make or occasion such a Deluge For the Rivers of the Earth being then supply'd from the Abyss by such a time or before the time of the Deluge he says there would be no Water left in it Thus he goes from one extream to another Before he said the power of the Sun could not reach or affect the Abyss to draw out any Vapours from it now he would make the Evaporation so excessive that it would have emptied the great Abyss before the Deluge This is a great undertaking and to make it good he takes a great compass He pretends to show us what quantity of Water all the Rivers of the Earth throw into the Sea every day and beginning with the River Po and taking his measure from that he supposes there are such a certain number of equivalent Rivers upon the face of the whole Earth and if the Po casts so much Water into the Sea the rest will cast so much more and in conclusion so much as would empty the Abyss You will easily believe Sir there must be great uncertainties in this computation But if that was certain as it is far from it still he goes upon suppositions that are not allowed by the Theorist For first He supposes the waters of the present Sea to be equal to the Waters of the Great Abyss Whereas supposing them of the same depth there would be 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 half of it Secondly He should prove that the Rivers of the Antediluvian Earth were as many and as great as we have now The Torrid Zone then had none and much less would serve the Temperate Climates than is requisit now for the whole Earth Besides The Rivers of that Earth were not supply'd by Vapours only from the Abyss but also from all the Earth and all the Waters upon the Earth And when the Rivers were partly lost and spent in the Torrid Zone they were in a great measure exhal'd there and drawn into the Air by the heat of the Sun and would fall again in another place to make new Rains and a new supply to the Rivers So in like manner when he supposes the Rivers that were upon the Earth at the time of the disruption of the Great Deep to have thrown themselves off the Land as if they were lost and makes a computation how much Waters all the Rivers of the Earth amount to This I say is a needless computation as to the present purpose For whatsoever mass of Waters they amounted to it would not be lost if they fell down and joyned with the Abyss they would increase its store and be thrown up again by the fall of the fragments making so much a greater mass to overflow the Earth So that nothing is gain'd by this Supposition the effect would be the same as to the Deluge Whether the Waters above the Earth and those under the Earth met together sooner or later when their forces were joyned they would still have the same effect as we said before of the Vapours And to conclude that point The whole summ of Waters or Vapours convertible into waters that were from the beginning or at any time would still be preserv'd above ground or under ground and that would turn to the same account as to the Flood These Waters and Vapours all collected the Theorist supposes sufficient upon a dissolution of the Earth to make the Deluge Not indeed in the nature of a standing Pool as it is usually conceiv'd A quiet Pool I say overtopping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains but as a rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping them with its raging Waves and impetuous fluctuations when it was violently forc'd out of all its Chanels and the Vapours condens'd into Rain Such an inundation as this would be sufficient to destroy both Man and Beast and other Creatures those few excepted that were miraculously preserv'd in the Ark. This is the Theorist's Explication of the Deluge and I see nothing in this Argument that will destroy or weaken it Now this being the state of the Deluge according to the Theorist what this Author says in the next Paragraph p. 167. is either a misrepresentation or an equivocation For the Eight Oceans requir'd by the Theorist is the quantity of Water necessary for a Deluge in the way of a standing Pool whereas this Author represents it as if the Theorist required so much Water to make a Deluge upon his Hypothesis This I suppose upon reflection the Author cannot but see to be a mistake or a wilful misrepresentation This is the summ of his 7th Chapter There are besides some suggestions made which it may be were intended for objections by the Author As when he says p. 151. That the heat of the Sun would be intolerable upon the surface of the Earth if it could pierce and operate upon the Abyss We allow that its heat was intolerable in the Torrid Zone which thereby became unhabitable and there only the Sun was in its full strength and had its greatest effect upon the Abyss But in the other Climates the heat would be moderate enough nay so moderate that this Author says in another place it would not be sufficient to ripen fruits and in the whole of less force than it is now in the present constitution of the Earth So apt is contention to carry one out of one extream into another His last Objection is about the duration of the Flood That it could not last in its force 150 days if it had been made by a dissolution of the Earth and an Eruption of the Abyss But as this is affirm'd by him without proof so the contrary is sufficiently explain'd and made out both in the Lat. and English Theory p. 56. p. 52. I had forgot to tell him That he ought not to suppose as he seems to do when he is emptying the Abyss p. 165. That after the Torrid Zone was soak'd with Waters by the issues of the Rivers no more Waters or Vapours were drawn from it then than were before or consequently no less from the Abyss For when the middle parts of the Earth had drunk in those Waters the force of the Sun would be less upon the Abyss thorough those parts and the Vapours would be more and greater from them than before when they were dryer and in the same proportion there needed less supplies from the Abyss Chap. 6. Concerning the Figure of the Earth I deferr'd the consideration of This Chapter to the last because I thought it of more general concern and might deserve a fuller disquisition 'T is now you know become a common controversie or enquiry What the Figure of the Earth is Many think it not truly Spherical as it was imagin'd formerly but a Spheroid either oblong or oblate that is either extended in length toward the Poles like an
