when the great difficulty still remains How the Sun rear'd up these Inland Mountains afterwards Or if his power be sufficient for such effects why have we not Mountains made still to this day seeing our Mountain-maker the Sun is still in the Firmament and seems to be as busie at work as ever The Defender hath made some answer to this question in these words The question is put why have we no Mountains made now It might as well have been askt says he why does not the fire make a dough-bak'd loaf swell and â—uff up And he says this answer must be satisfactory to the question propounded It must be that is for want of a better for otherwise this Dowe-comparison is unsatisfactory upon many accounts First there was no ferment in the Earth as in this Dowe-cake at least it is not prov'd or made appear that there was any Nay in the Exceptions when this Hypothesis was propos'd there was no mention at all made of any ferment or leaven in the Earth but the effect was wholly imputed to Vapors and the Sun But to supply their defects he now ventures to add the word fermentive as he calls it A fermentive flatulent principle which heav'd up the Earth as Leaven does Dowe But besides that this is a meer groundless and gross Postulatum to suppose any such leaven in the Earth if there had been such a principle it would have swoln the whole mass uniformly heav'd up the exterior region of the Earth every where and so not made Mountains but a swoln bloated Globe This Sir is a 2d passage which I thought might make the Defender uneasie We proceed now to a 3d. and 4th in his Geography and Astronomy In the 14th Chapter of his Exceptions speaking of the change of the situation of the Earth from a right posture to an oblique he says according to the Theory the Ecliptick in the Primitive Earth was its Equinoctical now This he is told by the Answer is a great mistake namely to think that the Earth when it chang'd its situation chang'd its poles and circles What is now reply'd to this He speaks against a change says the Defence in the poles and circles of the Earth A needless trouble and occasion'd by his own oversight For had he but lookt into the Errata's he might have seen there that these parentheses upon which he grounded what he says should have been left out So this is acknowledg'd an Erratum it seems but an erratum Typographicum not in the sence but only in the parentheses which he says should have been left out Let us then lay aside the Parentheses and the sentence stands thus For under the Ecliptick which in the primitive situation of the Earth according to the Theory was its Equinoctial and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres as the Equator does now The dry ground c. How does this alter or mend the sence It is not still as plainly affirm'd as before that according to the Theory the Ecliptick in the Primitive Earth was its Equinoctial And the same thing is suppos'd throughout all this Paragraph And if he will own the truth and give things their proper name 't is down-right ignorance or a gross mistake in the doctrine of the Sphere which he would first father upon the Theory and then upon the parentheses And this leads me to a 4th passage much-what of the same nature where he would have the Earth to have been translated out of the Aequator into the Ecliptick and to have chang'd the line of its motion about the Sun when it chang'd its situation His words are these So that in her annual motion about the Sun she namely the Earth before her change of situation was carried directly under the Equinoctial This is his mistake The Earth mov'd in the Ecliptick both before and after her change of situation for the change was not made in the Circle of her motion about the Sun but in her posture or inclination in the same Circle Whereas he supposes that the shifted both posture and also her circuit about the Sun as his words are in the next paragraph But we shall have occasion to reflect upon this again in its proper place We proceed now to another Astronomical mistake A 5th passage which probably might disquiet him is his false argumentation at the end of the 8th chap. concerning Days and Months He says there if the natural days were longer towards the Flood than at first which no body however affirms fewer than thirty would have made a month whereas the duration of the Flood is computed by months consisting of thirty days a-piece therefore says he they were no longer than ordinary This argumentation the Answer told him was a meer paralogism or a meer blunder For 30 days are 30 days whether they are longer or shorter and Scripture does not determine the length of the days There are several pages spent in the Defence to get off this blunder Let 's here how he begins Tho' Scripture does not limit or account for the length of days expresly yet it does it implicitly and withal very plainly and intelligibly This is deny'd and if he make this out that Scripture does very plainly and intelligibly determine the length of days at the Deluge and makes them equal with ours at present then I acknowledge he hath remov'd the blunder otherwise it stands the same unmov'd and unmended Now observe how he makes this out For says he Scripture gives us to understand that days before the Flood were of the same length that they are of now