, Reslections pag. last line last. this Gentleman may easily know, what these Readers will think of him. However, it seems he thinks, that tho' none of the water returned to the Equator while the Earth was at first fluid, and had put on its Oval-shape, yet when the first concretion was settled upon it, whatever water was after that upon its surface, would then descend towards the Equator. Why so I pray? What reason does he give for this? Had not the fluid which lay at B, the very same causes to keep it from descending to the Equator, that it had before, when the Earth's surface was all fluid? Was not there the same diurnal rotation of the Earth, in the same time, and by consequence the same Centrifugal force? Was there not the same pressure of the Atmosphere, and the same straitness of the Orb that was before? And in a word, every thing the same that kept it from descending in the former case, would also preserve it in this in the same position, what reason then can this Author give us for this assertion? Indeed, he offers us none; if he has any, he keeps it as a secret, which it seems he will not communicate but to his friends. I think he will do well to keep it secret for ever. But, tho' he will neither show us his own reasons nor answer mine, yet that we may not be altogether dissatisfied, he is pleased to give us a similitude to explain it: Pag. 55, 56. We see (says he) in the flux and reflux of the Ocean, (let the cause be what it will) it hath not that effect upon Rivers, nor upon Lakes, nor upon lesser Seas; yet the circumrotation of the Earth continues the same. Is there any parity of reason here between the flux and reflux of the Sea, and the descent of the fluid to the Equator? Or does he think that the flux of the Sea arises only from the rotation of the Earth? If he had studied true Philosophy but half so much as he has done the Theory, he might have known that the Tides of the Sea are caused by the action or attraction of the Moon upon it; and because one part of the Ocean (being directly under the Moon) is more attracted by it than the rest, the Ocean there must swell, and the water will run from the other parts of it, unto the place which is most attracted. Now in Rivers, Lakes, and narrow Seas, there being no difference of attraction in any of its parts, (they being all so narrow that the Moon cannot act stronger upon one side of them than the other) it is plain, that no part will swell more than another, and the waters will not rise higher, nor move from one place to another, by reason of this equal attraction. Perhaps, this may be a little obscure to this Author, who as it seems does not understand the true cause of our Tides; but it not being my business to explain these things at large, I will refer him to an excellent discourse of Mr. Edmund Halleys, which he made to K. James, when he presented him Mr. Newton's Book of the Principles of Natural Philosophy. He tells his Reader that I ought to have given a better notion of Centrifugal force than what I have done; For he quotes Page 110. of the Examination, where it is said, that the Centrifugal force or that force by which a Body is drawn towards the Centre; and in the next Page it is said, that by this Centrifugal force Bodies endeavour to recede from the Centre of their motion, which is true, but contrary to what I said before. He needed not have gone so far as the 22. line of the next page, to have found out the true notion of a Centrifugal force; for if he had repeated the words immediately following his first quotation, he might there have found it. But if he had done so he had lost his aim, and the Reader would have perceived that it was not a confusion in my notions, but only a fault of the Press. I will here repeat the sentence, that the thing may be set in its true light, If a Body (said I) revolve freely in a Circle about a Centre, as the Planets do about the Sun, its Centrifugal force, or that force by which it is drawn towards the Centre, will be always equal to its Centrifugal force by which it doth endeavour to recede from the Centre. A candid Reader would have immediately imputed this to nothing else but a fault in the Printing, and instead of the first word Centrifugal force, he would have seen that the word Centripetal force ought to have been put, as the very sense would easily have directed any one that had the least acquaintance with this subject. After this the Defender tells us, that I might have spared what I have transcribed from other Authors, about calculating the diminutions of Gravity made by the Centrifugal force in different Latitudes, these being needless to the confutation of the Theory. Why so I pray? Are they not to the purpose? Or do they not answer the intended design, which was to find out by a Calculus the difference of Gravity in different Latitudes, and from thence to confirm our Hypothesis, by comparing Calculations with Observations, and seeing how the one agrees with the other? Well, but I am blamed for transcribing them from other Authors. I hope he does not think them the worse for that; or that I ought not to make use of them as arguments against his Theory, because they were said by others. He might indeed have justly blamed me, if I had published them as new notions or inventions of my own, and told the World I expected thanks for the discoveries, as a late Author has done; but I pretended to no such thing. It is well known that Mr. Newton was the first that made the discovery, and showed the method of Calculating the Gravity of Bodies at different Latitudes, whom therefore I mentioned as the sole Inventor. Mr. Hugens indeed I did not name, seeing he had the notion entirely from Mr. Newton, as that learned Gentleman does freely acknowledge. But after all this, I have not so much transcribed from these two learned Authors, as I have endeavoured to explain their notions, and make them intelligible to Men of lower capacities. Those two excellent and learned men, had something else to do, and matters of greater concern to mind, than to publish their discoveries at large, so that every Reader might understand them. I thought therefore that it would not be altogether displeasing to the World, if I endeavoured to explain their Theorems about the Figure of the Forth, and the effects of Gravity joined with a Centrifugal force; so that they might become intelligible to those who understand the Elements of Geometry and the common principles of Staticks: and I doubted not but it would be more acceptable, because there has not (at least to my knowledge) been any discourse published of this nature in English. Without doubt the Reader does now perceive, how vain, empty, and incoherent, a piece of Philosophy this Theory is; its principles are false, suppositions precarious, and the reasonings upon them, are all along so weak and ill grounded, that it is hard to think that the Theorist himself can give any credit to it; and yet (which is strange) he professes that he believes it more than he does the Mosaic History of the Creation; tho' there is this great difference between them, even supposing no inspiration in the case, that there is nothing in the account that Moses gives, but what is really possible; for according to him the whole was performed by the immediate hand of God Almighty, who needs not the help of second causes for such a work; whereas the Theorist, who would have it arise from Natural and Mechanical principles, always assigns such causes as are utterly insufficient for the proposed effect, and generally such as would really produce the contrary. But if after all, the Theorist will still insist upon the truth of his Theory, and has no mind to prove it himself; I would advise him to find out some new Defender, who can understand, and consider the force of an argument somewhat better, than his last seems to have done, who (as it appears) has not so much defended the Theory, as exposed its nakedness and his own unskilfulness. However, since the Theorist has such a high opinion of his own performance, and so mean a one of the account given us by Moses; before I end this discourse it will not be amiss, to Examine a little the notion he has given (in his Archeologiae Book II. Chap. 8, 9) of the Mosaic History of the Creation. Which in short is this, That we are not to believe the first Chapter of Genesis in a literal sense; but that Moses receded from the Physical verity, as he calls it, and spoke only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Archeol. p. 