REFLECTIONS UPON THE Theory of the Earth OCCASION'D BY A Late EXAMINATION of it In a Letter to a Friend LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1699. ERRATA PAge 11. Line 7. r. antediluvian P. 42. l. 25 and 26. r. Ellipsis Ibid. l. 29. r. Isosceles SIR I Receiv'd the honour of your Letter with the Book you was pleas'd to send me containing an Examination of The Theory of the Earth And according as you desire I shall give you my thoughts of it in as narrow a compass as I can The Author of the Theory you know hath set down in Three Propositions the Foundation of the Whole Work and so long as those Propositions stand firm the substance of the Theory is safe whatsoever becomes of particular modes of explication in some parts which are as Problems and may be explained several ways without prejudice to the Principles upon which the Theory stands The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum viz. That the Earth rise from a Chaos This is not call'd into question and this being granted He lays down Three Propositions consecutively First That the Primitive or Ante-diluvian Earth was of a different form and construction from the present Earth Secondly That the face of that Earth as it rise from a Chaos was smooth regular and uniform without Mountains or Rocks and without an open Sea Thirdly That the disruption of the Abyss or dissolution of that Primeval Earth and its fall into the Abyss was the cause of the Universal Deluge and of the destruction of the Old World As also of the irregular form of the present Earth These are the Three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the Fourth Fifth and Sixth Chapters of the Theory And for a further proof and confirmation of them especially of the last another Proposition is added chap. 7. in these words The present form and structure of the Earth both as to the surface and as to the interiour parts of it so far as they are accessible and known to us do exactly answer to the foregoing Theory concerning the form and dissolution of the First Earth and is not so justly explained by any other Hypothesis yet known This is offer'd as a proof à posteriori as they call it or from the effects to show the consent and agreeement of the parts and construction of the present Earth to that Supposition of its being a sort of Ruine or the effect and remains of a disruption or dissolution And to make this good The Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general Form of the present Earth and its irregularity Then shows more particularly the marks or signatures of a ruine or disruption in several parts of it as in Mountains and Rocks in the great Chanel of the Sea and in Subterraneous Cavities and other broken and disfigur'd parts of the Earth These conclusions with their arguments are the Summ and principal Contents of the First Book But I must also mind you of a Corollary in the Second Book drawn from these primary Propositions which concerns the situation of the Primitive Earth For the Theorist supposes that the posture of that Earth or of its Axis was not oblique to the Axis of the Sun or of the Ecliptick as it is now but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick By reason of which Position there was a perpetual Spring or perpetual Equinox in that Primitive Earth This though a consequence only from the first Propositions I thought fit to mind you of as being one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this Theory This being the state of the Theory or of those parts of it that support the rest and wherein its strength consists he that will attack it to purpose must throw down in the first place these leading Propositions 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 For the Foundation being destroyed the Superstructure would fall of its own accord But if instead of this you only pick out a loose stone here or there or strike off a Pinnacle this will not weaken the Foundation nor have any considerable effect upon the whole Building Let us therefore consider in the first place what this Examiner hath said against these Fundamental Propofitions and accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work His first Chapter is to show that the Deluge might be made by a Miracle But who ever deny'd that No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do whatsoever he pleases to the utmost extent of possibilities But he does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted Doth he suppose that the Deluge could be made without any increase of Waters upon the Earth If there was an increase of Waters either they were created a-new or brought thither from some other part of the Universe So far is plain And if he supposes a New Creation of Waters for this purpose and an annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood it had been fair to have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis in the 3d Chapter of the Theory And seeing there is no mention made of any such thing in the Sacred History if he assert it he must bring some proof of his assertion for we are not upon such terms as to trust upon bare word On the other hand if he proceed upon such Waters as were already in being and for his purpose either bring down supercelestial Water or bring up subterraneous he must tell us what those Waters are and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the Second and Third Chapters of the Theory We must have some fixt point some mark to aim at if the case be argued Upon the whole I think this his First Chapter might have been spar'd as either affirming nothing particularly or giving no proof of what is affirm'd In his next Chapter about the Chaos I was in hopes to have found some thing more considerable but besides his long excerpta out of the Theory both here and elsewhere which make a good part of his Book I find nothing but two small Objections against the formation of the First Earth as it is describ'd by the Theorist This Examiner says That the little earthy particles of the Chaos would not swim upon the surface of Oil or any such unctuous liquor for how little soever yet being earthy and Earth being heavier than Oil they must descend thorough it But he grants that dust will swim upon Oil and I willingly allow if these descending parts were huge lumps of solid matter such as we shall meet with in his next Chapter they would easily break through both the Oil and the Water under it but that little tenuious particles or small dust should float upon Oil I think is no wonder And he is so kind as