BY INFORMING VS that months and years which were of the same length then that they are of at present were made up of the same number of days Here the blunder is still continued or at best it is but transferr'd from days to months or from months to years He says Scripture informs us that months and years were of the same length then that they are of at present If he mean by the same length the same number of days he relapses into the old blunder and we still require the length of those days But if Scripture informs us that the months and years at the Flood were of the same length that they are of now according to any absolute and known measure distinct from the number of days then the blunder is sav'd Let 's see therefore by whether of these two ways he proves it in the next words which are these For how could there be just 12 months in the year at the time of the Deluge and 30 days in each of those months if days then had not consisted as they do now of 24 hours a piece We allow a day might then consist of 24 hours if the distinction of hours was so ancient But what then the question returns concerning the length of those hours as it was before concerning the length of the days and this is either idem per
idem or the same error in another instance If you put but hours in the place of days the words of the Answer have still the same force Twenty four hours were to go to a day whether the hours were longer or shorter and Scripture does not determine the length of the hours This you see is still the same case and the same paralogism hangs upon both instances But he goes on still in this false tract in these words And as Providence hath so ordered nature that days that depend upon its diurnal motion should be measur'd by circumgyrations of the Earth So it hath taken care that each of these circumrotations should be performed in 24 hours and consequently that every day should be just so long that 30 of them in way of round reckoning might compleat a month Admit all this that 30 days compleat a month Still if Scripture hath not determin'd the length of those days nor the slowness or swiftness of the circumgyrations that make them it hath not determin'd to us the length of those months nor of the years that depend upon them This one would take to be very intelligible yet he goes on still in the same maze thus But now had the circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge by such causes as the Excepter suggested so as every day had consisted of 30 hours c. But how so I pray This is a wild step why 30 hours where does Scripture say so or where does the Theorist say so We say the Day consisted then as now of 24 hours whether the hours were longer or shorter and that Scripture hath not determin'd the length of those hours nor consequently of those days nor consequently of those months nor consequently of those years So after all this a-do we are just where we were at first namely That Scripture not having determin'd the absolute length of any one you cannot by that determine the length of any other And by his shifting and multiplying instances he does but absurda absurdis accumulare ne perpluant We offer'd before in our Answer to give the Excepter some light into his mistake by distinguishing in these things what is absolute from what is relative the former whereof cannot under these or any such like circumstances be determin'd by the latter For instance A man hath ten children and he will not say absolutely and determinately what portion he will give with any one of them but he says I will give my eldest child a tenth part more than my 2d and my second a 9th part more than my 3d and my third an 8th part more than my 4th and so downwards in proportion to the youngest Not telling you in any absolute sum what money he will give the youngest or any other you cannot by this tell what portion the man will give with any of his children I leave you to apply this and proceed to a nearer instance by comparing the measures of Time and Longitude If you know how many inches make a foot how many feet a pace how many paces a mile c. you cannot by these numbers determine the absolute quantity of any one of the foresaid measures but only their relative quantity as to one another So if Scripture had determin'd of how many hours a Day consisted of how many days a Month of how many months a Year you could not by this alone determine the absolute duration or quantity of any one of these nor whether they were longer or shorter than our present hours days months or years And therefore I say still as I said at first 30 days are 30 days whether they are longer or shorter and 30 circumgyrations of the Earth are 30 whether they be slower or swifter And that no Scripture-proof can be made from this either directly or consequentially that the days before the Flood were or were not longer than they are at present But we have been too long upon this head We proceed now from his Astronomy to his Philosophy 'T was observ'd in the Answer that the Excepter in the beginning of the 9th Chap. suppos'd Terrestrial Bodies to have a nitency inwards or downwards towards the Center This we noted as a false principle in Philosophy and to rectifie his mistake he now replyes That he understood that expression only of self-central and quiescent