Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30481
|
An answer to the late exceptions made by Mr. Erasmus Warren against The theory of the earth
|
Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing B5942; ESTC R31281
|
68,479
|
88
|
Earth should be Oval upon other considerations As first Because of its position which would be cross to the stream of the Air that turns it round or carries it about the Sun As a Ship he says that stands side-ways against a stream cannot sail But if that Ship was to turn round upon her Axis as a Mill-wheel and as the Earth does what posture more likely to have such an effect than to stand cross to the stream that turns it And the stream would take more hold of an Oblong-Body than of a round Then as to its annual course which he mentions that 's nothing but so many Circumvolutions for in turning round it is also progressive as a Cylinder in rowling a Garden And three-hundred sixty-five circumgyrations compleat its annual course So that this argument turns wholly against him and does rather confirm the Oval Figure of the Earth His Second Argument against the Oval Figure of the First Earth is the Spherical Figure of the present Earth And how does he prove that First from Authorities Anaximander Pythagoras and Parmenides thought so But how does he prove that their asserting the Earth to be round was not meant in opposition to its being Plain as the Epicureans and the Vulgar would have it That was the Question Socrates promis'd himself to be resolv'd in by Anaxagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether the Earth was flat or round And 't is likely the dispute was generally understood in that sence However the Theorist hath alledg'd many more Authorities than these in favour of the Oval Figure of the Earth For besides Empedocles in particular and those whom Plutarch mentions in general the Philosophy of Orpheus the Phoenician Aegyptian and Persian Philosophers did all compare the Earth to an Egg with respect to its Oval external form as well as internal composition These you may see fully set down in the Theory And it had been fair in the Excepter to have taken some notice of them if he would contend in that way of Authorities But he has thought fit rather to pass them over wholly in silence His reasons to prove the figure of the present Earth to be Spherical and not Oval are taken first from the Conical figure of the shadow of the Earth cast upon the Moon But that cannot make a difference sensible to us at this distance whether the Body that cast the shadow was exactly Spherical or Oval His Second reason is from the place of the waters which he says would all retire from the Poles to the Equator if the Polar parts were higher But this has been answer'd before The same cause that drive the Waters thither would make them keep there As we should have a perpetual Flood if the Moon was always in our Meridian And whereas he suggests that by this means the Sea should be shallowest under the Poles which he says is against experience We tell him just the contrary That according to our Hypothesis the Sea should be deepest towards the Poles which agrees with experience That the Sea should be deepest under the Poles if it was of an Oval form he may see plainly by his own Scheme or by the Theory Scheme So that if his observation be true of an extraordinary depth of the Ocean in those parts it confirms our suspition that the Sea continues still Oval Lastly he urges If this Earth was Oval Navigation towards the Poles would be extremely difficult if not impossible because upon an ascent But if there be a continual draught of Waters from the Equator towards the Poles this will balance the difficulty and be Equivalent to a gentle Tide that carries Ships into the mouth of a River though upon a gradual ascent Thus much we have said in complacency to the Excepter For the Theorist was not oblig'd to say any thing in defence of the Oval form of the present Earth seeing he had no where asserted it It not being possible as to what evidence we have yet to determine in what order the Earth fell and in what posture the ruines lay after their fall But however to speak my mind freely upon this occasion I am inclinable to believe that the Earth is still Oval or Oblong What things the Antitheorist hath suggested will not decide the controversie nor it may be any natural history nor any of those observations that we have already The surface of the Sea lies more regular than that of the Land and therefore I should think that observations made there would have the best effect I should particularly recommend these two First that they would observe towards the Poles whether the Sun rise and set according to the rules of a true Globe or of a Body exactly Spherical Secondly that they would observe whether the degrees of latitude are of equal extent in all the parts of a Meridian that is if the quantity of sea or land that answers to a degree in the heavens be of equal extent towards the Equator as towards the Poles These two observations would go the nearest of any I know to determine whether the figure of the Earth be truly spherical or oblong CHAP. X. THIS Chapter is concerning the Original of Mountains and that they were befoe the Flood or from the beginning Which the Excepter endeavours to prove from Scripture not directly but because mention is made of them in the same places where the beginning of the Earth is mentioned as Psal. 90. 1 2. and Prov. 8. 25. therefore they must be co-eval and contemporary We have I think noted before that things are not always Synchronal that are mention'd together in Scripture The Style of Scripture is not so accurate as not to speak of things in the same place that are to be referr'd to different times Otherwise we must suppose the destruction of Ierusalem and of the World to have been intended for the same time seeing our Saviour joyns them in the same discourse Matt. 24. without any distinction of time Or with such a distinction as rather signifies an immediate succession ver 29. than so great a distance as we now find to be betwixt the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the World Greater than that betwixt the Beginning and the Flood So in the Prophets sometimes in the same discourse one part is to be referr'd to the first coming of our Saviour and another part to the second without making any distinction of time but what is to be gathered from the sence Neither is there any incongruity in the sence or in the tenour of the words if those expressions in the Psalmist be referr'd to different times God existed before the Mountains were brought forth and the Earth and the World were made This is certainly true whether you take it of the same or different times And if you take it of different times 't is a way of speaking we often use As suppose a man should say concerning the Antiquity of