317. that is in plain English, there is not a word of it true, the World being neither Created nor Form in the manner there recorded; but that his History of the Formation of Heaven and Earth was not contrived to be agreeable to the truth, but to the notions and dispositions of the people for whose use it was written. To make this out, he pretends to find many faults and incongruities in that History, which I need not now particularly consider; since there is none of them that is really incongruous and disagreeable, either to the Nature of things or the Wisdom of God, but only to his notions, and ways of thinking: As for instance, when he says (and he tells us that he speaks it with indignation) that without the greatest reproach both to the Work and its Maker, it is neither to be said or imagined, Archeol. p. 299. that this Forth which he styles the very dregs and excrements of nature, should be the chief and principal part of the Creation, and the first born of every Creature, so that there should be more time allowed for the framing and ordering of it, than what is bestowed on all the rest of the World. However great the Theorist's indignation is, that he has conceived upon this account, I am sure there are some that cannot read those Reflections of his upon this History, without a much greater. It may be supposed that Moses who had an immediate conversation with God Almighty, knew better what was a reproach to the World and its Maker than the Theorist does, and yet we find that he thought it no affront to the Divine Wisdom, not only to say and imagine such a thing, but also to write it, and that with a design, that it should be received as true by all future generations. But says the Theorist, the Sacred Writers do often speak in a Mystical, Archeol. p. 318. Allegorical, or Metaphorical stile, and according to the capacity of the people, and why might not Moses do the same in delivering the History of the Creation. To answer this, let us consider in what cases the Scriptures are to be taken, not in a literal but in an Allegorical and Metaphorical sense, and then compare each of them with the present case, to see if there is any parity of reason between them. First then, the Scriptures are to be understood in an Allegorical sense, when their liternal meaning would imply a contradiction, either to some other place of the Sacred Writings, which is most evidently to be understood literally; or to the nature of the things spoken of; thus when God Almighty is said to have hands and feet, ears and eyes, to move and walk, and to have the affections and passions belonging to Men, all or any of these since they are a contradiction, to the Infinite perfections of the Deity, can never be understood in a literal meaning; tho' there should be still some sort of analogy between them and the thing signified. We are sure, that this consideration can have no place in the Mosaic History of the Creation, which most certainly does neither contradict any other part of the Scriptures, nor is there any thing said there but what is plainly possible, and can be performed by the Power of God, who if he had pleased, could have form the World or any part of it (how great soever) in an instant. In the next place, the Scriptures are not to be taken in a real and literal meaning, when they speak according to the system of appearances, and the notions which we draw from our senses; Thus, when it represents the Earth plain, and as having four Corners, with the Heavens stretched over it like a Curtain. In those indeed, and in many other such like places of Scripture, it is certain, that it was the design of the Sacred Penmen, not to speak according to the reality and nature of the things themselves, but according to the notions and opinions which people received of them from their senses; or indeed when the Sun is said to move every day from East to West, to Rise and Sett, to stand still, there is no necessity of imagining that all those things are really performed by the Sun; but there the holy Penmen, as all other Writers which do not concern themselves with Astronomy, speak according to the system of appearances, and as the Heavenly motions are represented to them by their senses, it being the common and received way of speaking from which we are not to recede, if we design to be understood; and even all those Astronomers who firmly believe the motion of the Earth, when it is not their business to explain the true system of the Universe, are forced to speak in the same Dialect: and I believe we should scarce think a Man right in his wits, that in writing or speaking upon any common subject, instead of saying that the Sun risen or set, or that it came to the East or went to the West of us, would say, that our Horizon moved till it came above the Sun or went under it, or that our Horizon turned round till the East or West points of it came to be exactly under the Sun. Now this can never be applied to the Mosaic History of the Creation, since the method of the Formation of the World could never have appeared to our senses, and without a Divine Revelation, we should have been ignorant of it to this day, and had never discovered the order and method by which all things were formed. Moses certainly wrote that discourse on purpose to give us a true notion of the Creation, and therefore was to speak of things as they were really form, without any respect had to appearances as they would be represented to humane senses; since there was no Man then in being to whom they could have appeared, and I am of the opinion, that if he had purposely and directly wrote as much, upon the System of the World and the motions of the Heavens, as he has done upon the subject of the Creation, all those who acknowledge the Divine Authority of his writings, would have been obliged to believe it. The next case, wherein we are to recede from the literal sense in the interpretation of Scripture is, when they deliver parables; those being only contrived by their Writers to illustrate something wherein they would instruct the people, can never be supposed to be understood in a literal meaning. This way of writing is indeed very ancient, and is of great use for informing Mankind in the precepts of Prudence and Morality, which are never so easily retained, or so strongly imprinted on our imagination, as when they are couched under some Fable, whose Moral is easily apprehended. But then from the nature of those Parables, and the manner of their delivery, it is easy to perceive, that their Authors never designed they should be received as true History; all their aim was, that we should attend to the Moral, for the sake of which the Parable was contrived; this is plain from the Parable of Jotham of the Trees choosing themselves a King, and from all the Parables of our Saviour. But the History of the Creation is a very different case from any of them; Moses does not give it us as a Fable, only contrived for the sake of some Moral meaning which he would have thereby understood, but delivers it seriously as matter of fact, which he would have us believe as firmly and truly as any other part of his History; and this a Man of integrity could never have given himself leave to do, had he not been satisfied that the History was exactly true. But if the Theorists Hypothesis about the Mosaical History of the Creation were true; it seems that Moses must have been guilty of imposture in a very high degree, for he supposes that History to have been absolutely false, and without any foundation in the reality of things, and at the same time freely owns, that Moses wrote it with a design that it should be received as true, not by one Man only, but by a great and populous Nation, and that not for one Generation, but through all succeeding Ages; this I take to be strange doctrine, and no ways agreeable to the high esteem we own either to that great Prophet, or to the Veracity of that unerring Spirit that assisted him in writing. But it is the Theorists opinion, Pag. 320, 321. that Moses thought it necessary to give the Jews a Cosmogonia, a Theory of the Earth, each of their neighbouring Nations (as he guesses) had one of their own, which were generally erroneous and inconsistent with the true Religion; and if so, some of them might have had his Theory for aught we know; now he thinks, that without doubt the Jews had taken one from them, or had made one for themselves, unless they had been otherwise provided by Moses; he illustrates this