Bodies Whereas in truth the question he was speaking to was about a fluid Body turning upon its Axis But however let us admit his new sence his principle I 'm afraid will still need rectification namely he affirms now that Quiescent Earthly Bodies are impregnated with a nitency inward or downward towards the Center I deny also this reform'd principle if Bodies be turn'd round they have a nitency upwards or from the Center of their motion If they be not turn'd round nor mov'd but quiescent they have no nitency at all neither upwards nor downwards but are indifferent to all lines of motion according as an external impulse shall carry them this way or that way So that his impregnation with a nitency downwards is an occult and fictitious quality which is not in the nature of Bodies whether in motion or in rest The truth is The Author of the Exceptions makes a great flutter about the Cartesian Philosophy and the Copernican Systeme but the frequent mistakes he commits in both give a just suspicion that he understands neither Lastly we come to the grand discovery of a Fifteen-Cubit-Deluge which it may be was as uneasie to him upon second thoughts as any of the rest at least one would guess so by the changes he hath made in his Hypothesis For he hath now in this Defence reduc'd the Deluge to a destruction of the world by Famine rather than by drowning I do not remember in Scripture any mention made of Famine in that great judgment of water brought upon mankind but he thinks he hath found out something that favours his opinion namely that a good part of mankind at the Deluge were not drown'd but starv'd for want of victuals And the argument is this because in the story of the Deluge men are not said to be drown'd but to perish die or be destroy'd But are they said any where in the story of the Deluge to have been famish'd And when God says to Noah I will bring a slood of waters upon the Earth to destroy all flesh Does it not plainly signifie that that destruction should be by drowning But however let us hear our Author when he had been making use of this new Hypothesis of starving to take off some arguments urged against his fifteen-cubit Deluge particularly that it would not be sufficient to destroy all mankind he adds these words by way of proof And methinks there is one thing which seems to insinuate that a good part of the Animal world might perhaps come to an end thus by being driven to such streights by the over flowing waters as to be FAMISHT
Tradition is to be made out it is not expected that it should be made appear that none were ignorant of that Tradition in former Ages or that all that mention'd it understood the true grounds and extent of it but 't is enough to shew the plain footsteps of it in Antiquity as a Conclusion tho' they did not know the reasons and premises upon which it depended For instance The Conflagration of the world is a doctrine of Antiquity traditionally deliver'd from age to age but the Causes and manner of the Conflagration they either did not know or have not deliver'd to us In like manner that the first age and state of the world was without change of Seasons or under a perpetual Equinox of this we see many footsteps in Antiquity amongst the Jews Christians Heathens Poets Philosophers but the Theory of this perpetual Equinox the causes and manner of it we neither find nor can reasonably expect from the Ancients So much for the Equinox This Chapter as it begun with an errour so it unhappily ends with a paralogism namely that because 30 days made a month at the Deluge therefore those days were neither longer nor shorter than ours are at present Tho' we have sufficiently expos'd this before yet one thing more may be added in answer to his confident conclusion in these words But to talk as the Answerer does that the Month should be lengthen'd by the Days being so is a fearful blunder indeed For let the days by slackening the Earth's diurnal motion have been never so long yet its annual motion continuing the same the Month must needs have kept its usual length only fewer days would have made it up 'T is not usual for a Man to persevere so confidently in the same errour As if the intervals of time hours days months years could not be proportionably increast so as to contain one another in the same proportion they did before and yet be every one increast as to absolute duration Take a Clock for instance that goes too slow The circuit of the Dial-plate is 12. hours let these represent the 12 Signs in his Zodiack and the hand to be the Earth that goes thorough them all and consequently the whole circuit of the Dial-plate represents the Year Suppose as we said this Clock to go too slow this will not hinder but still fifteen minutes make a quarter in this Clock four quarters make an hour and 12. hours the whole circuit of the Dial-plate But every one of these intervals will contain more time than it did before according to absolute duration or according to the measure of another Clock that does not go too slow This is the very case which he cannot or will not comprehend but concludes thus in effect that because the hour consists still of four quarters in this Clock therefore it is no longer than ordinary The 9th Chapter also begins with a false notion that Bodies quiescent as he hath now