AN EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth Together with A DEFENCE of the REMARKS ON Mr. Whiston's New Theory By J. KEILL A. M. of Ball. Coll. Oxon. OXFORD Printed at the THEATER for Henry Clemens Bookseller 1699. Imprimatur Will. Paynter VICE-CAN OXON June 30. 1699. An EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth THE Defence of the Theory which has been lately Published in Answer to my Examination of it is styl'd Reflections on the Theory of the Earth But if its Author had observ'd the Title and made more Reflections on the Theory tho' fewer on the Examiner he had acted more like a true Philosopher and perhaps might have saved himself the labour of Publishing any thing more than an ingenuous acknowledgement of its errors and me the trouble of a Reply But since the Reflecter has been pleas'd to follow another course I must take his work and consider it in the method it lyes He first sets down three propositions which He calls the foundation of the whole work viz. That the Primitive or Antediluvian Earth was of a different form from the present 2dly That the face of the Earth as it rose from a Chaos was smooth regular and uniform without Mountains and Rocks and without an open Sea 3dly That the disruption of the Abyss or the dissolution of the Primeval Earth was the cause of the Universal Deluge To these he adds a Corollary drawn from the primary propositions concerning the position of the Earth in which he says that the posture of the Antediluvian Earth or its Axis was not oblique TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN or of the Ecliptick as it is now BUT LAY PARALLEL TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN and perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptick These he makes the onely fundamental propositions of the Theory tho' the Theorist in his ninth Chapter Book 2d. makes one more concerning the oval figure of the Earth and tells us That he who will attack it to the purpose must throw down in the first place these leading propositions and that if the Examiner had taken this method and confuted the proofs that are brought in confirmation of each of them he needed have done no more but if instead of this a loose stone be onely picked out here and there or a Pinnacle struck off it will not weaken the foundation I cannot imagine how this Author can assert that I have not followed this method in refuting the Theory for if these he has mentioned be the substantial and vital parts I have examined every one of them as will plainly appear to any one who will read the Examination so that what he has said of me in another case may be very well apply'd to himself That either he never read over or does not remember or which is still worse does willfully misrepresent what I have written on this subject The design of the first Chapter of the Examination is not as this Defender imagines to prove that the Deluge might have been made by a miracle but to answer the general Argument which the Theorist with a boldness little becoming a Divine brought for the truth of his Theory viz. * English Theory Ch. 7. Book I. that it could be made no other way and therefore his method being the onely way possible was the real one To this I answered that I thought it possible the Deluge might come by a miracle and that God Almighty was the immediate cause thereof the Scriptures having given us such an account of it in these emphatical terms Gen. 6.17 Behold saith God I even I do bring a flood of waters upon the Earth But the Defender is displeased because I did not tell him wherein this miracle consisted The truth is I never thought it my business to explain miracles and I wish no Theorists or Philosophers had set up for it I should be well contented to find in their writings a Mechanical and easy account of the common and ordinary Phoenomena of nature But it seems this Author will not be satisfy'd unless I tell him how the increase of waters at the time of the Deluge was made on the Earth I answer that according to the Scripture some of the water was raised from the great deep and sustain'd on the surface of the Earth by the hand of Omnipotence a great part of it descended by fourty days continual rain the waters which occasion'd this rain being either newly created or risen from other matter turned into that Element or brought from some other place best known to the Divine Omniscience which of all these three methods was used I will not take upon me to determine but I think it might have been done by any of them notwithstanding the reasons alledg'd in the second and third Chapters of the Theory which this Author thinks me oblig'd to answer It seems he thinks them very strong and convincing tho' when I wrote the Examination I thought them so weak and precarious that it would not be worth while to take notice of them * English Theory Ch. 3. Book I. The arguments against a Creation of waters are founded on a notoriously false notion of the Cartesian Philosophy viz. That matter and space are the same according to which principle 't is not easy to understand how either Creation or Annihilation can be possible Nor do I think the arguments against Transmutation of Air or other bodies into water of greater force than the former For if all bodies be onely different in their modifications motions and figures I can see no reason why any body may not be changed and put on the form of another and therefore if according to the Theorists principle there is no vacuity in Nature not onely the Air may be changed into Water but also all the subtil matter which fills its Pores and according to this principle of a Plenum that subtil matter will make as much Water as if the same bulk of absolutely solid matter were transformed The Defender alledges that if I proceed upon such Waters as were already in being and make them either Supercelestial or Subterranneous I must tell him WHAT THESE WATERS ARE and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the second and third Chapters of the Theory if he means that I should tell him the nature of this Water and of what sort it was I answer that it might be common Water for that will be sufficient to drown the World but if He designs that I should tell him from what place it was brought and how it came there I must own I know not For to answer the question which he makes in another place I have not yet been all over the Universe to make Observations nor have I had any Revelation made me it is enough both for him and me to suppose this Water like common Water and that 't was brought upon the Earth by the Power of God The arguments which the
Anaxagoras Empedocles and Leucippus talked of the inclination declination or depression of the World towards the South so that the Northern parts were rais'd higher while the opposite parts slid towards the South We may easily observe that these Philosophers from their way of speaking were no great Astronomers it is hard to guess what they mean't by such sentences But if we should take their meaning as the words at first seem to import that one Pole of the Earth was more depressed or inclined towards the Sun or the Ecliptick than the other the thing is absolutely false for both the Poles are equally inclined to the Sun or the Plane of the Ecliptick as I have sufficiently shew'n in the Examination * Pages 79 80 81. But whatever their meaning may be I am sure it is easier to draw any other consequence than that which the Theorist has deduced from their words nay it is probable that they mean't the direct contrary to what he says they did namely that the Sun formerly came more towards the North than it does at present and that its distance from them towards the South is now greater than it was at first This one may easily deduce from the words of Leucippus as they are quoted by Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leucippus terram in partes austrinas prolabi putat ob istarum raritatem quippe gelu concretis partibus Septentrionalibus dum oppositae interim ardent So that it seems according to Leucippus the Sun acted more strongly upon the Northern Hemisphere formerly than it does now and that it does not now come so near the Zenith of those that live towards the North-Pole as it did at first whereby the waters of these Northern parts are quite frozen and turn'd