with a very decent similitude, Si nuptam non dederis siliam ipsa sibi maritum queret e famulis forsan aut humili plebe. if you do not get a Husband for your Daughter, she will find one for herself, your Footman perhaps, or some one as mean. Well, but since the Jews were to have a Cosmogonia, why should they not have been taught the true one? O says the Theorist, that was by no means sitting, for they were an ignorant, indocible people, and could never have been taught true and solid Philosophy, such as his own Theory is; For let us feign says he, at least (and 'tis but feigning at best) that our Theory is true, let us suppose the Primitive Earth to have been made in the same form and manner as is described in the Theory; had not Moses spent his time well in teaching such Philosophers? Can we suppose that those Brick-makers, those who still smelled strong of the Oinions and Garlick of Egypt, those who could not distinguish a Molten Calf from God Almighty; can we (says he) suppose, that ever they could have learned the true principles of things, or the Laws of nature and motion? to have delivered those things to them, would have been to cast Pearls before Swine. The Theorist may have as great thoughts of his Theory as he pleases, but it is my humble opinion, that there is very little skill required, either in the Laws of motion or Natural Philosophy, to understand it, as well as he himself does: there is no necessity of a long proof for this, since we are sure there are some, that have not only Read it, but even stood up in the Defence of it, that seem to understand as little of real Philosophy, and less of Mechanics, than the most ignorant of his Brick-makers. Let us now assume the same liberty with the Theorist, Pag. 319. that he has done with Moses, and let us suppose that the Theorist should get a Congregation of Jews, who I believe are still as dull as ever they were, and should begin to Harangue them thus. Be it known unto you Men, Brethren, and Fathers, That this Earth which we now press with our feet, and find so firm and solid under us, was once a fluid Chaos; that is (that I may adapt my discourse to your low capacities) a medley, or a confused Mass of Earth, Water and Air, mixed and blended together: How it came to be so, or how long it continued in that state, I know as little as you do; only I am sure that it was once so, and I would have you take my word for it; at last, this disorderly Mass came to settle, and all Bodies took their place according to their weight, the great heavy Bodies fell lowest, and composed the innermost solid; next to them the Water took its place, and over it the Oil spread itself, above all there was a huge thick Orb of Air, full of mud and earthy particles, those by degrees fell down upon the surface of the Oil, and at first made a thick slime, which through time began to harden, and compose a firm and solid Crust, over the face of the Waters; that was able to sustain the weight of all the rest of the descending particles. What deep reach of thought is required for the understanding of this? How many, and what are the Laws of nature and motion that the Jews must know before they can comprehend it? in my mind the less they knew of those things, the fit they would be to understand the Theory; at least, I am sure they would be more easily persuaded to believe it. We see now that this way of reasoning as the Theorist has applied it, is of no force against the Mosaic History, for his refined Theory if it had been true, might have been as easily comprehended by the Jews, as the plain and simple Cosmogonia of Moses. The Theorist perhaps may think, that I have here and elsewhere treated his Theory with too much contempt and disdain; but let him consider how meanly he himself has spoke of some of Moses' writings, with how much scorn and derision he has rejected his History of the Creation; let him think how plainly and openly he has ridiculed the state of Innocence and the Fall of Man; let him compare what he has said in the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Chapters of his Archeologiae, Lib. II. with the hardest Expressions in this discourse against his Theory, and I am confident he will find no reason to complain of uncivil usage. His Defender 'tis true, accuses me of hard words and course language, in saying that's false, that's absurd, that's ridiculous; whereas most of the Philosophers have been forced to use the same expressions, insomuch that they became Philosophical terms, and (till the Defender began to write so smoothly) Men were never accounted rude and uncivil for using of them. Nay, the Theorist himself has been sometimes pleased to deliver himself in the same manner, and I am sure that he has handled the writings of some excellent Men with more severity, than his Theory has met with from me. His rude treatment of Aristotle may be a sufficient testimony of this, whose Philosophy he never mentions but with the greatest contempt and scorn: Tho' the works of this Philosopher have been honoured with the general commendations of all the Learned through so many Ages, and are still justly valued by those who have the greatest reputation either for Polite or Philosophical Learning; His discourses upon Rhetoric, Poesy, and Politics, his Logic and Ethics, are deservedly admired as Master-peices in their several ways; and tho' his Physiology is not without errors, yet I am sure that there is more true Natural Philosophy in his Mechanical questions alone, than in all the Theory. But if some sort of Philosophers are not acquainted with the true value of this Author, yet the general reception that he has found in all the Universities of the Christian World, might one would think, have secured him from the rude insults of any private Writer. However, the Theorist is not satisfied with exposing this great Man and his Philosophy as they come in his way, but in order, as he thinks to make him more contemptible, has given us a short View or Catalogue of his errors, If I should do so with him, and set down a Collection of all the errors that may be found in his writings, they would I am afraid, tyre the Readers patience, and make a Folio almost as big as the Theory. At last, he takes his leave of Aristotle in those very civil terms, Vale Stagyrita semper mihi eris malus Astronomus, Theologus pejor, Physiologus pessimus. It were easy for me if I designed to be ill natured, to change the word Stagyrita into Theorista, and then take my leave in the very same form; but tho' I think the Theorist far inferior to Aristotle, yet I am not for parting with him in so rude a manner; I acknowledge him to be an ingenious Writer, and if he had taken a right method and had made a considerable progress in those Sciences, that are Introductory to the study of nature, I doubt not but that he would have made a very acute Philosopher. It was his unhappiness to begin at first with the Cartesian Philosophy, and not having a sufficient stock of Geometrical and Mechanical principles to examine it rightly, he too rashly believed it, and thought that there was but little skill required in those Sciences to become a Philosopher, and therefore in imitation of Mons. Des Cartes, he would undertake to show how the World was made, a task too great even for a Mathematician. All that I now desire of him, is to spend some time in the study of Numbers and Magnitude, Astronomy and Staticks, that he may be the better able to understand the force of my Arguments against his Theory, after which I doubt not but that he will easily perceive its errors, and have the ingenuity to acknowledge them. But till then, all further disputation between him and me, must needs be vain and frivolous, since true reasoning in Natural Philosophy depends on such Principles as are demonstrated in those Sciences, the knowledge of which he has not yet attained. FINIS. A DEFENCE OF THE REMARKS Made on Mr. Whistons' New Theory. IN my Answer to the two Theorists, I endeavoured to show, that neither of them had lit upon an Hypothesis which would solve the Phaenomena of the Creation and the Deluge, according to the Mosaic History; and that the schemes they had drawn, might be confuted by their own principles: I thought, all that could be expected from me was, to show, that both of 'em were unlucky in the choice of their main Hypotheses, and unskilful in the management of them. But Mr. Whiston in the first Paragraph of his Vindication, has surprised me with a new distinction between an