Chaos To shew this he supposes that the Chaos had Mountains and Rocks swiming in it or according to his expression huge lumps of solid matter These are things I confess which I never heard of before in a Chaos which hath been always describ'd and suppos'd a mass of fluid matter all over But this Author confidently says We must conclude THEREFORE that the Chaos was not so fluid a mass c. This therefore refers us to an antecedent reason which is this He says to make the Chaos an entirely fluid mass is hard to be granted since the greatest parts of Bodies we have in the Earth at least so far as we can discern are hard and solid and there is not such a quantity of water in the Earth as would be requisite to soften and liquifie them all Besides a great part of them as Stones and Metals are uncapable of being liquified by water Very good What is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos or that they were liquified by water This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own or to some other Author's Hypothesis that run in his mind The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition However let 's consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with the Laws of Nature What made these huge lumps of solid matter whether Stone or Metal to swim in the fluid mass This is against all rules of Gravity and of Staticks as he seems to acknowledge and urge it when he thought it to his purpose In the precedent Chapter p. 42. when he speaks of Stones and Minerals he says 'T is certain that these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the bottom if they were left to themselves And he that will not allow dust or little earthy particles to float upon an Oily Liquor I wonder how he will make not little particles but these huge solid lumps of Stone Metals or Minerals to float in the Chaos He seems to own and be sensible of this inconvenience p. 50. and thereupon finds an expedient or evasion which a lesser Wit would not have thought on He supposes that these huge firm solid Lumps were hollow like empty bottles and that would keep them from sinking But who told him they were hollow Is not this precarious or if one would use such terms as he does is not this Chimerical and ridiculous What made those solid firm Lumps hollow When or where or how were their inward parts scrap'd out of them Nor would this hollowness however they came by it make them swim unless there was a meer Vacuum in each of them If they were filled with the liquid matter of the Chaos they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid but they would still be heavier than an equal bulk of the fluid Chaos and consequently would sink in it the preponderancy that would arise from the shell or solid part still remaining Now let 's consider how such Mountains or long ridges of Mountains as we have upon the Earth were formed and setled by these floating Lumps He says part of these lumps or masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid would compose a Mountain as there are Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas But are not mountains of Rock and Stone such as ours commonly are heavier than mountains of Ice that is specifically lighter than Water This might have been consider'd by the Examiner in drawing the paralel And still I 'm at a loss what Fluid it is he means when he says These Lumps or Masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid Does he mean by this Fluid the whole Chaos Did these Mountains stand at the top of the Chaos partly within and partly above it Then what drew them down below if they stood equally pois'd there in their Fluid and as high as the Moon if the Chaos reacht so high This one would think could not be his meaning 't is so extravagant and yet there was no other Fluid than the general Chaos till that was divided and distinguisht into several Masses Then indeed there was an Abyss or a region of Waters that covered the interiour Earth and was separate from the Air above Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the waters or Fluid this Author means upon which his Mountains stood then the rest of the Earth as it came to be form'd must be continu'd and joyn'd with these Mountains and in like manner laid over the waters so as in this method you see we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss This is a very favourable stroke for the Theorist and grants him in effect his principal conclusion viz. That the first anteluvian Earth was built over the Abyss This being admitted there could be no universal Deluge without a disruption of that Earth and an eruption of the Abyss which is a main point gain'd And 't is plain we make no false Logick in collecting this from his Principles and Concessions For as we said before if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss they must have a continuity and conjunction with the rest of the surface of the Earth if they were such as our Mountains are now and so all the habitable Earth must be spread upon the Abyss But still he hath another difficulty to encounter How the great Chanel of the Sea was made upon this supposition Why was not that part of the Globe fill'd up by the descent of the earthy particles of the Chaos as well as the rest The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos'd to take up half of the Globe how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill'd seeing it was encompast with the Chaos as well as any other parts Was the motion of the particles suspended from descending upon that part of the Globe or were they fill'd up at first and afterwards thrown out again to make room for the Sea This may deserve his consideration as well as the Mountains And how dextrous soever this Author may be in other things I know not but in my mind he hath no good hand in making Mountains and I 'm afraid he would have no better success in forming the Chanel of the Sea which he is wisely pleased to take no notice of And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no good luck in assigning the Efficient Causes of Mountains from the Chaos and therefore he is willing to bear off from that point and to lay the whole stress upon their Final Causes without any regard to their origin or how they came first into being His words are these But supposing the Efficient Causes of Mountains unknown or impossible to be assign'd yet still there remains the final causes to be enquir'd into which will do as well for our purpose with what follows there concerning those Authors that exclude final causes If there be such Authors let