into Ice while the parts toward the South being on the contrary expos'd to too great heat are burnt and scorch't that is the declination of the Ecliptick from the Equator at least toward the North was greater formerly than now Thus we see how little favourable these Philosophers are to the Theorist's opinion and that their sentiments are at least as capable of being brought as arguments against him as for him It it true that Plato speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disharmony or irregularity in the motions of the Heavens that was not under the reign of Saturn But this signifys nothing to the Theorist's purpose for if we should admit of his position yet still there would be the same apparent irregularities in the motions of the Heavens For the Planets would not in that case move uniformly round the Earth but would have their directions stations and retrogradations as they have at present and none of them but the Sun would move precisely in the Equator The other quotation the Theorist brings from Plato is nothing to his purpose and is alledg'd by another Theorist to prove a quite contrary Hypothesis These are the testimonies the Theorist has produced from the old Philosophers to prove the truth of his Hypothesis which in my mind if it were not for pomp and show he might have as well let alone for I think they will prove any thing else just as well as what he design'd If these Gentlemen had spoke of a coincidence that was at first between the Equator and the Ecliptick or of the Axis of the Earth or World being perpendicular to the Ecliptick or if they had said that the Sun at first mov'd always in the Equator or that the days and nights throughout the the whole Year were equal which might have been easily said and much easier understood than what they have deliver'd they had spoke something to his purpose but instead of this we have some dark sentences whose real meaning it is hard to guess at and some of which seem to be so far from proving the Theorists position that they seem rather to infer the contrary and that the Suns declination was greater formerly than now Sure a man must be put to a hard shift for ancient Traditions that will bring such Testimonies to prove his point But the Defender alledges that these places will at least prove that there was some change made in the state of nature formerly and if I will not allow that which the Theorist has assign'd I must shew some other which will have the same effects Why so I hope he does not suppose me to be like some Philosophers that think themselves oblig'd to give an account of every appearance and fancy it a stain in their reputation and honour to be ignorant in any thing If he supposes such a thing I assure him he is much mistaken for I am sensible that there are more things which neither he nor I know than what we do The Poets are the next witnesses the Theorist produces to prove the truth of his position And these indeed talk of the continual spring and verdure of the Earth that was under the reign of Saturn We know the Fable of the four Ages of which the Golden was the first and best in it they fancy'd every thing that was pleasant and delightful and therefore they remov'd from it all extremities of heat and cold and upon that account they would allow neither of Summer or Winter but a perpetual Spring wherein every thing was fresh and blooming But it is easie to perceive that all this was a figment For when they or other Writers were to describe any pleasant places they continually endow'd them with such qualities Thus Homer describes the Elysian Fields as he is quoted by the Theorist Archaeol pag. 263. and Virgil supposes that there were sine green Meadows there This Poet also in summing up the praises of Italy and prefering it before all other Countries among other excellent qualities he endows it with a perpetual Spring Hic ver assiduum atque alienis mensibus aestas Virg. Georg. Lib. II. Thus Plutarch describes the fortunate Islands and Pliny the Loca Hyperborea From which we may clearly see that there was no other foundation for any such assertion but the fancy of the contrivers who were to set forth their places of happiness to the best advantage But the Defender thinks that if none of those he has mention'd will pass for sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact yet I will certainly allow of the Testimonies of some ancient Astronomers who have said something relating to this matter Well let us see what they say He quotes Baptista Mantuanus from the Archaeolog whose words are these Erant illis nempe Autediluvianis ut Astronomiâ experimento constat Caeli propitiores volunt namque Astronomi duos esse Zodiacos unum in nona sphaera alterum in octava quod firmamentum vocant initio rerum temporum sic à Deo dispositos ut Aries Arieti Taurus Tauro Gemini Geminis jungertur amborum coeuntibus in unum viribus fortior fiebat in terris influxus unde herhas tunc salubriores fructus terrae meliores
Earth were to its least as 101. to 100. by which one Semidiameter would be very near 40. Miles greater than the other a difference which his friend who was so kind as to write him a Letter thinks to be much too great and then the greatest Degree upon the Meridian would be to the least very near in the same proportion that is it would be 1 part of 100. greater than the other but this difference is so very small that I believe no Observations in order to this discovery are nice enough to be rely'd upon For where the length of a Degree in Miles is determin'd either by the resolution of many right-lined or Spherical Triangles it is scarcely probable that the errors in Observations and Measuring will amount to less than â…” of a Mile Tho' therefore we can scarce hope of ever attaining to a knowledge of the Earths Figure by measuring of it yet to satisfy the Theorist in this matter I took notice of one Dr. Eisenschmidt who compares the magnitude of Degrees observ'd in different Latitudes and finds that they are greater at the Equator than at the Poles and that they gradually decreased from the Equator towards either of the Poles from which he infers that the Earth is of such a Figure as the Theorist has assign'd to it whereas I following the Theorists principles demonstrated that the Earth must have another Figure and that the Diameter of the Equator must be greater than its Axis But our Defender says that my demonstration proceeds upon a supposition that the Vertical Lines or the Lines of Gravity I suppose he means the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies are to be drawn directly to the Center Does not the Theorist admit of the same supposition Does not he make the Water descend from the Poles to the Equator that it may be so much nigher to the Center Since therefore according to the Theorist the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies are towards the Center of the Earth and if we proceed upon that Hypothesis where the Degrees are greatest there the Earth must have its Diameter greatest it will evidently follow from Eisenschmidts Observations that the Earth must not be an oblong Spheroid but a broad one and have its Axis shorter than the Diameter of its Equator Our Defender tells us that Dr. Eisenschmidt supposes the Vertical Lines or Lines of Gravity to be drawn at right Angles to the Tangent of each respective Horizon What Dr. Eisenschmidt does really suppose I know not but I am sure he cannot suppose a thing more absurd than what our Author makes him suppose in this place For that the Line of direction of heavy Bodies is at right Angles with the Tangent of the Horizon is to me such an incomprehensible supposition that I shall excuse my self from considering of it till the Defender who I suppose would have us think he understands it is at leisure to explain it I have not seen Dr. Eisenschmidts own Book to know upon what principles he proceeds It is said in the Acta Eruditorum that he embraced the Theorist's opinion about the Figure of the Earth and I believ'd that therefore he would also follow his and the common opinion that all heavy Bodies tend toward the Center of the Earth because it seems most reasonable that the direction of heavy Bodies should be towards the Earth's Center of Gravity which we may suppose to be the same with its Center of Magnitude Nor can we