alter'd the case have a nitency downwards Which mistake we rectified before if he please Then he proceeds to the Oval figure of the Earth And many flourishes and harangues are made here to little purpose For he goes upon a false supposition that the Waters of the Chaos were made Oval by the weight or gravitation of the Air. A thing that never came into the words or thoughts of the Theorist Yet upon this supposition he runs into the deserts of Bilebulgerid and the waters of Mare del Zur Words that make a great noise but to no effect If he had pleas'd he might have seen the Theorist made no use of the weight of the Air upon this occasion by the instance he gave of the pressure of the Moon and the flux of the waters by that pressure Which is no more done by the gravitation of the Air than the Banks are prest in a swift current and narrow chanel by the gravitation of the water But he says rarefied Air makes less resistance than gross Air and rarefied water in an Aeolipile it may be he thinks presses with less force than unrarefied Air possibly may be rarefied to that degree as to lessen its resistance but we speak of Air moderately agitated so as to be made only more brisk and active Moreover he says the waters that lay under the Poles must have risen perpendicularly and why might they not as well have done so under the Equator The waters that lay naturally and originally under the Poles did not rise at all but the waters became more deep there by those that were thrust thither from the middle parts of the Globe Upon the whole I do not perceive that he hath weaken'd any one of the Propositions upon which the formation of an Oval Earth depended Which were these First that the tendency of the waters from the center of their motion would be greater and stronger in the Equinoctial parts than in the Polar or in those parts where they mov'd in greater circles and consequently swifter than in those where they were mov'd in lesser circles and slower Secondly Agitated Air hath more force to repel what presses against it than stagnant Air and that the Air was more agitated and rarefied under the Equinoctial parts than under the Poles Thirdly Waters hinder'd and repell'd in their primary tendency take the easiest way they can to free themselves from that force so as to persevere in their motion Lastly to flow laterally upon a Plain or to ascend upon an inclin'd Plain is easier than to rise perpendicularly These are the Propositions upon which that discourse depended and I do not find that he hath disprov'd any one of them And this Sir is a short account of a long Chapter impertinencies omitted Chap. 10. Is concerning the original and causes of Mountains which the Excepter unhappily imputes to the heat and influence of the Sun Whether his Hypothesis be effectually confuted or not I am very willing to stand to the judgment of any unconcern'd person that will have the patience to compare the Exceptions and the Answer in this Chapter Then as to his Historical arguments as he calls them to prove there were Mountains before the Flood from Gyants that sav'd themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion and Adam's wandring several hundreds of years upon the Mountains of India These and such like which he brought to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood he now thinks fit to renounce and says he had done so before by an anticipative sentence But if they were condemn'd before by an anticipative sentence as fables and forgeries why were they stuft into his Book and us'd as Traditional evidence against the Theory Lastly he contends in this Chapter for Iron and Iron-tools before the Flood and as early as the time of Cainâ— because he built a City which he says could not be built without Iron and Iron-tools To which it was Answer'd that Cain's like Paris or London he had reason to believe that they
judgment as to rank this Arguer in any of the three orders if you have patience to read over his Pamphlet you will best see how and where to set him in his proper place We now proceed to those passages in the answer which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence In his Exceptions he had said The Moon being present or in her present place in the Firmament at the time of the Chaos she would certainly trouble and discompose it as she does now the waters of the Sea and by that means hinder the formation of the Earth To this we answer'd that the Moon that was made the 4th day could not hinder the formation of the Earth which was made the 3d. day This was a plain intelligible answer and at the same time discover'd such a manifest blunder in the objection as could not but give an uneasie thought to him that made it However we must not deny but that he makes some attempt to shift it off in his Reply For he says the Earth formed the 3d. day was Moses's Earth which the Excepter contends for but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist's which could not be formed the 3d. day He should have added and therefore would be hinder'd by the Moon otherwise this takes off nothing And now the question comes to a clear state for when the Excepter says the Moon would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth either he speaks upon Moses's hypothesis or upon the Theorist's hypothesis Not