Hypothesis and a Theory, and tells me, That in a Theory, (such as he desires his should be thought) Wit and Skill are qualifications not necessary, and very little to be considered therein. If this be allowed, all Theories are unanswerable: But upon presumption that every body is not of his opinion, I shall persist in making good my first Objections against him. As to the account he gives of the Origine and Progress of his Work, the Persons and opportunities that were conducing to it, I can only say, it shows too great a fondness for his Theory; and 'twas scarce worth his while to trouble his Reader with such minute relations about it, especially after it was, as I presume, already confuted. But however, since I have read this History of its Birth, I am less surprised at the mistakes I meet with in it; since that very Learned Friend of his, upon whose judgement he seems chief to rely, (for I dare venture to say Mr. Newton want engage for the truth of all his Theorems) has given the World reason enough to suspect him, none of the shrewdest Judges of that part of Learning. After Mr. Wh. has duly informed his Reader, by what steps and methods he accomplished his wonderful performance, he tells us, That it is a little surprising, that I of all men should in public appear against him. His Reader may think, by this way of speaking, that there lay some special Obligations on me to be silent, tho' I declare I know none; I never enjoyed the happiness of Mr. Whiston's acquaintance, and therefore cannot guests, what it is that should oblige me more than any other, to forbear publishing Remarks on his Theory. 'Tis true, I did and always shall respect and honour him, as a Learned and Ingenious Man; but I hope he does not think, that upon this account I ought to have suppressed all Objections against his Philosophy. He seems to be of opinion, that it was my duty, privately to have communicated my difficulties to him by a Letter, and not to have taken this public method of writing Remarks on the New Theory. I declare, I am altogether insensible of such a duty, and I don't think, that I have transgressed the rules of civility by what I have done. It is commonly thought, that whatever any one publishes is submitted to the judgement of its Readers, and any one of them may take the same liberty in publishing Remarks upon it, that its Author did at first in proposing it to the World: And since I am persuaded that my Objections against the New Theory, are at least, as strong and convincing as his Reasons are for it, I cannot see, why out of a compliment to Mr. Whiston, I should suppress them. Mr. Whiston says, that I am deeply engaged against his design, through a peculiar fondness I seem to have for unaccountable Miracles. If I had a mind to criticise upon words, I would ask him what he means by unaccountable Miracles, and whether there be any that can be accounted for, since it is the common opinion, that what can be accounted for by natural causes, is no Miracle. However, I know no Miracles I am fond of, save those mentioned in Scripture; and at present I am only engaged in the Defence of two of them, viz. The Creation and the Deluge, and a fondness for them seems not to be peculiar to me; since till this Age of Worldmakers, Christians have always thought them such works, as could never be produced by the Laws of Nature and Mechanism. I know indeed that there are some, who are not only for explaining the above mentioned, but even most of the other extraordinary events recorded in the holy Scriptures, by natural principles: But I dare suppose Mr. Wh. would not willingly be put into a Catalogue with such Authors. I could, and I think with just reason too, tell him, that if he had not a peculiar fondness for his own Theory, he would easily perceive, that all those things which he endeavours to deduce from Mechanical principles, are not to be explained by such causes. But I am willing to pass by his preliminaries, and enter upon his argument. I first objected against the New Theory, that the Chaos, which was the origination of our Earth, could not have been the Atmosphere of a Comet, since the one is represented as a dark caliginous Body, having darkness on the face of its Abyss, and the other was a transparent fluid, and was enlightened, if not from its own Central Body from within, yet at least by the Sun from without. To this he Answers, that Comets cannot be changed into Planets till their return from the vast and cold Regions beyond Saturn; and he says, that we need not think that they will be then so vehemently hot, that they must be light also. If what he says in another place is true, I cannot but still think, that they must be hot to such a degree, that they will also be extremely Luminous; for according to him, the heat is so great even after their return towards the Sun, that all the parts of their Atmospheres are in a violent agitation, heavy and light, dense and rare, fluid and solid parts, are jumbled and mixed together in the greatest confusion, through the violence of the heat. This I think, is sufficient to make us believe them very lucid likewise. But says he, solids preserve some of their heat after their light is gone. But is it credible, that the heat of the Central solid should be so great as to preserve its Atmosphere, at the distance of some hundred thousands of miles, in a continual agitation, and at the same time not be light? Can we suppose that it will raise vapours into its tail to the distance of many millions of miles, and after all imagine, that it is not so hot as to be lucid? This I think would be as great a paradox, as any that is to be met with among the Philosophers. It's known, that the intenseness of light and heat is always proportional to the density of Rays that produce them, and that this density, is in all places in a reciprocal proportion to the squares of the distance of the Body, from which they proceed; and by consequence it is plain, that heat and light must be prodigiously stronger at or near the surface of the hot or lucid Body, than at a great distance from it; and therefore it is no wonder, if the heat of a solid be very sensible to a hand that is laid upon its surface; when the eye placed at a distance from it, cannot perceive its light. But let us bring this point into numbers, that we may see it more evidently. It follows from Mr. Whiston's own positions, that the heat of the Central solid must be so great, even before the Comet arrives at its Perihelion, as to act upon the Atmosphere at the distance of 10000 miles, and from thence to raise vapours into its tail for many millions more; and therefore the intenseness of its heat at that distance, must be to the intenseness of the heat at the distance of ten miles, for example, as the square of ten is to the square of 100000. miles, that is, as one to 100000000. If therefore the heat of the Central solid at the distnace of 100000. miles, had any sensible effect upon its Atmosphere, it must be prodigiously stronger at the distance of ten miles, and therefore cannot be supposed to be without light. He allows the Sun to shine through the Atmosphere of the Comet, whilst it remains such; But then upon the Commencement of the Creation, when it began to move in a Circular Orbit, it lost its pellucidness, and became a dark and opake fluid. How this should come to be I know not, nor can I discover, why upon the change of the Comet's Orbit from an Ellipsis to a Circle, its Atmosphere should be likewise changed on a sudden from a clear and transparent fluid, to a dark and caliginous one. Immediately before the change of the Orbit, even after it had descended from the cold Regions beyond Saturn, he allows its Atmosphere to have been so bright and diaphanous, as that the Central solid might have been seen through it. It must be then a miracle and an unaccountable one too, that could have caused such an immediate darkness. It was also objected to him, that his dense and heavy fluid, could not be the Mosaical Abyss; for it was at first dark, and afterwards enlightened, whereas his new Abyss after it was once dark, never again became visible, being always covered with an opake Crust. Here he owns, that the word Abyss is not to be restrained to his dense fluid, but that it comprehends all that heterogenous and hitherto muddy fluid, which was beneath the Earth's future surface, where the Spectator in the Historical Journal of the Creation, is supposed to have been. But I desire him to tell us, whither