suppose this direction to be any ways chang'd but upon the account of the centrifugal force that all Bodies in the Earth have acquir'd by being turn'd round the Earths Axis Now if he had taken the Centrifugal force into his consideration he must have concluded as I have done that the Earth had the Diameter of its Equator greater than its Axis which is still contrary to the conclusion he made So we see that whether this Author supposes the direction of heavy Bodies to be towards the Center of the Earth that then by Observations he must have concluded the Earth to have been of a broad Spheroidical Figure or whether he supposes the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies to be chang'd by a Centrifugal force he ought to have drawn the same consequence from thence tho' not indeed from his Observations of a degree measured in several Latitudes The Defender not daring to trust much to his own skill in this matter has obtain'd a Letter from a Gentleman of his acquaintance concerning it But all that Gentleman's reasons depend on a supposition which the Theorist cannot allow viz. That the Tangents of the Ellipse are in the Horizontal Plane whereas it is evident that according to the Theorist's Hypothesis these Tangents can never represent the Horizons for he makes the Water to run from them down to the Equator now it is certain that Water will not run if it be placed upon an Horizontal Plane and if we are to make Water run any way we must always make its Channel inclined to the Horizon This Gentleman indeed reasons truly provided the Lines of direction of heavy Bodies were always perpendicular to a Plane touching the Spheroid in the point where the Body falls but as I have already observ'd this supposition is not to be admitted by the Theorist and we can no more suppose a Plane touching a Spheroid to be the Horizon of the point where it touches than we can suppose a Man who stands upon the side of a Hill to have that plain for his Horizon which touches the side of the Hill in the point of his station Thus I think I have plainly prov'd that there is no certain way to determine the Figure of the Earth from the observations of a degree taken in several Latitudes yet I have shew'n that if either the Theorist or his Defender will depend upon those observations which are already made we must conclude from their own principles by evident demonstration that the Earth is of a very different Figure from what they assign it The next way the Theorist would take to determine the Earth's Figure is by its shadow upon the Moon But it is easy to prove this way as uncertain as the other For let us suppose as we have done already that the greatest Diameter of the Earth is to its least as 101. to 100. which is a much greater proportion than what is allowed either by Mr. Newton or Mons Hugens because by observation the Diameter of the Earth's shadow is three times the Diameter of the Moon and the Moon appears under an Angle of 30. minutes therefore the Diameter of the Earth's shadow seen at that distance will appear under an Angle of 90. minutes or a degree and half and therefore if we suppose the Diameter of the shadow to be divided into an 100. equal parts the whole appearing under an Angle of 90. minutes every one of these parts will be seen under an Angle of 90 100 or 9 10
leisurely and to proceed by the same steps that the violence of its heat decreases which would not then as he would have it be compleated in six Years nor indeed in as many Centuries and the Opake parts would take so much time in descending and composing the Crust of the Earth that the Sun would always illuminate at least the upper Regions of its Atmosphere as freely as it does the whole Atmosphere of Comets while they are within our Observation He allows this to be an Argument of good force and to deserve consideration and he tells us that if Comets were observ'd to have no Atmosphere after their return from the Regions beyond Saturn before they arive at their Perihelia again then indeed this reasoning were unavoidable but seeing the contrary is evident from Astronomical Observations it cannot affect his Hypothesis If he had deny'd any Proposition in my Argument or any consequence drawn from it I should have known what reply to have made but I cannot apprehend how this Observation upon Comets does in the least affect my Argument nor imagine to what purpose it was brought in here but to amuse some thoughtless Reader He tells us farther that the Laws Properties and Operations of Bodies which we find established here on Earth do not universally obtain in the Atmospheres of Comets This I own to be an Answer not only to this one Argument but to all that can be said against his Theory But may not any other Theory be defended at the same rate Might not Dr. Burnet have maintained his Theory this way And when it was objected against it that heavy Bodies such as Earth Clay and Stones could not swim upon Oil or Water would it not have been easy for him to have said that Bodies had then other Laws Properties and Operations than they have now and that it was at that time the Law of Nature that the heaviest Bodies should swim uppermost and the lightest fall to the bottom Tho' one would think that it were as impossible that there should be such a Law of motion as that a Proposition in Euclid should be false If the Laws of motion were arbitrary and changeable why should the Mathematicians pretend to demonstrate them as necessary consequences from their principles Let us suppose a Vectis in one of Mr. Whiston's Comets and two powers apply'd to its Brachia upon which they act perpendicularly so that the powers be to one another in a proportion reciprocal to the length of their Brachia It is actually impossible but these two powers must act equally the one against the other or that one of them unassisted by any other cause should be able to move the other against its direction Since effects must be always proportional to their adequate causes And yet according to Mr. Whiston's position this Law of Nature perhaps is only true in our Earth and not in any Planet or Comet whatsoever By this Answer Mr. Whiston has granted me all that I design'd to prove viz. That the Earth was not form'd according to the known Laws of Mechanism but by the efficacy of the Divine Spirit which mov'd upon the face of the Waters It was said in the Remarks that there is no need of a hot Central solid to solve the origine of Springs and such other Phaenomena of nature they being better accounted for by other means To this it is answered that the reality of an internal heat within the bowels of the Earth is a matter of fact and must be accounted for whatever becomes of Springs I always allowed an internal heat but thought it might be accounted for without a hot internal solid and I refer him to what has been said upon this subject in the Examination of the Reflections on the Theory Mr. Whiston thinks that the account I refer to for the origination of Fountains is not so universal as to stand in no need of subterraneous vapours But since he has given us no reason for this thought of his I need say no more to it but that I think otherwise I am sure it is evident by Calculation that the Vapours raised by the heat of the Sun from the Sea are alone sufficient to serve all our Rivers and Fountains with Water And nature never makes use of two distinct causes where one would do for then the effect would be greater than it ought to be I told him that he receded without necessity from the literal sense in supposing that the formation of the Sun Moon and Stars mention'd in the first of Genesis is to be only understood of their being made visible and of their appearing to an eye placed in the Earth But since he desires to know my reasons for this opinion I must tell him that his interpretation seems to be extreamly forced and no way agreeable with the design of the sacred Pen-men Moses's narration is plain and simple and throughout the whole he does not affect to speak either Metaphorically or Allegorically but he delivers it as certain matter of fact which we are firmly to believe He plainly mentions the Creation of the Sun Moon and Stars and makes the production of them a distinct days work by its self In expressing their formation the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he