Exhalations extracted out of the Earth The same impurities and corruptions in the air and in consequence of these the same external dispositions to Epidemical distempers Besides there would be the same storms and tempests at Sea the same Earth-quakes and other desolations at Land So that had all the Sons and Daughters of men to use the Excepter's elegant style been as pure and bright as they could possibly have dropt out of the mint of Creation They should still have been subject to all these inconveniences and calamities If mankind had continued spotless and undegenerate till the Deluge or for sixteen hundred years they might as well have continued so for sixteen hundred more And in a far less time according to their fruitfulness and multiplication the whole face of the Earth would have been thick covered with inhabitants every Continent and every Island every Mountain and every Desert and all the climates from Pole to Pole But could naked innocency have liv'd happy in the frozen Zones where Bears and Foxes can scarce subsist In the midst of Snows and Ice thick foggs and more than Aegyptian darkness for some months together Would all this have been a Paradise or a Paradisiacal state to these Virtuous Creatures I think it would be more adviseable for the Excepter not to enter into such disputes grounded only upon suppositions God's prescience is infallible as his counsels are immutable But the Excepter further suggests that the Theory does not allow a judicial and extraordinary Providence in bringing on the Deluge as a punishment upon mankind Which I must needs say is an untrue and uncharitable suggestion As any one may see both in the Latin Theory Chap. 6th and in the English in several places So at the entrance upon the explication of the Deluge Theor. p. 68. are these words Let us then suppose that at a time appointed by Divine Providence and from causes made ready to do that great execution upon a sinful world that this Abyss was open'd and the frame of the Earth broke c. And accordingly in the conclusion of that discourse about the Deluge are these words Theor. p. 105. In the mean time I do not know any more to be added in this part unless it be to conclude with an advertisement to prevent any mistake or misconstruction as if this Theory by explaining the Deluge in a natural way or by natural causes did detract from the power of God by which that GREAT IVDGMENT WAS BROVGHT VPON THE WORLD IN A PROVIDENTIAL AND MIRACVLOVS MANNER And in the three following Paragraphs which conclude that Chapter there is a full account given both of an ordinary and extraordinary Providence in reference to the Deluge and other great revolutions of the Natural World But it is a weakness however to think that when a train is laid in Nature and Methods concerted for the execution of a Divine Judgment therefore it is not Providential God is the Author and Governor of the Natural World as well as of the Moral and He sees through the futuritions of both and hath so dispos'd the one as to serve him in his just Judgments upon the other Which Method as it is more to the honour of his Wisdom so it is no way to the prejudice of his Power of Justice And what the Excepter suggests concerning Atheists and their presum'd cavils at such an explication of the Deluge is a thing only said at random and without grounds On the contrary so to represent the sence of Scripture in natural things as to make it unintelligible and inconsistent with Science and Philosophick truth is one great cause in my opinion that breeds and nourishes Atheism CHAP. VII THIS Chapter is about the places of Scripture alledg'd in confirmation of the Theory And chiefly concerning that remarkable Discourse in St. Peter 2 Epist. 3. which treats of the difference of the Antediluvian World and the present World That Discourse is so fully explain'd in the Review of the Theory that I think it is plac'd beyond all exception And the Animadverter here makes his exception only against the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we thus render For this they willingly are ignorant of But he generally renders it wilfully ignorant of and lays a great stress upon that word wilfully But if he quarrel with the English Translation in this particular he must also fault the Vulgate and Beza and all others that I have yet met withal And it had been very proper for him in this case to have given us some Instances or proofs out of Scripture or Greek Authors where this Phrase signifies a wilful and obstinate ignorance He says it must have been a wilful ignorance otherwise it was not blameable whereas St. Peter gives it a sharp reproof I answer There are many kinds and degrees of blameable ignorance a contented ignorance an ignorance from prejudices from non-attendance and want of due examination These are all blameable in some degree and all deserve some reproof but it was not their ignorance that St. Peter chiefly reproves but their deriding and scoffing at the Doctrine of the coming of our Saviour and the Conflagration of the World And therefore He calls them Scoffers walking after their own lusts But the Excepter seems at length inclinable to render the foremention'd words thus They are willingly mindless or forgetful And I believe the translation would be proper enough And what gentler reproof can one give than to say you are willing to forget such an Argument or such a Consideration Which implies little more than non-attention or an inclination of the will towards the contrary opinion We cannot tell what evidence or what Traditions they might have then concerning the Deluge but we know they had the History of it by Moses and all the marks in Nature that we have now of such a Dissolution And They that pretended to Philosophize upon the works of Nature and the immutability of them might very well deserve that modest rebuke That they were willing to forget the first Heavens and first Earth and the destruction of them at the Deluge when they talkt of an immutable state of Nature Neither is there any thing in all this contrary to what the Theorist had said concerning the Ancient Philosophers That none of them ever invented or demonstrated from the causes the true state of the first Earth This must be granted But it is one thing to demonstrate from the Causes or by way of Theory and another thing to know at large whether by Scripture Tradition or collection from effects The mutability and changes of the World which these Pseudo Christians would not allow of was a knowable thing taking all the means which they might and ought to have attended to At least before they should have proceeded so far as to reject the Christian doctrine concerning the future changes of the World with scorn and derision Which is the very thing the