duos zodiacos unum in nonâ sphaerâ alterum in octavâ quam Firmamentum vocant in initio rerum temporum sic à Deo fuisse dispositos ut Aries Arieti Taurus Tauro Geminis Gemini jungerentur amborum coeuntibus in unum viribus fortior in Terras fieret fluxus Unde herbas tunc salubriores fructus terrae meliores longiores vitas animantium fuisse affirmat Sed denuò illâ syderali dissolutâ ab invicem per motum societate totum ait inferiorem mundum aegrotare atque per decrementum claudicare coepisse This you see is Astronomy in an old fashion'd dress but you can easily take off the disguise and apply it to the true Systeme of the Heavens The same Author refers you for a more full explication of that matter to his Lectiones succisivae Dial prim which Book I have not yet had an opportunity to see I believe it is in his Opera Philologica printed in Octavo at Basil But since the first writing of the Theory there have been Aethiopick Antiquities produc'd from an Abyssine Philosopher and transmitted to us by Francisco Patricio in his Dialogues If that account he gives of the Aethiopian Archaeologiae be true and genuine they exceed all other upon this subject For they do not only mention this particular of the unity of seasons in the Primitive Earth but the other principal parts of the Theory As the Concussion and Fraction of the Earth that the face of it before was smooth and uniform and upon that disruption it came into another form with Mountains Rocks Sea and Islands These and other such characters are mentioned there whereof the Examiner may see an account if he please in the last edition of the English Theory The story indeed is surprising which way soever you take it whether it was the invention of that Abyssine Philosopher or a real Tradition deriv'd from the Aethiopian Gymnosophists However that be there are otherwise such conspicuous footsteps in Philosophick history and in what may be call'd Ecclesiastick amongst the Jews and Christians of some Revolution in the system of the world as must give occasion to any thinking man to suppose that there hath been a change made in the situation of the Earth This by some of the forementioned Authors is ascrib'd expresly to the Earth and what by others according to their hypothesis is ascrib'd to the higher heavens we know upon a just interpretation belongs to the Earth Those also that ascribe such Phaenomena to Paradise or the Golden Age as are not intelligible upon any other supposition must also be referr'd to this change of the site or posture of the Earth So that upon all accounts mediately or immediately the matter of fact That the Earth hath undergone such a change is testified by History Antiquity and Tradition It deserves also to be observ'd that there was a general Tradition amongst the Ancients concerning the Inhabitability of the Torrid zone which may be an argument or confirmation that there was a state of Nature at one time or other when this was true and that such a general opinion could not arise and be continued so long without some foundation So much for History to determine matter of fact Now as to Reason which we mentioned as the other head to prove or disprove this conclusion That form of the Primitive Earth which is assigned by the Theorist being suppos'd namely that it was regular uniform and had an equal libration it would naturally take an even and parallel position with the Axis of its Orbit or of the Ecliptick as is set down more at large in the Theory Nor can any reason be alledg'd to the contrary T is true this Examiner notwithstanding any Uniformity and Equilibration of that Earth pretends it would be indifferent to any Position or retain any Position given as a Sphere will do put in a Fluid This might be if that Sphere or Globe was resting but if it was turn'd about its Axis and the Axis of the Fluid which is the present case it would certainly take a Position parallel to the Axis of its Fluid if there was no other impediment The matter of fact being settled with the Cause of it what the Causes of the change were is more Problematical The Philosophers forecited gave their reason Aristarchus Samius gives another and a Comet by some is made the occasion of it The Theorist thinks that the Dissolution of the Earth was the fundamental cause and that the change came to pass at that time as many indications and arguments shew And as to the immediate cause or causes of it I know none more probable than what the Theorist hath proposed Either the change of its Center of Gravity or of its Magnetism The line of direction to those Magnetick particles and their passing through the Earth being so alter'd as to turn the Earth into another posture and hold it there As to those expressions that he seems to quarrel with of the Inclination of the Earth or the Pole towards the Sun 't is the expression of the Ancient Philosophers though I think it might more properly be called an Obliquation Then that the former state is called situs rectus is another expression which he finds fault with ' tho every one sees that a right situation in such places is opposed to an oblique or inclined position to the Axis of the Sun or Ecliptick and had been called parallel in several other places and which he himself sometimes as well as other Authors calls a right Position This is but trifling about words If he grant that the Primitive Earth being uniform and consequently equally pois'd its Axis would be parallel which for shortness is sometimes call'd right to the Axis of its Orbit and is now in a different and oblique posture This is all the Theorist desires as to matter of fact I conceive the whole matter thus When the Earth was in that even and parallel posture with the Axis of the Sun it had a perpetual Equinox and unity of Seasons the Equator and Ecliptick being coincident And as to the Heavens they with the fixt Stars mov'd or seem'd to move uniformly and concentrically with the Earth But when the Earth chang'd its posture to that which it hath now the Year became unequal and the Equator and Ecliptick became distinct circles or if you will a new circle arise from that distinction The Earth in the mean time continuing its annual course in the Ecliptick had the position of its Axis chang'd to a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator which it holds throughout the whole Year As to the Heavens They seem'd to turn upon another Axis or other Poles than they did before and different from those of the Sun or the Earth And this fundamental change in the Site of the Earth had a further chain of consequences as is noted by the Theorist in reference to the