made is used that is found afterwards in the 25th verse where there is an account given of the production of beasts and therefore Moses seems to have design'd that the word should be taken in both places in the same sense Besides all this it is certain that Moses did not speak of things as they appeared or would have appeared to an Eye placed in a muddy fluid since there was no one then in being to whom they could have appeared From all these considerations I think it evident that it was Moses's intention to be understood in a real and literal meaning I desire Mr. Whiston to consider what is said more at large upon this subject in the Examination of the Reflections on the Theory But after all I do not see that Mr. Whiston's reasons prove any impossibility in Moses's account of the Creation all that I think he proves in his long discourse is that the plain and simple account that Moses gives us is not agreeable to his Theory to his way of thinking or to the method by which he would have the World produced His Theory supposes that the Sun upon the second day before it became visible raised as many Vapours from the Earth as were sufficient to sill all the Seas Lakes and Rivers that were in the Primitive Earth Here I thought he assign'd a cause no ways proportional to the effect For since the Sun even when it shines very strongly and directly upon our Ocean does in a whole year raise but the thousandth part of our present Ocean into Vapour how can it be supposed that it could raise as much Vapour in that time as would fill the Seas Lakes and Rivers of our Primitive Earth when all
little more than three to one their difference in that case arising only from the more direct action of the Sun in Summer than in Winter whereas in the present case our Summers heat is to our Winters heat in a greater proportion than that of seven to one All the effect that would follow from this attraction is this Both the fluid on the Abyss and the Central solid would be attracted by the Comet but the fluid on the Abyss being nearer to it than the other would be more strongly attracted and because the solid Crust by reason of the firmness and union of its parts cannot move faster to the Comet than the Central solid does it is evident from thence that it must be pressed only by the difference of attraction or by that force by which the fluid in the Abyss is drawn more towards the Comet than the Central solid is and seeing the fluid has acquired no velocity or impetus by motion it is clear from what is already prov'd and by what is more fully demonstrated by Borell in his 24.25 and 26. Chapters of his Book De vi percussionis that the force of the fluid thus pressing will be infinitely less than what it would be if it had acquired any determinate degree of velocity by motion And since Mr. Whiston seems to acknowledge that a great impulse of the fluid would be necessarily required to break and disjoyn the Crust the small force arising from the pressure of the fluid can never be able to produce so great an effect What Mr. Whiston says of a Floor of disjoyn'd Planks laid cross the Thames that may as well be suppos'd to stop the Tide or the ascent of the Waters as the Crust of the Earth the Tide of the Abyss is I think no parallel case For it is not the attraction of the Moon that is the immediate cause of the Tide in the Thames but it arises solely from the check and great impulse that the Waters receive from the motion of the Sea by which they are driven backwards with violence and are made to ascend up the River and produce Tides But if Mr. Whiston will still assert that the Strata or subsiding Columns were separated and disjoyn'd like so many loose Planks tho' it contradicts what he has said in another place * Vinlic pag. 17. yet granting that it was so I shall from thence evidently demonstrate that there could no Water arise upon that very account from the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth as shall be shown in its proper place The New Theory supposes that the fourty days rain mentioned in the History of the Deluge was caused by the vast quantity of Vapours that were in the Comets tail which being very much rarify'd and expanded would immediately mount up again into the Air after their fall upon the Earth and descend again in violent and outragious Rains Against this it was objected that the incredible velocity with which these Vapours descended and the great resistance they met with in their descent thro' the Air together with the force by which they fell upon the ground must of necessity have condensed them into Water Here he answers that tho' the greatest part of the Vapours should be condensed into Rain yet 't is hard that I will not allow many of them to escape the same enough at least to make a constant fourty days Rain for it is strange to him that so thin a Body as our Air lying in so small a compass about the Earth should have the good luck to stop and condense all and every part of so immense and swift a descending Column of Vapours As strange and hard as it is yet I cannot see how its possible any should escape being condensed If there were any void Canals in our Air thro' which some Vapours might descend we might then allow him his Hypothesis but since it is evident from the nature of our Air that its impossible there should be any such empty spaces it is certain that there is not one of these Vapours but must meet with Air wherever it moves in our Atmosphere which it must therefore force out of its way and because it is supposed to move so prodigiously swift as to descend 860. miles in a minute the resistance it will meet with from every particle of Air must be vastly great and must therefore necessarily condense it But if I should allow him that these Vapours were not condensed in their descent thro' the Air yet to imagine that they should be not condensed when they fall with so prodigious a swiftness as he allows them upon the Earth Water or any other thing that will stop their motion is such a fancy as needs no confutation if they had such a strange velocity as he speaks of they must penetrate and destroy all Humane and other Animal Bodies so that such a shower as this one day would have done the business of a Deluge and there would have been no occasion for other thirty nine days Rain But after all this Mr. Whiston grants that the Vapours might be condensed in their fall but yet he says that their heat which at first rarify'd them and had continued their expansion in the Comets tail would immediately after their fall rarify them again and raise them into new Vapour But if so I cannot see how this will answer the account that Moses gives us of the Deluge For he tells us that the encrease of the Waters was gradual and produced in a great measure by fourty days Rain and that they continually encreased and prevailed upon the Earth for the space of 150. days whereas by this Theory the Deluge must have hapned all of a suddain according to it the very first day all the Waters that came from the Comet must have fall'n upon the Earth and by consequence the Waters that were raised from the Abyss must have immediately ascended so that if this Theory were true the Deluge must be accomplished in one day and not in 150 for as to the Vapours which were raised and continu'd to fall for fourty days unless the water was very scalding hot indeed that would be very inconsiderable and would rather diminish than encrease the quantity of Waters upon the Earth untill they again descended in Rain I come now to consider the way Mr. Whiston raises the Fluid from the Abyss He supposes that the great weight of the Water which lay upon the Crust would depress it and make it sink deeper into the Abyss and by that means force and squeeze the Fluid thro' the fissures and cracks of the Earth But against this I positively demonstrated that no pressure of the Fluid whatsoever could make the Crust sink deeper into the Abyss In answer to this he is pleas'd to tell me That my demonstration supposes either that not the water on the Earth but in the Fissures did contribute to the raising of the Fluid thro' them or that the several Columns had