upon the Theorist's Hypothesis for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then And if he speaks upon Moses's Hypothesis the Moon that was made the 4th day must have hinder'd the formation of the Earth the 3d. day So that the objection is a blunder upon either Hypothesis Furthermore whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of Moses's hypothesis to confute his adversary but does not follow it himself 'T is so far true that the Theorist never said that Moses's six-six-days Creation was to be understood literally but however it is justly urg'd against those that understand it literally and they must not contradict that interpretation which they own and defend So much for the Moon and this first passage which I suppose was troublesome to our Author But he makes the same blunder in another place as to the Sun Both the Luminaries it seems stood in his way In the 10th Chapter of his Exceptions he gives us a new Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains which in short is this that they were drawn or suckt out of the Earth by the influence and instrumentality of the Sun Whereas the Sun was not made according to Moses till the 4th day and the Earth was form'd the 3d. day 'T is an unhappy thing to split twice upon the same rock and upon a rock so visible He that can but reckon to four can tell whether the 3d. day or 4th day came sooner To cure this Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains he takes great pains in his Defence and attempts to do it chiefly by help of a distinction dividing Mountains into Maritime and Inland Now 't is true says he These maritime Mountains and such as were made with the hollow of the Sea must rise when that was sunk or deprest namely the 3d. day Yet Inland ones he says might be raised some earlier and some later and by the influence of the Sun This is a weak and vain attempt to defend his notion for besides that this distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains as arising from different causes and at different times is without any ground either in Scripture or reason if their different origin was admitted the Sun 's extracting these Inland Mountains out of the Earth would still be absurd and incongruous upon other accounts Scripture I say makes no such distinction of Mountains made at different times and from different causes This is plain seeing Moses does not mention Mountains at all in his six-days Creation nor any where else till the Deluge What authority have we then to make this distinction or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together Besides what length of time would you require for the production of these Inland Mountains were they not all made within the six-days Creation hear what Moses says at the end of the 6th day Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished and all the host of them And on the 7th day God ended his work which he had made Now if the Excepter say that the Mountains were all made within these six-days we will not stand with him for a day or two for that would make little difference as to the action of the Sun But if he will not confine their production to Moses's six days how does he keep to the Mosaical Hypothesis or how shall we know where he will stop in his own way for if they were not made within the six days for any thing he knows they might not be made till the Deluge seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood And as Scripture makes no distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains so neither hath this distinction any foundation in Nature or Reason For there is no apparent or discernible difference betwixt Maritime and Inland Mountains nor any reason why they should be thought to proceed from different causes or to be rais'd at different times The Maritime Mountains are as rocky as ruderous and as irregular and various in their shape and posture as the Inland Mountains They have no distinctive characters nor any different properties internal or external in their matter form or composition that can give us any ground to believe that they came from a different Original So that this distinction is meerly precarious neither founded in Scripture nor reason but made for the nonce to serve a turn Besides what bounds will you give to these Maritime Mountains are they distinguisht from Inland Mountains barely by their distance from the Sea or by some other Character If barely by distance tell us then how far from the Sea do the Maritime Mountains reach and where do the Inland begin and how shall we know the Terminalis Lapis Especially in a continued chain of Mountains that reach from the Sea many hundreds of miles Inland as the Alpes from the Ocean to Pontus Euxinus and Taurus as he says fifteen hundred miles in length from the Chinese Ocean to the Sea of Pamphylia In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains where do the Land-Mountains end and the Sea-mountains begin Or what mark is there whereby we may know that they are not all of the same race or do not all spring from the same original Such obvious enquiries as these shew sufficiently that the distinction is meerly arbitrary and fictitious But suppose this distinction was admitted and the Maritime Mountains made the 3d. day but Inland Mountains I know not