lessened there could be no supply of Vapours from the Abyss seeing the heat of the Sun could not reach so far nor raise Vapours from it or at least not in a sufficient quantity As he pretends to prove hereafter But in the mean time he speaks of great cracks or pits whose dimensions and capacities he examines at pleasure and by these he makes the Theorist to suppose the Vapours to ascend Now I do not find that the Theorist makes any mention of these Pits nor any use of those cracks for that purpose The only question is Whether the heat of the Sun in that Earth would reach so low as the Abyss when the Earth was more dry'd and its pores enlarg'd So that this objection as he states it seems to refer to some other Author But now supposing the Vapours rais'd he considers what course they would take or which way they would move in the open Air. But before that be examin'd we must take notice how unfairly he deals with the Theorist when he seems to make him suppose that Mountains make way for the motion and dilatation of Vapours Which he never suppos'd nor is it possible he should suppose it in the First Earth where there were no Mountains Neither does the Theorist suppose as this Author would insinuate that Mountains or Cold dilate Vapours but on the contrary that they stop and compress them as the words are cited even by the Examiner a little before p. 86. Then as to the course of the Vapours when they are rais'd The Theorist supposes that would be towards the Poles and the coldest Climates But this Author says They would all move Westward or from East to West There being a continual wind blowing from the East to West according to the motion of the Sun Whether that Wind come from the motion of the Sun or of the Earth which is contrary is another question but however let them move at first to the West the question here is Where they would be condens'd or where they would fall And there is little probability that their condensation would be under the Equator where they are most agitated but rather by an impulse of new vapours they would soon divert towards the Poles And losing their agitation there would fall in Dews or Rains Which condensation being made and a passage open'd that way for new ones to supply their places there would be a continual draught of Vapours from the hotter to the colder parts of the Earth We proceed now to the Seventh Chapter which is in a good measure upon the same or a like subject with this namely concerning the penetration of the heat of the Sun into the Body of the Earth This he says cannot be to any considerable depth nor could it pass the exteriour Orb of the first Earth and affect the Abyss or raise vapours from it To prove this he supposes that exteriour Earth divided into so many surfaces as he pleases then supposing the heat diminish'd in every surface he concludes it could not possibly pass through so many Thus you may divide an Inch into an hundred or a thousand surfaces and prove from thence that no heat of the Sun could pierce through an Inch of Earth We must rather consider Pores than Surfaces in this case and whether those Pores were straight or oblique the motion would pass however ' tho not the Light And the heat of the Sun might have its effect by a direct or indirect motion to a great depth within the Earth notwithstanding the multitude of Surfaces that he imagines Those that think a Comet upon its nearer approach to the Sun would be pierc'd with its heat through and through and to such a degree as to become much hotter than red hot Iron will not think it strange that at our distance from the Sun its heat should have some proportionable effect upon the inward parts of the Earth And all those imaginary solid Surfaces do not hinder you see the Magnetick particles from running through the Body of the Earth and making the Globe one great Magnet But let those considerations have what effect they can this supposition however is nothing peculiar to the Theorist I know some learned men think the heat of the Sun does penetrate deep into the bowels of the Earth Others think it does not and either of them have their arguments These alledge the equal temper of Vaults and Mines at different seasons of the year The other say 't is true subterraneous places keep their equality of temper much better than the external Air and those differences that appear to us are in a great measure by comparison with the temper of our Bodies Then for their own opinion they take an argument from the generation of Metals and Minerals in the bowels of the Earth and other Subterraneous fossiles These we see are ripen'd by degrees in several ages and cannot as they think be brought to Maturity and raised into the exteriour Earth without the heat and influence of the Sun Of the same Sun that actuates all the Vegetable World that quickens Seeds and raises Juices into the roots of our deepest and tops of our highest Oakes and Cedars But let this remain a Problem I will instance in another remarkable Phaenomenon which is most for the present purpose I mean Earthquakes Let us consider the Causes of them and the Depths of them I think all agree that Earthquakes arise from the rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations and that this rarefaction must be made by some heat and no other is yet prov'd to us by this Author than that of the Sun Then as to the depth of Earthquakes we find they are deeper than the bottom of the Sea For besides that they communicate with different Countries divided by the Sea they are found sometimes to arise within the Sea and from the bottom of it at great depths This seems to prove that there may be a strong rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations far within the bowels of the Earth and the Theorist desires no more If in the present constitution of the Earth there may be such Concussions and Subversions for a great extent we have no reason to believe but there might be at a time appointed by Providence an Universal Disruption as that Earth was constituted Finally Whatsoever the causes of this Disruption and Dissolution were 't is certain there was a Disruption of the Abyss and that Disruption Universal as the Deluge was which answers sufficiently the design of the Theory However if he have a mind to see how this agrees with History both Sacred and Prophane he may consult if he please what the Theorist hath noted upon that argument Archaeol l. 2. c. 4. besides other places But this Author says further That supposing such a Disruption of the Abyss and Dissolution of the Exterior Earth no Universal Deluge however could follow upon it because there could not be Water enough left in the Abyss to