free liberty and could subside as far as occasion should be which he has in his Book shewed they could not or that a pressure from a Column specifically heavier than the Fluid is necessary to raise it upwards Because Mr. Whiston answers my demonstration as if he did not rightly understand it I will here put it into a clearer light and apply it more particularly to the present case Mr. Whiston says That this demonstration supposes that the several Columns of Earth had their free liberty and could subside as far as occasion should be which he has shewed in his Book they could not It seems then that he owns that the Columns would not subside if they had their free liberty but if they had not their free liberty to subside then he thinks they would subside or sink deeper into the Abyss that is in short Those Columns would not sink deeper if there was nothing to hinder them but if there was any thing that could hinder them from sinking deeper then indeed they would and must sink deeper This is so strange and surprising a way of reasoning that I scarcely believe it could have come from Mr. Whiston It looks much more like the reasoning of his learned friend I should have thought that if he had been left to himself to argue the case he would have concluded that because the Crust could not sink deeper when it was left at its liberty or when there was nothing to hinder it It would have certainly so much the rather not sunk further when there was an impediment Let us now suppose this Cylinder bored with holes parallel to its Axis then indeed it would sink so far within the fluid till the water within the holes came to be of such a height as to press as strongly upon the fluid under them as the solid Cylinder does upon the fluid under it and there it would rest at the height for example of half the Cylinder if the water were twice as heavy as the wood Let us suppose in the next place that there were long Tubes fixed in the holes to preserve the fluid which is to be poured afterwards above on the Cylinder from running into the holes and then let Oil or any other fluid lighter then wood be poured on as high as the very top of the Vessel this Oil would indeed press upon the Cylinder and make it sink deeper into the fluid which would rise up within the holes till it pressed as strongly upon the surface of the water under it as the Oil and Cylinder both together doe upon the surface of the water under them Now in this case since the water is of a greater intensive gravity than both the Cylinders of Wood and Oil it is evident that it is impossible the fluid within the holes can rise so high as the top MN for then the fluid which lyes immediately under that which is contain'd within the holes and the Tube suffering a greater pressure than the rest of the fluid under the Cylinder will immediately descend and force that which is under the Cylinder to ascend So that tho' the solid Body must in this case sink deeper yet it is plain that none of the water within the Vessel can by this means be brought upon the surface Mr. Whiston says that it is evident that the pressure of two entire miles over each Columns being so prodigiously great must squeeze the fluid upwards thro' the fissures and thereby throw out the incumbent water and perhaps it self upon the face of the Earth But as evident as he says this matter is I must sincerely declare that I cannot see how any such effect can follow from a pressure after this manner I hope Mr. Whiston does not act here like some new Philosophers who when they are to deliver some false dark or incomprehensible notion generally usher it in with a speech about clearness and distinctness and tell us That 't is evident 't is plain 't is demonstrative But rather than suspect such dealing from him I could suppose that the fault was in my own apprehension if I had not demonstration on my side to shew that from such positions no such effect can follow Does not he suppose this Crust to be composed of Columns of 200. miles in depth Did not they subside close by one another and form a solid Arch upon the Abyss according to him If so those fissures and cracks upon the Mountains like so many windows in a Vault would not much weaken the strength of the Fabrick but still it would be able to sustain a much greater weight Would not the water that came from the Comet immediately spread it self equally over the face of the Crust And by this every Column would be equally pressed and therefore one could not sink deeper than another What is it then that could force the fluid thro' the fissures However let us suppose the pressure much stronger upon one place than the rest if the solid Column upon which this pressure lay was closely united and cemented to all the other circumambient ones how could it be broken off from the rest It is impossible to imagine that the weight of the waters above it could do this But if it was before separated and disjoyn'd by the Tide on the Abyss or any other cause would not the water run down in the fissures which separate it from the rest and instead of depressing elevate the loose Crust as I have already demonstrated We cannot well suppose this part which was most pressed if it was loose from the rest to be so closely joyn'd to them as to leave no space for the fluid to descend For it would be a strange chance that would make the surfaces of the Columns so exactly fitted and adjusted to each other Besides if they were so because the Arch A B is greater than C D it is impossible that in such a case it could descend or be forced downwards But after all if it could descend I have already demonstrated that none of the water in the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth could by that pressure be raised so high as the tops of the Mountains that it might from thence spread it self upon the surface of the Earth If Mr. Whiston does not see the evidence of this reasoning I must leave him to be satisfy'd by his own experiment * Pag. 307. only instead of a Cylinder of Stone or Marble I desire him to take one of Wood and if by pouring Oil upon it he can raise any water from the bottom to the surface of the Cylinder I will give over all reasoning upon this subject but if he finds that his experiment will not succeed as it certainly cannot I hope he will own that he is in an error and then I doubt not but he will think I had reason to speak peremptorily upon this point when I said that it was demonstratively evident that by no sort of pressure of the incumbent fluid the
Abyss could be forced upwards to spread it self upon the surface of the Earth which words I do not think fit to retract I have already considered the ways Mr. Whiston has taken to bring waters upon the Earth to make a Deluge Let us next see how dexterous he is in removing them In my Remarks on his New Theory by Calculation I shew'd that there must have been at least twenty three Oceans of water to drown the Earth at the time of the Deluge One would think that it were a hard task to remove such a load of waters Mechanically Yet he tells us that he thinks there is no manner of difficulty in it In his Theory he supposes that the waters descended thro' the perpendicular fissures and cracks which were out-lets to so great a part of them before and by that means Saturated all the Pores of the dry Earth that was capable to contain mighty quantities of water Now in the Remarks on the New Theory I showed that none of the waters could descend thro' the cracks and fissures of the Earth for they of necessity must have been all full at the time of the Deluge since water cannot lye upon the surface of the Earth till all the cracks holes and fissures in it be first filled This is so evident both to sense and experience that it is beyond all contradiction true it being as impossible to make water lye on the Earth before all its cracks pitts and holes are filled as it is to make a Vessel retain water whose bottom is bored thro' with many holes Instead of answering this Argument Mr. Whiston tells us That certainly the Pores and Interstices of thirty or fourty miles of dry Earth are capable of receiving three or four miles of water into them and certainly the same fissures that permitted the ascent of the fluids from beneath before would after the ceasing of that force permit the descent of the waters of the Deluge and by degrees and length of time draw them off I find Mr. Whiston is generally most certain where other men are most doubtful How can he be certain