this muddy fluid was afterwards enlightened; whither the same collection of Opake and Earthy Corpuseles which produced a darkness on the surface of the dense and heavy fluid, would not create also a thick darkness upon the surface of the muddy one; whither this darkness would not continually increase, as those Earthy and Opake particles came closer together, and when at last they fell upon, and enclosed this muddy fluid, and formed a Crust (according to him) of 60. or 70. mile's depth, whither they would not exclude the light from it for ever. I had urged to him, that 'twas said in Scripture, Darkness was upon the face or the exterior surface of the Abyss, and that afterwards there was light upon it. Now if Mr. Whiston cannot show us clearly an Abyss from his principles, whose exterior surface was first dark, and afterwards luminous, I hope he will grant that his Theory is not conformed to the Mosaic History. Another Argument against the Theory, was to this purpose. If the Earth was formed by the principles of Mechanism out of the Atmosphere of a Comet, we must allow the whole subsidence to be as leisurely, and to proceed by the same steps that the violence of its heat decreases, which would not then (as he would have it) be completed in six Years, nor indeed in as many Centuries; and the Opake parts would take so much time in descending and composing the Crust of the Earth, that the Sun would always illuminate (at least the upper Regions of its Atmosphere) as freely as it does the whole Atmosphere of Comets, while they are within our Observation. He allows this to be an Argument of good force, and to deserve consideration; and he tells us, that if Comets were observed to have no Atmosphere after their return from the Regions beyond Saturn, before they arrive at their Perihelia again, then indeed this reasoning were unavoidable; but seeing the contrary is evident from Astronomical Observations, it cannot affect his Hypothesis. If he had denied any Proposition in my Argument, or any consequence drawn from it, I should have known what reply to have made; but I cannot apprehend how this Observation upon Comets does in the least affect my Argument, nor imagine to what purpose it was brought in here, but to amuse some thoughtless Reader. He tells us farther, that the Laws, Properties, and Operations of Bodies, which we find established here on Earth, do not universally obtain in the Atmospheres of Comets. This I own to be an Answer, not only to this one Argument, but to all that can be said against his Theory. But may not any other Theory be defended at the same rate? Might not Dr. Burnet have maintained his Theory this way? And when it was objected against it, that heavy Bodies, such as Earth, Day and Stones, could not swim upon Oil or Water, would it not have been easy for him to have said, that Bodies had then other Laws, Properties, and Operations, than they have now, and that it was at that time the Law of Nature, that the heaviest Bodies should swim uppermost, and the lightest fall to the bottom? Tho' one would think, that it were as impossible that there should be such a Law of motion, as that a Proposition in Euclid should be false. If the Laws of motion were arbitrary and changeable, why should the Mathematicians pretend to demonstrate them as necessary consequences from their principles? Let us suppose a Vectis in one of Mr. Whiston's Comets, and two powers applied to its Brachia, upon which they act perpendicularly, so that the powers be to one another in a proportion reciprocal to the length of their Brachia. It is actually impossible but these two powers must act equally, the one against the other, or that one of them unassisted by any other cause, should be able to move the other against its direction: Since effects must be always proportional to their adequate causes. And yet, according to Mr. Whiston's position, this Law of Nature perhaps is only true in our Earth, and not in any Planet or Comet whatsoever. By this Answer Mr. Whiston has granted me all that I designed to prove, viz. That the Earth was not formed according to the known Laws of Mechanism, but by the efficacy of the Divine Spirit which moved upon the face of the Waters. It was said in the Remarks, that there is no need of a hot Central solid, to solve the origine of Springs, and such other Phaenomena of nature; they being better accounted for by other means. To this it is answered, that the reality of an internal heat within the bowels of the Earth, is a matter of fact, and must be accounted for whatever becomes of Springs. I always allowed an internal heat, but thought it might be accounted for without a hot internal solid; and I refer him to what has been said upon this subject, in the Examination of the Reflections on the Theory. Mr. Whiston thinks, that the account I refer to for the origination of Fountains is not so universal, as to stand in no need of subterraneous vapours; But since he has given us no reason for this thought of his, I need say no more to it, but that I think otherwise; I am sure it is evident by Calculation, that the Vapours raised by the heat of the Sun from the Sea, are alone sufficient to serve all our Rivers and Fountains with Water. And nature never makes use of two distinct causes where one would do; for then the effect would be greater than it ought to be. I told him, that he receded without necessity from the literal sense, in supposing, that the formation of the Sun, Moon and Stars, mentioned in the first of Genesis, is to be only understood of their being made visible, and of their appearing to an eye placed in the Earth. But since he desires to know my reasons for this opinion, I must tell him, that his interpretation seems to be extremely forced, and no way agreeable with the design of the sacred Penmen. Moses' narration is plain and simple, and throughout the whole, he does not affect to speak either Metaphorically or Allegorically; but he delivers it as certain matter of fact, which we are firmly to believe. He plainly mentions the Creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars, and makes the production of them a distinct days work by its self; In expressing their formation, the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and he made) is used, that is found afterwards in the 25th. verse, where there is an account given of the production of beasts; and therefore Moses seems to have designed that the word should be taken in both places in the same sense. Besides all this, it is certain, that Moses did not speak of things as they appeared, or would have appeared to an Eye placed in a muddy fluid, since there was no one then in being to whom they could have appeared. From all these considerations, I think it evident, that it was Moses' intention to be understood in a real and literal meaning. I desire Mr. Whiston to consider what is said more at large upon this subject in the Examination of the Reflections on the Theory. But after all, I do not see that Mr. Whiston's reasons prove any impossibility in Moses' account of the Creation; all that I think he proves in his long discourse is, that the plain and simple account that Moses gives us, is not agreeable to his Theory, to his way of thinking, or to the method by which he would have the World produced. His Theory supposes, that the Sun upon the second day before it became visible, raised as many Vapours from the Earth, as were sufficient to fill all the Seas, Lakes, and Rivers, that were in the Primitive Earth. Here, I thought he assigned a cause no ways proportional to the effect. For since the Sun even when it shines very strongly and directly upon our Ocean, does in a whole year raise but the thousandth part of our present Ocean into Vapour, how can it be supposed, that it could raise as much Vapour in that time, as would fill the Seas, Lakes, and Rivers, of our Primitive Earth, when all the while it was not visible, but obscured by a dark and thick Atmosphere, by which the power of its beams must be extremely weakened. In answer to this, Vindic. pag. 9 he tells us, That he does not suppose that all the Water that was in the Seas, Lakes and Rivers, of the first Earth, made above the thousandth part of our present Ocean, which he thinks might have been easily exhaled by the Sun in one half year. Now I would have him to consider this Objection a little further, and he will find that it is not so light as he imagines it is: he knows that there must be a certain proportion betwixt Land