Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n great_a matter_n see_v 3,060 5 3.1155 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A37969 Brief remarks upon Mr. Whiston's New theory of the earth and upon an other gentleman's objections against some passages in a discourse of the existence and providence of God, relating to the Copernican hypothesis / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. 1697 (1697) Wing E197; ESTC R21718 27,908 59

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Principles and Maxims have been rejected since by very Wise heads and great Judges in Mathematicks Let One speak for all Des Cartes's Rules saith he concerning the transferring of motion from one body in motion to another in motion or in rest are the most of them by Experience found to be false as they affirm who have made Trial of them Here then is no Certainty there is no proceeding on Mechanical Laws in the present Controversy which was the thing to be proved This is what I had briefly to suggest concerning the Two Mechanick Principles which the Learned Objector founds the Motion of the Earth upon And now I appeal to himself whether he can alledg these as a grand and weighty reason as he expresses it of the Phaenomenon he defends seeing they are so Uncertain and fickle seeing Naturalists so widely differ about them and can't agree in assigning the Mechanism Any rational man will infer hence that we can not rely upon this doctrine in the present Case This I think is very clear and plain and therefore let not the grand and weighty reason of Mecanism be brought to prove the Circular motion of the Earth till there be an agreement about the Nature of it Though Dr. More and Mr. Newton who are the worthy persons our Objector cites make the Motion of the Earth the necessary effects of Mechanism yet they do it upon different grounds they proceed on Mechanick laws of Motion which are diverse from one an other and depend on different Hypotheses therefore a third person cannot build upon either of them How can a man found the Earths Circulation on Vortices or Gravity when the Authors and Founders themselves prove it not from the same Mechanical Principles but such as contradict each other for such are Gravity or the subsiding of bodies and the Whirling them round If we had a mind to make use of these Hypotheses of those Great Men we can't if we would adhere to both of them because they so vastly differ therefore One of them only can be pitch'd upon but which of them is hard to determine and this Gentleman himself doth not assign which of them he intends to own as the True Principle If you stick to the Vortices you will be liable to the Witty Atheist you mention for the Vortices are look'd upon by the Judicious as only an Ingenuous Invention If you rely upon the Principles of that other Worthy Gentleman you quote he will fail you as to any thing that looks like Demonstration for he is oblig'd first to prove and demonstrate his supposed notion of Gravity and the Cause of it wherein he differs from very Great Philosphers and Vertuoso's before he can maintain that Point And I need not tell you that if his Principles be questionable then your Inferences from them which are the Main of your Argument must be so too You proceed upon some Suppositions which that Excellent Person hath espoused he betaking himself to a Particular way of Philosophizing which most pleases him but unless you can absolutely prove that what he supposes concerning the nature of Gravity is certainly True in my opinion you effect nothing I mean nothing that is certain and indubitable for otherwise I grant that you have most elaborately established the Newtonian Hypothesis and the Earths Motion on that foot but if that foot be infirm as I conceive it is then all your Arguing is of that nature also and you still want a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to move this Globe The short of all is if you strike in with Cartes and More you must renounce the Lucasian Professor if you make choice of this last you must cashier the other two Where then is this Demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis from Mechanical Principles which is talk'd of I grant what this Gentleman saith that upon supposition of Vortices the motion of the Earth is proved as fully agreeable to Mechanism as a Boats swiming down the stream if left at liberty but then it must be prov'd that there is this Stream in the make of the Earth and of the Heavenly Bodies too which he attempts not to prove And as for Gravitation as it is represented by that Celebrated Mathematician he quotes and the laws of Mechanism consequent upon that which he infers from the dimensions of the Planetary System I need not inform him he being so well acquainted with it that there hath been and is at this day a great a disagreement among the Learnedest Astronomers about the distance of the Planets from the Earth and from one an other there have been