or so much as suppose that the waters could lye above the mouths of the cracks and fissures to the height of two miles perpendicularly and none of them run in to fill them all the while What new Laws of Hydro-staticks has he discovered It is generally supposed to be the nature of a fluid to descend thro' whatever holes and fissures it can find and 'till they be once fill'd it is impossible it should rest above the mouths of those fissures especially to the height of two perpendicular miles For so high it must have been above most of those cracks since most part of the Hills in which he supposes those fissures were do not exceed above a miles height Before the water could have risen to such a height not only the perpendicular holes and fissures but even the Horizontal ones must have been absolutely filled I cannot therefore enough wonder how he can imagine so much water forced thro' the Earth upon its surface and all those cracks and fissures remaining empty all the time I am surpriz'd to hear him tell us of dry Earth that was capable of receiving vast quantities of water for I cannot suppose an Earth that has been watered by eleven Oceans of water gushing thro' its Pores to be very dry Another man would rather think that it must have been very wet for it is not to be imagined that so much water could pass thro' the Crust without leaving as much of it self as the Crust could hold behind it since water rather than ascend will remain in any Pore or empty space that can contain it But let us now allow that the Earth or the Crust was as dry as if there had not one drop of water remained in it yet the Earth thro' which water generally can sink is but a few feet in depth the rest of the Crust is composed of a tough Clay common Stone Whinstone Coal Metalline Ores and the like and I believe he can never perswade Mankind that there are so many Pores in such heavy close solid Bodies as are capable to contain twenty two Oceans of water But after all let us suppose that the fissures were empty and that they were capable to receive the whole twenty two Oceans of water Let us suppose that the water lay over them without descending into them that is let us grant to Mr. Whiston so many impossibilities Yet even all these suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena of the draining of the waters from the Earth after the Deluge This I think I can prove easily since that according to the Mosaical account of the Deluge the waters were removed from off the face of the Earth in one half year whereas if they had been removed by the method of the New Theory they could not have been drained from the Earth in many hundred years And therefore upon this account Mr. Whiston's suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena To shew this let us suppose the mouths of all the cracks and fissures to have been just equal to the mouths of all the Rivers in the Earth tho' if we consider how narrow and small they are in respect of the mouths of the Rivers we cannot allow them to have been near so much It was proved in the Examination of Dr. Burnet's Theory that all the waters that run thro' the Rivers would fill the Ocean if it were empty in the space of 812. years and consequently if at the time of the Deluge the water descended no faster thro' the fissures it is evident that upon the former supposition it would be 812. years before the Earth had received one Ocean into its Bowels and therefore it would be 17864. years before twenty two Oceans could be removed thro' those fissures But let us now suppose that the velocity of the water descending was ten times greater than the velocity of the Rivers we shall still find that the waters would take 1786. 4. years to run thro' the fissures So that altho' Mr. Whiston has been pleas'd to ridicule my fondness for Miracles yet since all the natural causes he has assign'd are so vastly disproportionate to the effects produc'd he may at last perhaps be convinc'd that the easiest safest and indeed the only way is to ascribe 'em to Miracles FINIS
Theorist brings against the possibility of any such Waters are sufficiently answered in the 30th and 31st Pages of the Examination After this the Defender passes to the second Chapter of the Examination where I find he has but little to say to the arguments tho' he would fain have them appear small and trivial I affirm in that Chapter that most of those bodies which compos'd the outward Crust of the Earth were heavier than Water and by consequence must descend both through the Oil and Water also and that tho' small grains of dust specifically heavier than Oil if thrown upon it would not descend because of its tenacity yet if the weight of these particles chanced to be increased by the additions of more they must fall down To this He makes answer that the parts which formed the Crust were not huge lumps of solid matter but little tenuious particles or small dust Did not I make the same supposition and yet show'd that tho' these small particles of dust when they first fell might have been sustain'd by the Oil yet when their bulk came to be increased by the falling of a great many others their weight would be augmented mented proportionally upon which account they must descend like other huge lumps of solid matter and that long before ever they could form a solid Crust that would be necessary to support the weight of all the rest of the descending particles But the Defender has wisely passed over this part of the argument knowing it would be a hard matter to answer it I wâ—sh the Theorist or his Defender would be so kind as to give us a specimen of this Operation for the making of an Earth and because it wou'd be too hard a task to make a whole One I would desire them to make a small portion of One let them take a Vessel in which let some Water be pour'd in and after that some Oil and I would have them try if by throwing on the Oil small grains of Sand Gravel Clay Stone and other Materials heavier than Water they can form a Crust and we shall begin to think the rest of their Theory possible if this Experiment succeeds I had another Objection against such a formation of the Crust upon the consideration of the great height from which these particles would fall by which their force and celerity must be very much increased and therefore of necessity they must pierce the oily liquid and break thro' to the bottom this the Defender allows of providing these particles descended like stones or any other ponderous bodies but He affirms these particles descended not in that manner but rather like flakes of Snow hovering and playing in the Air their course being often interrupted and diverted and their force broken before they arriv'd at the end of their journey To this I answer that tho' these particles were small yet they were ponderous were small yet they were ponderous being of the same intrinsick gravity with the matter of which the outward Crust of the Earth is made up and upon that account we cannot suppose them to be like flakes of Snow whose weight is but small and their surfaces very large in proportion to their bulk which therefore must suffer a far greater resistance than we can suppose these descending particles to have done Besides if we consider the great height from whence these particles fell which the Theorist affirms to be as high as the Moon and the thinness of the Air at such a height which must be extreamly pure when Mr. Newton calculates that now at a Semidiamaters distance from the Earth the Air is so rare that one inch of our common Air near the surface if so much expanded as that of Saturn we must of necessity think that the descending particles would not meet with so great a resistance as the Defender imagines For what ever interruption or diversion they met with from the Air in their descent would be inconsiderable But the greatest part of it would arise from their falling on other particles which were also descending tho' not so fast by which tho' the velocity of the swiftest body would be diminished yet according to the Laws of motion the momentum or quantity of motion of both bodies taken together would remain the same and by consequence their force upon the oily Orb would be also the same I know no way the Theorist can take to answer these objections but by supposing that the Creation was neither