and Sea, that the ground may be sufficiently furnished with rains and dews: for the quantity of Vapour that is raised from Water, all other things being alike, is always in proportion to the surface of the Water, and if the surface of our Sea were, for example, but the thousandth part of what it is now, there would in that case be raised but the thousandth part of the Vapour from it, that is at present raised from thence; and because the dry Land by such a supposition would be near double of what it is now, it follows from thence, that any particular piece of ground would not have much above one part of two thousand of the rains and dews it has at present. So that if this had been the case of the Primitive Earth, it must have been absolutely barren and unfruitful: But if that cannot be allowed, it is evident, that there must have been a much greater Sea there to make it habitable, than what Mr. Whiston supposes. But if after all the Antediluvian Sea had been formed only by the raising of Vapours by the Sun's heat for one half year, I do not see how it could have amounted to the ten thousandth part of our present Ocean. For it is known, that a few Clouds will more obscure the light of the Sun, and by consequence diminish its heat in the same proportion, than if nine in ten parts of its Disk were obseured by an Eclipse: however, I will only suppose, that its heat was but just as much diminished by the thick Atmosphere Mr. Whiston speaks of, (which had perfectly darkened and obscured his body for more than two years) as it would be in an Eclipse where nine ten parts of its Disk were obscured; and then the number of Rays producing heat in any part, being but a tenth part of what they are now upon us, they would not raise above a tenth part of the Vapour that could be raised by the free and open action of the Sun. But the Sun when it now acts upon us freely, raises not much above one thousandth part of the present Ocean into Vapours; therefore it is evident, that in the other case it could not raise much above the ten thousandth part of the present Ocean, and a Sea only form from those Vapours, would be little better than none at all. But allowing it possible in the manner Mr. Whiston contends for, allowing him too, that this small stock of Waters was sufficient for the necessities of the Earth; yet after all this way of forming the Primitive Sea is by no means agreeable to the account given us by Moses, Where we are told, that God divided the waters which were under the Firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament, and the waters under the heavens he gathered together into one place, and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas. But Mr. Whiston tells us, the Sea was made by those Waters that were raised into Vapour by the heat of the Sun, that is according to his interpretation, by the Waters above the Firmament, which is directly contrary to Moses' account, who says, it was made by the gathering together of the Waters under the Firmament. It must be strange turning and wresting of words, that will bring both these ways to agree. Besides, if the Sea were form as the New Theory says it was, the dry Land must have appeared immediately upon the raising of the Vapours, whereas, according to Moses, it did not appear till after the formation of the Sea. It is plain then, that this Theory of the Sea given us by Mr. Whiston, is in every circumstance as inconsistent with the holy History, as 'tis with Reason and Philosophy. Mr. Whiston acknowledges, that my reasoning against his third Hypothesis of an only annual motion of the Earth before the Fall, is strong and forcible, and therefore he has been pleased here to invent another Hypothesis to support the former, by which he hopes to remove all the difficulties that were raised against it; viz. That the Earth did not revolve in a Circular Orbit till after the Fall, but in a moderate Ellipse. I shall not trouble myself with new answers as often as he thinks fit to contrive new Hypotheses, and therefore will only give this reply at present, that it will scarcely be allowed, that but one half of the Primitive Earth was habitable before the Fall, as it must be by such a supposition. We know, the more Hypotheses any Theory is clogged with, the more precarious it looks; such of them especially as do not naturally result from the whole Theory, but are only introduced to remove some urgent difficulty, are generally thought lest of all to deserve any credit. One of the great Beauties of the Theory was, That assoon as the Comet was turned into a Planet, it had a Circle for its Orbit, and though this beauty is not perfectly spoiled, yet its lustre seems to be considerably diminished by the new supposition of his new sort of Figure called a moderate Ellipse. Mr. Whiston is pleased to take notice of a supposed mistake, he imagines have committed, about the quantity of heat in the Primitive Earth, which I reckoned from his principles, must have been some hundreds of times greater than what is in the present. This he says, he is sure is a plain error, who ever it was that made him so sure of it, I am certain they have mightily deceived him. If he had taken the pains to consider, that the heat of the Sun for any small portion of time is always as a Rectangle, contained betwixt the Sine of the Angle of incidence of the Ray producing heat, and that time, and had troubled himself a little further to calculate the proportion of the quantity of heat that was in the Primitive Earth upon his Hypothesis, to that which is in our present Earth, he would have found the mistake was not on my side but his own. Every body knows, that the longer any thing is exposed to the heat of the Sun, the hotter it must be; and this is so manifest, that a great part of our heat in the Summer arises only through the length of time the Sun shines upon us. For if our Summer and Winter days were each of them twelve hours long, the heat in Summer would be to that in Winter, in proportion little more than three to one, (their difference in that case arising only from the more direct action of the Sun in Summer than in Winter) whereas, in the present case, our Summer's heat is to our Winter's heat in a greater proportion than that of seven to one. diagram diagram All the effect that would follow from this attraction is this, Both the fluid on the Abyss and the Central solid would be attracted by the Comet; but the fluid on the Abyss being nearer to it than the other, would be more strongly attracted; and because the solid Crust by reason of the firmness and union of its parts, cannot move faster to the Comet than the Central solid does, it is evident from thence, that it must be pressed only by the difference of attraction, or by that force by which the fluid in the Abyss is drawn more towards the Comet, than the Central solid is; and seeing the fluid has acquired no velocity or impetus by motion, it is clear from what is already proved, and by what is more fully demonstrated by Borell in his 24.25. and 26. Chapters of his Book De vi percussionis; that the force of the fluid thus pressing, will be infinitely less than what it would be if it had acquired any determinate degree of velocity by motion. And since Mr. Whiston seems to acknowledge, that a great impulse of the fluid would be necessarily required to break and disjoin the Crust, the small force arising from the pressure of the fluid, can never be able to produce so great an effect. What Mr. Whiston says of a Floor of disjoined Planks laid cross the Thames, that may as well be supposed to stop the Tide or the ascent of the Waters, as the Crust of the Earth the Tide of the Abyss, is I think no parallel case. For it is not the attraction of the Moon that is the immediate cause of the Tide in the Thames; but it arises solely from the check and great impulse that the Waters receive from the motion of the Sea, by which they are driven backwards with violence, and are made to ascend up the River and produce Tides. But if Mr. Whiston will still assert, that the Strata or subsiding Columns were separated and disjoined like so many lose Planks, (tho' it contradicts what he has said in another place * Vinlic. pag. 17. ) yet granting that it was so, I shall from thence evidently demonstrate, that there could no Water arise upon that very account from the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth, as shall be shown in its proper place. The New Theory supposes, that the forty days rain