rotation of the Earth and its gravity without supposing the Globe form'd into that shape before it came to be hardned before it came to be loaded and stifned by Rocks and stony Mountains Therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allow'd that there was such a time such a state of the Earth when its tender Orb was capable of those impressions and modifications and that Orb must have lain above the Waters not under them nor radicated to the bottom of them for then such Causes could not have had such an effect upon it And in the last place This Concretion upon the Waters must have been throughout all the parts of the Earth or all the parts of the Land which are now rais'd above a Spherical Surface and no reason can be given as we noted before why the rest should not be cover'd as well as those So that in effect both the Hypotheses suppose that all the watery Globe was at first cover'd with an earthy Concretion Now this being admitted you have confirm'd the main point of the Theory namely That the Abyss was once or at first cover'd with a terrestrial Concretion or an Orb of Earth Grant this and we 'll compound for the rest let the Earth at present be of what Figure it will If there was such an original Earth that cover'd the Waters both the form and equilibration of that Earth may easily appear and how by a dissolution of it a Deluge might arise But as to the present Earth the Theorist never affirm'd that its Figure was Oval but he noted such observations made or to be made as he thought might be proper to determine its Figure and still desires that they may be pursued He added also that he would be glad to receive any new ones that would demonstrate the precise Figure of the Earth And accordingly he is willing to consider in this particular and all others the Arguments and Remarks of such Eminent Authors as have lately given a new light to the System of the World This may suffice to have spoken in general concerning these two spheroidical Figures of the Earth We must now consider what particular objections are made by the Examiner against its Oval Figure He says admitting the Oval Figure of that first Earth it would not be capable however to give a course to the Rivers from the Polar Parts towards the Equinoctial And his reason is this because the same Causes which cast the Abyss or the Ocean towards the Poles would also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles But there is no parity of reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean and the Rivers We see in the flux and reflux of the Ocean let the Cause of it 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 And his 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 there was an open Ocean there were no Rivers and when there were Rivers there was no open Ocean but an inclos'd Abyss So ' tho he makes large Transcripts there and elsewhere out of the Theory he does not seem always to have well digested the method of it After this objection th' Examiner charges the Theorist with want of Skill in Logick but his charge is grounded upon another Misunderstanding or Misrepresentation He pretends there that the Theorist hath made such a Ratiocination as this All Bodies by reason of the Earths Diurnal Rotation do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion but by reason of the Pressure of the Air and the Streightness of the Orb they cannot recede from the Axis of their Motiâ—n therefore they will move towards the Poles where they will come nearer to the Axis of their Motion These are the Examiner's Words in that place where he says he will put the Theorist's reasoning in other Words But I do not like that Method unless th' Examiner were a more judicious or faithful Paraphrast than he seems to be let every one be Tryed by their own Words and if there be any false Logick or nonsence in the forecited words of th' Examiner let it fall upon their Author The Theorist said that Bodies by reason of the Earths Motion did conari à centro sui motus recedere These words this Translator renders endeavour to receed from the Axis of their motion and by changing the word Center into Axis whether carelesly or wilfully I know not of plain sence he hath made non-sence and then makes this Conclusion which follows indeed from his own words but not from those of the Theorist Because all Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion The Theorist's argumentation was plainly this Seeing in the rotation of the Earth Bodies tend from the Center of their motion if they meet with an impediment there they will move laterally in the next easiest and openest way and therefore the Waters under the Equator being stop'd in their first tendency would divert towards the Poles Wherein I think there is no false Logick That there was no impediment there he must prove by other Arguments than his own dictates or bare assertion which will not pass for a proof He proceeds now to discourse of the Centrifugal force and the effects of it together with gravity But he should have given us a better notion of the Centrifugal force than what he sets down there for he says p. 110. l. 24. A Centrifugal force is that force by which a Body is drawn towards the Center This is a strange signification of that word And in the next page l. 22. he says by this Centrifugal force Bodies endeavour to recede from the Center of their motion which is true but contrary to what he said just before I think 't is Gravity not Centrifugal force that brings Bodies towards the Center But to pass by this contradiction and to proceed What he says from other Authors about the proportions of the Centrifugal force and Gravity in Bodies turn'd round and particularly in Fluids how they would fly off more or less according to the Circles of their motion was always as hath been mention'd before suppos'd and allow'd by the Theorist if there was no restraint or pressure upon one part more than another of the fluid Globe So that he might have spared here six or seven pages In like manner he might have spar'd what he hath transcrib'd in his following Pages from those excellent Authors we referr'd to before about calculating the diminutions of Gravity made by the Centrifugal force in different Latitudes with other such excursions These I say might have been spar'd as needless upon this occasion or to the confutation of the Theory till the principal point upon which they depend