in Spring Summer nor Autumn as is commonly suppos'd but that it was in the Winter when both the watry and oily Orbs were frozen and had consistence enough to sustain these particles till they were formed into a solid Arch able to sustain it self and if he will embrace such an opinion I shall not take the trouble of refuting it having so many others of the same weight upon my hands The Reader may observe that He takes not the least notice of the argument I brought against him from Scripture to prove that there were Mettals in the primitive Earth which he plainly denies After these things this Author comes to quarrel with me for making insinuations and suggestions as if the Theorist did not own the hand of a particular and extraordinary providence in the formation of the Earth I own I did make such insinuations and I leave the Reader to judge whether I had not reason to make them He has openly rejected the History of the formation of the Earth as delvier'd by Moses and has deduced it purely from natural causes and the necessary Laws of Mechanism Now if the matter of the Earth from a Chaotick state did of necessity form and settle it self into a habitable Earth from the sole necessary principles of Mechanism and Gravitation as the Theorist has deduced it I would fain know how this opinion differs from the Epicurean which the Theorist so deservedly derides I know the Theorist talks very much of Providence both ordinary and extraordinary and makes most excellent Discourses against the Epicureans for denying of it which I was so far from not reading or forgetting or even willfully misrepresenting that I transcrib'd some of them in the Examination as an argument against his own Theory It is a common thing with Theorists and Philosophers who are great Politicians in their way to disown any opinion which they think will bring upon them the displeasure of any considerable part of Mankind tho' it follows plainly from their Principles or if that cannot be done they hide and colour it the best way they can that it may not appear too open and plain Thus the Theorist protests that he meant no harm when he affirm'd the History of the Creation as it was deliver'd by Moses to be fabulous and ridicul'd the Scriptural relation of the Fall and I have really the charity to believe him yet hereby he has set the Atheists and Theists in a method of attacking our Religion and given them
Schemes by which they think they can defend their own Principles After this the Defender passes to consider what is said in the third Chapter of the Examination about Mountains He owns it to be a subject that deserves consideration and He says that if the Examiner can prove that there were Mountains in the primitive Earth He will undertake that the Theorist shall make no further defence of his Theory The Theorists great argument why the face of the primitive Earth was smooth and without Mountains depended on the supposition that the Chaos from whence it took its original was perfectly a fluid Mass This I affirm'd to be a precarious Hypothesis without any foundation in nature since the greatest part of the bodies we have in the Earth are hard and solid and there not being a quantity of Water in Nature sufficient enough to moisten and liquify them the Chaos could not be so fluid as 't was necessary â—t should be to form it self into an uniform smooth body Besides that the greatest part of them such as Stones and Mettals are uncapable of being liquify'd by water The Defender's reply to this is Very good what is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm that there were Stones or Mettals in the Chaos or that they were liquify'd by Water The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition I hope the Defender will not think this any answer to the objection I am sure none of his Readers can I thought that it concern'd the Theorist very much to prove his Chaos to be a fluid Mass of matter for otherwise it is not necessary that it should have its surface smooth regular and uniform at least it is fitting that the objections against its fluidity should be answer'd For if the Examiner can prove that the Chaos was not alltogether so fluid as the Theorist imagines and from thence shew that there was no necessity that the face of the Earth should be smooth and without Mountains then the Theorists argument must be of little force and that objection will still very much weaken the truth of the Theory I freely own indeed that the World was produced from a Chaos such a one namely as is recorded to us in Scripture but I am far from granting that the Theorist's notion is any ways agreeable to it he supposes that all the Elements Air Water and Earth with all the principles of Terrestial Bodies were reduc'd into one fluid Mass and mingled with one another so that the parts of any one sort could not be discern'd as distinct from the rest This I suppose is a new sort of Chaos which never existed any where but in fancy It were easie for me here to assume the Defenders method and argue against it by putting him questions how when and where was this mixing and blending together of all the Materials of Heaven and Earth By whom upon what design and for what purpose was this done Was it to the end that they might all settle themselves again in order and each take its place according to its specifick gravity but if the great parts of the World were for the most part so before what necessity was there for disturbing them only that they might range themselves orderly again He would do well also to tell us from whence he had this account of the Chaos from Sacred or Profane Writers if from the latter we are to value their authority no further than they are agreeable to the Scriptures since it would be no hard task to prove that it was from the Sacred History that the Heathen Writers first drew their knowledge of the Chaos which they afterwards corrupted with their own fancies In the Holy Scriptures I can find no account of the mixing and reducing of all the Materials of the World into one fluid Mass Moses indeed tells us that the Earth was Tohu and Bohu which we render without Form and Void and can we from thence conclude that all the parts of it were fluid and mixed together We may allow that the Jews understood the sense of these words better than we or any Heathen Writers and they give them a contrary meaning for according to the Syriack Translation those words signifie that the Earth was without either Habitation or Cultivation Terra erat deserta inculta in the Chaldaick Paraphrase they signifie deserta vacua The Targum of Jonahan B. Vziel supposes their meaning to be this Terra autem erat stupor inanitas vasta à filiis hominum vacua ab omni jumento with which the Jerusalem Targum does well agree according to which Paraphrase they signifie that the Earth was stupor inanitas desolatio à filiis hominum omni bestia vacua as that Paraphrase is render'd in Latin We may conclude from thence therefore that the Jews thought that all that was mean't by the words Tohu and Bohu was that the Earth was Void and Uncultivated without out Ornaments and Inhabitants Men or Beasts or any sort of Ammals Nor was the opinion of the ancient Christian Fathers any wise different from that of the Jews as to this matter Tertullian in his book against Hermogenes says Vnde compertus es Hermogenes uniformem inconditam illam fuisse 〈◊〉 ateriam quoe ut invisibilis latebat and in the 30th Chapter he plainly proves from Scripture that there was not a confus'd heap of matter mixed and blended together out of which all things were made St. Ambrose in the 8th Chapter of his Hexameron says that the Earth was incomposit a utpote solertis agricolae inarata culturis quia adhuc deerat cultor and again Terra crat incomposita quia nuda gignentium nec thoris herbosa riparum nec opaca nemoribus nec laeta segetibus nec umbrosa superciliis montium nec odora floribus nec grata vinetis St. Basil tells us that the true beauty and composition of the Earth arises from its great fertility * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his 2d Homily in Hexam near the beginning whereby it is productive of all sorts of Vegetables such as Plants of all kinds lofty and tall Trees as well those that bear Fruit as those that afford us none fragrant and sweet Flowers differing both in colour and smell and the Earth says he being naked and unfurnished with any of those sorts of Ornaments might well be said by the Scriptures to be Void and without Form In those discourses of the ancient Jews and primitive Fathers there is not one word of a perfectly fluid Mass of matter out of which all things were made there is nothing there of the mixing and blending together of the Elements and all the Materials of Heaven and Earth in their Writings we cannot see that such a Chaos as the Theorist fancies was ever either deliver'd or suppos'd we find that their notion about the origination of the World was very different from the Theorists whose Hypothesis is not therefore