mentioned in the History of the Deluge, was caused by the vast quantity of Vapours that were in the Comets tail, which being very much rarified and expanded, would immediately mount up again into the Air after their fall upon the Earth, and descend again in violent and outrageous Rains. Against this it was objected, that the incredible velocity with which these Vapours descended, and the great resistance they met with in their descent through the Air, together with the force by which they fell upon the ground, must of necessity have condensed them into Water. Here he answers, that tho' the greatest part of the Vapours should be condensed into Rain, yet 'tis hard that I will not allow many of them to escape the same, enough at least to make a constant forty days Rain: for it is strange to him, that so thin a Body as our Air, lying in so small a compass about the Earth, should have the good luck to stop and condense all and every part of so immense and swift a descending Column of Vapours. As strange and hard as it is, yet I cannot see how its possible any should escape being condensed. If there were any void Canals in our Air through which some Vapours might descend, we might then allow him his Hypothesis; but since it is evident from the nature of our Air, that its impossible there should be any such empty spaces, it is certain, that there is not one of these Vapours but must meet with Air, wherever it moves in our Atmosphere, which it must therefore force out of its way; and because it is supposed to move so prodigiously swift as to descend 860. miles in a minute, the resistance it will meet with from every particle of Air must be vastly great, and must therefore necessarily condense it. But if I should allow him that these Vapours were not condensed in their descent through the Air, yet to imagine that they should be not condensed when they fall with so prodigious a swiftness (as he allows them) upon the Earth, Water, or any other thing that will stop their motion, is such a fancy as needs no confutation: if they had such a strange velocity as he speaks of, they must penetrate and destroy all Humane and other Animal Bodies, so that such a shower as this one day, would have done the business of a Deluge, and there would have been no occasion for other thirty nine days Rain. But after all this, Mr. Whiston grants, that the Vapours might be condensed in their fall; but yet he says, that their heat which at first rarified them, and had continued their expansion in the Comets tail, would immediately after their fall rarify them again, and raise them into new Vapour. But if so, I cannot see how this will answer the account that Moses gives us of the Deluge, For he tells us, that the increase of the Waters was gradual, and produced in a great measure by forty days Rain; and that they continually increased and prevailed upon the Earth for the space of 150. days: whereas by this Theory, the Deluge must have happened all of a sudden; according to it, the very first day, all the Waters that came from the Comet must have fallen upon the Earth, and by consequence the Waters that were raised from the Abyss, must have immediately ascended; so that if this Theory were true, the Deluge must be accomplished in one day and not in 150; for as to the Vapours which were raised and continued to fall for forty days, (unless the water was very scalding hot indeed) that would be very inconsiderable, and would rather diminish than increase the quantity of Waters upon the Earth, until they again descended in Rain. I come now to consider the way Mr. Whiston raises the Fluid from the Abyss. He supposes, that the great weight of the Water which lay upon the Crust, would depress it and make it sink deeper into the Abyss, and by that means force and squeeze the Fluid through the fissures and cracks of the Earth. But against this I positively demonstrated, that no pressure of the Fluid whatsoever, could make the Crust sink deeper into the Abyss. In answer to this he is pleased to tell me, That my demonstration supposes, either that not the water on the Earth but in the Fissures, did contribute to the raising of the Fluid through them, or that the several Columns had free liberty, and could subside as far as occasion should be, (which he has in his Book shown they could not) or that a pressure from a Column specifically heavier than the Fluid, is necessary to raise it upwards. Because Mr. Whiston answers my demonstration, as if he did not rightly understand it; I will here put it into a clearer light, and apply it more particularly to the present case. diagram diagram Mr. Whiston says, That this demonstration supposes that the several Columns of Earth had their free liberty, and could subside as far as occasion should be, which he has showed in his Book they could not. It seems then that he owns, that the Columns would not subside▪ if they had their free liberty, but if they had not their free liberty to subside, than he thinks they would subside or sink deeper into the Abyss; that is in short, Those Columns would not sink deeper if there was nothing to hinder them, but if there was any thing that could hinder them from sinking deeper, than indeed they would, and must sink deeper. This is so strange and surprising a way of reasoning, that I scarcely believe it could have come from Mr. Whiston. It looks much more like the reasoning of his learned friend. I should have thought, that if he had been left to himself to argue the case, he would have concluded, that because the Crust could not sink deeper when it was left at its liberty, or when there was nothing to hinder it; It would have certainly so much the rather not sunk further, when there was an impediment. diagram Let us now suppose this Cylinder bored with holes parallel to its Axis, than indeed it would sink so far within the fluid, till the water within the holes came to be of such a height, as to press as strongly upon the fluid under them as the solid Cylinder does upon the fluid under it, and there it would rest at the height, for example, of half the Cylinder, if the water were twice as heavy as the wood. Let us suppose in the next place, that there were long Tubes fixed in the holes to preserve the fluid, which is to be poured afterwards above on the Cylinder from running into the holes, and then let Oil or any other fluid lighter than wood, be poured on as high as the very top of the Vessel; this Oil would indeed press upon the Cylinder, and make it sink deeper into the fluid, which would rise up within the holes till it pressed as strongly upon the surface of the water under it, as the Oil and Cylinder both together do upon the surface of the water under them. Now in this case, since the water is of a greater intensive gravity than both the Cylinders of Wood and Oil; it is evident, that it is impossible the fluid within the holes can rise so high as the top MN, for then the fluid which lies immediately under that which is contained within the holes and the Tube, suffering a greater pressure than the rest of the fluid under the Cylinder, will immediately descend and force that which is under the Cylinder to ascend. So that tho' the solid Body must in this case sink deeper, yet it is plain, that none of the water within the Vessel can by this means be brought upon the surface. diagram Mr. Whiston says, that it is evident, that the pressure of two entire miles over each Columns being so prodigiously great, must squeeze the fluid upwards through the fissures, and thereby throw out the incumbent water, and perhaps itself upon the face of the Earth. But as evident as he says this matter is, I must sincerely declare, that I cannot see how any such effect can follow from a pressure after this manner. I hope Mr. Whiston does not act here like some new Philosophers, who, when they are to deliver some false, dark, or incomprehensible notion, generally usher it in with a speech about clearness and distinctness, and tell us, That 'tis evident, 'tis plain, 'tis demonstrative. But rather than suspect such dealing from him, I could suppose that the fault was in my own apprehension, if I had not demonstration on my side, to show, that from such positions no such effect can follow. Does not he suppose this Crust to be composed of Columns of 200. miles in depth? Did not they subside close by one another, and form a solid Arch upon the Abyss according to him? If so, those fissures and cracks upon the Mountains like so many windows in a Vault, would not much