Moon unhabitable To conclude 't is a great vanity to say no worse for short-sighted Creatures and of narrow understandings to prescribe to Providence what is necessary and indispensable to the frame and order of an habitable World We proceed to his fourth Chapter which is to shew the inconveniences that would fall upon the inhabitants of the Earth in case it had such a posture as the Theorist hath assign'd to the Antediluvian Earth namely that its Axis was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick or Perpendicular to its Plane and not oblique as it stands now But will this Author vouch that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe or even about our Sun that have this posture which he blames so much Jupiter is known to have a perpetual Equinox and his Axis parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick And Mars hath little or no obliquity that is observable And must this be a reflection upon Providence Or must we suppose that these Planets have no inhabitants or that their habitations are very bad and incommodious Jupiter is the noblest Planet we have in our Heaven whether you consider its magnitude or the number of its Attendants If then a Planet of that order and dignity have such a position and aspect to the Sun why might not our Earth have had the same proper to that state and agreeable to the Divine wisdom Yet he is so bold as to say or suppose That this cannâ—t well agree with the infinite Wisdom of its Maker as if he was able to make a measure or standard for all the Works of God 'T is a crude and injudicious thing from a few particulars the rest unknown to make an universal conclusion which forward wits are apt to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad pauca respiciens facilè pronuncias was Aristotle's observation of old and it holds in all Ages This Examiner censures the Theorist very rudely for making use of Phyfical Causes and not arguing from Final Causes which he says are the true Principles of Natural Philosophy But if this be the use he makes of Final Causes To tell God Almighty what is best to be done in this or that World I had rather content my self with Physical Causes to know what God hath done and conclude it to be the best and that we should judge it so if we had the same extent of thought and prospect its Maker had There are indeed some Final Causes that are so manifest that I should think it sottishness or obstinacy for a Man to deny them but I should also think that Man presumptuous that should pretend to draw the Scheme and Plan of every World from his Idea of Final Causes There are some men that mightily cry out against Reason yet none more fond of it than they are when they can get it on their side So some men inveigh against Physical Causes when others make use of them and yet as gladly as any make use of them themselves when they can make them serve their purpose And when they cannot reach them then they despise them and are all for Final Causes This Author says God always chuses such constitutions and positions of things as bring with them the greatest good and utility to the Universe Very true to the Universe But who made him judge what is best to the Universe Does he look upon this Earth as the Universe whereof it is but a small particle or an atome in comparison Must there be no variety in the numberless worlds which God hath made Must they all be one and the same thing repeated again and again That I 'm sure does not well agree with the infinite Wisdom and Power of God But suppose we did confine our Thoughts to this Earth We may be assur'd that it hath undergone and will undergo within the compass of its duration very different states and yet all accommodate to Providence Those that suppose the Heavens and the Earth never to have had any other constitution and construction than what they have now or that there hath never been any great change and revolution in our Natural World follow the very doctrine which S. Peter opposes and confutes in his 2d Epistle I mean the doctrine of those Scoffers as he calls them who said All things the Heavens and the Earth have remained in the same state they are in now from the beginning or from the Creation and are to continue so In confutation of this opinion S. Peter there minds them of the Change made at the Deluge and of the different constitution and construction of the Heavens and the Earth before and after the Deluge whereby they were dispos'd to undergo a different fate one by Water and the other by Fire And he tells us in the same place that after the Conflagration there will be New Heavens and a New Earth So that there is no one fixt and permanent state even of this Earth according to the Will and Wisdom of Providence But enough hath been said by the Theorist upon this subject Theor. Lat. l. 1. c. 1. 2. Review p. 160 c. Archaeol l. 2. c. 3 5 6. and if they will not consider the arguments propos'd there 't would be in vain to repeat them here These things premis'd Let 's consider what inconveniences are alledged or what Arguments against that equality of Seasons or the grand cause of them the Parallelism of the Axis of the Earth with the Axis of the Sun He says upon this supposition there is more heat now in the Climates of the Earth than could have been then And what if there be whether his computation which is aim'd against another Author be true or false 't is little to the Theory If the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates who would desire the extream heats of Summer But he says That heat would not be sufficient for the generation of Vegetables How does that appear supposing that heat constant throughout the whole Year Does he think there are no Vegetables in Jupiter which hath still the same position the Theorist gave to the Antediluvian Earth And as to heat that Planet is at vastly a greater distance from the Sun than our Earth and consequently hath so much less heat yet I cannot believe that great Planet to be only a huge lump of bald and barren Earth As to our Antediluvian Earth 't is probable that the constitution of Plants and Animals was different then from what it is now as their longaevity was different to which any excesses of heat or cold are noxious and the frequency and multiplicity of generations and corruptions in the present Earth is part of that vanity to which it was subjected But this Examiner says moreover If the first Earth had that position the greatest part of it would not be habitable But how much less habitable would it be than the present Earth where the open Sea which was not then