profess'd Disputes and Quarels about this and accordingly there must be a dissention about the Dimensions of those bodies and consequently if their Calculations be various there is no Arguing from thence we can't judg of the Mechanism of the Plannets because we are strangers to their just Dimensions and the laws of their Motion depending thereupon When I consider'd these things when I observed how obscure uncertain and precarious the Principles are on which the Earths Motion is grounded I thought it best in my Discourse of the Existence and Providence of God to lay aside this New Hypothesis Because I was not well satisfied with the Account which the Moderns give of it I chose rather to retain the Tychonick System as being least incumber'd with Objections and Difficulties Of which an Intelligent Philosopher of this Age whom I mention'd before was sensible and therefore declares himself no Stickler for the Copernican Hypothesis but very fairly and ingenuously professes that he doth not positively assert it but only proposes it as an Hypothesis not altogether improbable But as to what I have offer'd the Atheist be he as Witty as this Gentleman can make him hath no advantage by it whatever he seems to suggest nay rather it would have made for him if I had founded the Providence of the Almighty on so tottering a basis as the laws of Mechanism The Cause would have receiv'd a great prejudice from the using of an Argument so weak and dubious Then it would have been disputed whether the Penman of the Book of Genesis or Monsieur Cartes or whether he or Mr. Newton were the better Author or rather it would have been plainly seen that there is a greater deference given by some men to the latter then to the former and that the Philosophical Principles of the one are prefer'd to the Inspired Writings of the other But the Truth of the matter is this the Merits of that Cause I undertook viz. the Proof of the Divine Providence were not concern'd in this Controversy For whether one or the other hypothesis viz. the Rest or the Motion of the Earth be true is not material as to the Main Business and so much I intimated in that Discourse p. 57. l. 7. c. After all if the Copernican hypothesis should be true that is if the Earth rolls about on its Center and so turns it self to the Sun in its various positions yet still there are the same Effects of this that there were of the other Revolution viz. that of the Sun the good and benefit of mankind are promoted and the Power and Goodness of the Great Benefactor are declared And I had said before p. 49. The motion of the Earth is a precarious Opinion so far as I have hitherto discerned By which words I shut not out future Convictions and I let the World see that I am not Peremptory in my determination but that I believe the Power and Wisdom of God may be evidenc'd from both hypotheses Yet it was and is my perswasion that the doctrine of the Earths Rest is more probable and accountable then that of its Moving there is more to be said for its standing Still then for its taking a Turn about the Sun At least I shall continue in this Opinion till the Writers who are of the other side agree upon a better way of explaining and proving what they assert Archimedes was modest who demanded a Place to set his foot on an to plant his Engines and then he would undertake to move the Earth but some of the Gentlemen of the Copernican way pretend to do this without any solid Footing and without any Machins but those of their own Ingenious Brains which it must be confessed are very strong and powerful but not powerful enough to effect this Business they Undertake I hope then I may without of●ence retain my Perswasion till I see it confuted by Solid Arguments and such as as are founded upon unshaken Principles Seeing this Learned Objector who is of so deep a Comprehension is not pleas'd to produce such I am apt to think that none else can I only observe in the last place that he is for a Neutrality and would have me treat both hypotheses with indifferency but he sets me a Task which he is not willing to perform himself for he hath shew'd himself in what he writes to be a great favourer of the Copernicans in direct Opposition to the other side We can prescribe that to others which we take no care to observe our selves ERRATA PAge 27. line 6. for ayd read and p. 28. l. 1. r. the seeming l. 7. after thus add in way of exception l. 8. r. wa● really p. 30. at the bottom r. Part 2. The other Errata's you are desired to pardon the Author being absent from the Press FINIS * Dr. Nichols's Conference with a Theist Part. 1. * O the Existence and Providence of God Chap. 2. * Book 3. Chap. 1. * Dr. Nichols's Conference with a Theist Part. 1 * The Wisdom of God in the Creation p. 180. * Mr. Whiston's New Theory Book 1 and 2. * Mr. Whiston's New Theory book 1. p. 6. † Book 4. chap. 1. ‡ Dr. Bentley Serm. 7. * Mr. Ray's Wisdom of God in the Creation p. 34. * Mr. Rays Wisdom of the Creation p. 183.