weaken the strength of the Fabric; but still it would be able to sustain a much greater weight. Would not the water that came from the Comet immediately spread itself equally over the face of the Crust? And by this every Column would be equally pressed, and therefore one could not sink deeper than another. What is it then that could force the fluid through the fissures? However, let us suppose the pressure much stronger upon one place than the rest; if the solid Column upon which this pressure lay, was closely united and cemented to all the other circumambient ones, how could it be broken off from the rest? It is impossible to imagine that the weight of the waters above it could do this. But if it was before separated and disjoined by the Tide on the Abyss, or any other cause, would not the water run down in the fissures which separate it from the rest, and instead of depressing, elevate the lose Crust, as I have already demonstrated? We cannot well suppose this part which was most pressed, if it was lose from the rest, to be so closely joined to them, as to leave no space for the fluid to descend: For it would be a strange chance that would make the surfaces of the Columns so exactly fitted and adjusted to each other. Besides, if they were so, because the Arch A B is greater than C D, it is impossible that in such a case it could descend or be forced downwards. But after all, if it could descend, I have already demonstrated, that none of the water in the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth, could by that pressure be raised so high as the tops of the Mountains, that it might from thence spread itself upon the surface of the Earth. If Mr. Whiston does not see the evidence of this reasoning, I must leave him to be satisfied by his own experiment * Pag. 307. ; only instead of a Cylinder of Stone or Marble, I desire him to take one of Wood; and if by pouring Oil upon it, he can raise any water from the bottom to the surface of the Cylinder, I will give over all reasoning upon this subject; but if he finds that his experiment will not succeed, (as it certainly cannot) I hope he will own that he is in an error; and then I doubt not but he will think I had reason to speak peremptorily upon this point, when I said that it was demonstratively evident, that by no sort of pressure of the incumbent fluid, the Abyss could be forced upwards to spread itself upon the surface of the Earth, which words I do not think fit to retract. I have already considered the ways Mr. Whiston has taken to bring waters upon the Earth, to make a Deluge. Let us next see how dexterous he is in removing them. In my Remarks on his New Theory, by Calculation I showed, that there must have been at least twenty three Oceans of water, to drown the Earth at the time of the Deluge. One would think that it were a hard task to remove such a load of waters Mechanically. Yet he tells us, that he thinks there is no manner of difficulty in it. In his Theory he supposes, that the waters descended through the perpendicular fissures and cracks, which were outlets to so great a part of them before; and by that means Saturated all the Pores of the dry Earth, that was capable to contain mighty quantities of water. Now in the Remarks on the New Theory, I showed that none of the waters could descend through the cracks and fissures of the Earth; for they of necessity must have been all full at the time of the Deluge, since water cannot lie upon the surface of the Earth, till all the cracks, holes, and fissures in it, be first filled. This is so evident both to sense and experience, that it is beyond all contradiction true: it being as impossible to make water lie on the Earth before all its cracks, pits, and holes are filled, as it is to make a Vessel retain water, whose bottom is bored through with many holes. Instead of answering this Argument, Mr. Whiston tells us, That certainly the Pores and Interstices of thirty or forty miles of dry Earth, are capable of receiving three or four miles of water into them, and certainly the same fissures that permitted the ascent of the fluids from beneath before, would after the ceasing of that force, permit the descent of the waters of the Deluge, and by degrees and length of time draw them off. I find Mr. Whiston is generally most certain, where other men are most doubtful. How can he be certain, or so much as suppose, that the waters could lie above the mouths of the cracks and fissures, to the height of two miles perpendicularly, and none of them run in to fill them all the while? What new Laws of Hydrostaticks has he discovered? It is generally supposed to be the nature of a fluid, to descend through whatever holes and fissures it can find; and till they be once filled, it is impossible it should rest above the mouths of those fissures, especially to the height of two perpendicular miles. For so high it must have been above most of those cracks, since most part of the Hills in which he supposes those fissures were, do not exceed above a miles height. Before the water could have risen to such a height, not only the perpendicular holes and fissures, but even the Horizontal one's, must have been absolutely filled. I cannot therefore enough wonder, how he can imagine so much water forced through the Earth upon its surface, and all those cracks and fissures remaining empty all the time: I am surprised to hear him tell us of dry Earth, that was capable of receiving vast quantities of water, for I cannot suppose an Earth that has been watered by eleven Oceans of water gushing through its Pores, to be very dry. Another man would rather think, that it must have been very wet, for it is not to be imagined, that so much water could pass through the Crust without leaving as much of itself as the Crust could hold behind it, since water rather than ascend will remain in any Poor or empty space that can contain it. But let us now allow, that the Earth or the Crust was as dry as if there had not one drop of water remained in it; yet the Earth through which water generally can sink, is but a few feet in depth; the rest of the Crust is composed of a tough Clay, common Stone, Whinstone, Coal, Metalline Oars, and the like; and I believe he can never persuade Mankind, that there are so many Pores in such heavy, close, solid Bodies, as are capable to contain twenty two Oceans of water. But after all, let us suppose that the fissures were empty, and that they were capable to receive the whole twenty two Oceans of water. Let us suppose that the water lay over them, without descending into them; that is, let us grant to Mr. Whiston so many impossibilities. Yet even all these suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena of the draining of the waters from the Earth after the Deluge. This I think I can prove easily, since that according to the Mosaical account of the Deluge, the waters were removed from off the face of the Earth in one half year; whereas if they had been removed by the method of the New Theory, they could not have been drained from the Earth in many hundred years. And therefore upon this account Mr. Whiston's suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena. To show this, let us suppose the mouths of all the cracks and fissures to have been just equal to the mouths of all the Rivers in the Earth, (tho' if we consider how narrow and small they are in respect of the mouths of the Rivers, we cannot allow them to have been near so much) It was proved in the Examination of Dr. Burnet's Theory, that all the waters that run through the Rivers would fill the Ocean, if it were empty, in the space of 812. years; and consequently, if at the time of the Deluge, the water descended no faster through the fissures, it is evident, that upon the former supposition it would be 812. years, before the Earth had received one Ocean into its Bowels, and therefore it would be 17864. years before twenty two Oceans could be removed through those fissures. But let us now suppose that the velocity of the water descending, was ten times greater than the velocity of the Rivers; we shall still find, that the waters would take 1786. 4. years to run through the fissures. So that altho' Mr. Whiston has been pleased to ridicule my fondness for Miracles, yet since all the natural causes he has assigned, are so vastly disproportionate to the effects produced, he may at last perhaps be convinced, that the easiest, safest, and indeed the only way is to ascribe 'em to Miracles. FINIS.