takes up half of its surface and makes it unhabitable 'T is likely the Torrid Zone was unhabitable in that Earth but 't is probable the Poles or Polar parts were more habitable than they are now seeing they would have the Sun or rather Half-Sun perpetually in their Horizon And as to the temperate Climates as we call them they would be under such a gentle and constant warmth as would be more grateful to the Inhabitants and more proper and effectual for a continual Verdure and Vegetation than any region of the present Earth is now But this Objector does not consider on the other hand what an hard life they would lead in those days at least in many parts of the Earth if the seasons of the year were the same they are now and they confin'd to Herbs Fruits and Water for that was the Diet of Mankind till the Deluge Should we not think it an unmerciful imposition now to be interdicted the use of Flesh-meat all the year long Or rather is it possible that the life of Man could be supported by Herbs and Fruits and Water in the colder Climates where the Winters are so long and barren and the cold so vehement But if you suppose a perpetual Spring throughout the Earth the Heavens mild and the juices of Fruits and Plants more nutritive that Objection would cease and their longaevity be more intelligible We come now to the Causes of the change in the posture of the Earth where the Theorist hath set down his conjectures what he thought the most probable to be the occasion of it namely either some inequality in the libration of the Earth after it was dissolved and broken or a change in the Magnetism of its Body consequent upon its dissolution and the different situation of its parts But this Examiner will neither allow any change to have been made in the position of the Earth since the beginning of the World nor if there was a change that it could be made from such Causes The first of these points you see is matter of fact and so it must be prov'd partly by History and partly by Reason Some things are noted before which argue that the Antediluvian Earth was different from the present in its frame and constitution as also in reference to the Heavens and the places are referred to where that matter is treated more largely by the Theorist If it be granted that there was a permanent change made in the state of Nature at the Deluge or any other time but deny'd that it was made by a change of the situation of the Earth and the consequences of it then this Writer must assign some other change made which would have the same effects that is which will answer and agree with the Phenomena of the First Earth and also of the present When this is done if it be clear and convictive we must acquiesce in it But I do not see that it is so much as attempted by this Author This suppos'd change I say is matter of Fact and therefore we must consult History and Reason for the proof or disproof of it As to History the Theorist hath cited to this purpose Leucippus Anaxagoras Democritus Empedocles Plato and Diogenes These were the most renowned Philosophers amongst the Ancients and all these speak of an inclination of the Earth or the Poles which hath been made in former ages These one would think might be allow'd as good witnesses of a former Tradition concerning a change in the situation of the Earth when nothing is brought against them And this change is particularly call'd by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disharmony or disconcerting of the motions of the Heavens which he makes the source and origin of the present Evils and inconveniences of Nature Besides he dates this change from the expiration of the reign of Saturn or when Jupiter came to take the government upon him And this you know in the style of those times signifies the end of the Golden Age. Thus far Plato carries the Tradition Now the Poets tell us expresly that there was a perpetual Spring or a perpetual Equinox in the time of Saturn and that the inequality of the Year or the diversity of Seasons was first introduc'd by Jupiter The Authors and places are well known and noted by the Theorist I need not repeat them here You see what this evidence amounts to both that there hath been a change and such a change as alter'd the course of the Year and brought in a vicissitude of Seasons And this according to the Doctrines or Traditions remaining amongst the Heathens The Jews and Christians say the same thing but in another manner They do not speak of the Golden Age or of the reign of Saturn or Jupiter but of the state of Paradise or Gan-Eden and concerning that they say the same things which the Heathen Authors say in different words The Jews make a perpetual Equinox in Paradise the Christians a perpetual serenity a perpetual Spring And this cannot be without a different situation of the Earth from what it hath now He may see the citations if he please in the Theory or Archaeologiae It were to be wisht that this Examiner would look a little into Antiquity when he hath time It may be that would awaken him into new thoughts and a more favourable opinion of the Theory as to this particular Give me leave to mind him in his own way what some ancient Astronomers have said relating to this subject Baptista Mantuanus speaking of the longaevity of the Antediluvians says Erant illis ut Astronomiâ experimento constat Coeli propitiores volunt namque Astronomi c. This he explains by an uniform and concentrical motion of the heavens and the Earth at that time To which he imputes the great vertue of their herbs and fruit and the long lives of their Animals Petrus Aponensis who liv'd above an Age before Mantuan gives us much what the same account For making an answer to this question utrum natura humana sit debilitata ab eo quod antiquitus necne He says Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis immobilis ordinatè directè concurrebant tunc virtus perfectiori modo à primo principio per medias causas taliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora cum causae tunc sibi invicem correspondeant Propter quod concludendum est tunc naturam humanam illo tempore ut sic fortiorem longaeviorem extitisse I give it in his own words as they are in his Conciliator Differ 9. Georgius Pictorius or an Author under his name unto the same question about the longaevity of the Antediluvians gives a like answer from the same Astronomer in these words Petrus Aponensis adfert rationem pro vario cursu dispositione coelorum modò vitam humanam breviari modò produci scribit Ex Astronomiâ argumentum colligens cùm ait