founded on any authority which is sufficient to induce us to believe it Nor has his opinion any more foundation in reason than authority for if we should allow of the Theorists account of the Waters that are in the Earth and from thence by computation compare the solid bodies with those that are fluid we shall find that the liquids are not the hundred thousandth part of the solid bodies in the Earth nay if we should take in the Atmosphere the whole System of fluids will not amount to the thousandth part of the solid bodies from which it plainly appears that the Chaos cannot be thought to have been in any manner an intirely fluid Mass but rather a hard and solid one For if we take hard bodies as Earth or Clay and fluid as Water or Oyl and mix them together in the proportion of eight thousand to one or even in that of a thousand to one that is take one inch of fluid matter for a thousand inches of solid matter the fluids will have but a very small effect on the solids Since therefore the whole composition of the Chaos when all its parts were mixed and blendeed together must not have been fluid but rather hard and solid I hope the Defender will allow the objection to be to the purpose and of force against the Theory which is founded on a contrary supposition Having thus prov'd that the far greatest part of those bodies which compos'd the Chaos were firm and solid I think it easie to shew why there is no necessity that an Earth form'd from such a composition should be smooth and regular for it is not so with solids as with fluids where all range themselves according to their intensive gravities and settle themselves into a regular and even surface whereas solids take their place according to the order they happen to be in that body coming soonest to its rest which is nearest the Centre without any respect had to gravity or levity and where these bodies happen'd to be thickest or highest or their parts less coherent there also after their fall would their surfaces be highest and the face of the whole would be very rugged and mountainous the liquids if we should allow them to separate from the solids would descend and fill the Holes Cavities and Caverns that were made by the falling of these irregular peices on one another and what was more than sufficient for this might spread its self upon the Valleys and leave great protuberances of the solid Mass as great as any of our Mountains standing out above the surface of the Water But granting that the greatest part of the Chaos was a fluid Mass I brought another argument in the Examination to shew how the face of the Earth might be mountainous and uneven by supposing in the Chaos a great many bodies which by being in a great measure hollow or fastned to some other matter of less gravity than that of the fluid Chaos would swim on the surface of it after the subsiding of all the rest and some parts of them standing above the surface of the watery Orb would form Mountains The Defender answers this as he does most other objections by a question Who told me that these lumps of matter were hollow Is not this precarious or rather Chimerical and ridiculous I answer I came to know this after the same manner that the Theorist knew there were neither Mountains nor Seas in the Primitive Earth if it be a precarious Hypothesis I cannot help it but it is my comfort that if every thing that 's precarious be also Chimerical and ridiculous I know whole Theories that will be so likewise After this he falls into a strain of very learned questions What made those solid lumps hollow when or where or how were their inward parts scoped out of them I know none but Theorists that can give a positive answer to such nice questions I am content to say they might have been so order'd by God Almighty at first for that very end that they might swim on the Abyss tho' another Theorist says that the fluid Abyss was much denser and heavier than the Mountains and therefore they could not sink and it is indifferent to me which of these answers he takes or if he find out some other of his own which he can easily do if he has a mind to it that he will like better It is enough for me to shew that there is no necessity that an Earth arising from a Chaos should have its surface smooth and uniform as the Theorist pretends it must But this Defender thinks that it is my opinion that Mountains were really sorm'd after this manner and from thence he proceeds to collect from my Principles and Concessions that there could be no Sea in the Primitive Earth and that an Orb of Earth must have been built over the Abyss and after all he concludes that I have no good hand in making Mountains This way of writing would almost tempt me to believe that he had never read over that Chapter which he pretends to answer for by the reading of it one may plainly see that it was not my design to settle this or any other new Theory of my own about the formation of Mountains nay I positively declar'd that I thought there were other principles concurring to the formation of Mountains besides gravitation and the known laws of motion my business was onely to shew the weakness of the Theorist's arguments and that an Earth arising from a Chaos might have been uneven rugged and mountainous notwithstanding he asserted that it must necessarily form its self into a smooth regular and uniform Figure For my part I think it absolutely indifferent to the question what way Mountains were made at the beginning of the World whether by Mechanical causes or by the immediate hand of God Almighty or if by hollowing and making a channel for the Sea the Earth was rais'd and laid upon the dry land to form Mountains which by the by is not so ridiculous or so repugnant to Calculation as the Theorist imagines it was sufficient to my purpose to shew that there was no necessity that the face of the Primitive Earth should be without Mountains Having thus laid open the weakness of the Theorists arguments I endenvoured in the next place to shew the great use and advantage that Mountains afforded to mankind The Theorist asserted that they did not consist of any proportion of parts that is referable to any design or which had the least footsteps of Art or Counsel This I thought was a bold and ill grounded assertion since it is certain that they are so far from being placed upon the Earth without any design or contrivance that they are justly reckon'd by the Philosophers amongst the most useful as well as the most stupendous parts of nature without them we could have had no Rivers or Springs which are things necessary to us not only for our Commodious living bur
World once perished by a Deluge of Waters and that it was to perish again by Fire both which are arguments enough for a Providence and of gods particular care of the World this I take to be his plain meaning except St. Peter be to be understood in an Allegorical sense as well as Moses After this general discourse he comes to a more particular consideration of the inconveniencies alledg'd against the parallelism of the Axis of the Earth with the Axis of the Ecliptick One argument I brought was that by the present position of the Earths Axis we receiv'd more of the Suns heat than if it had mov'd always in the Equator and if our heat at present is not too great for us as without doubt it is not it was a very good reason why the present position should be esteem'd better than that the Theorist calls a right one wherein we should not have so much of the Suns influence as we have The Defender thinks this is no argument against the Theory for says he if the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates who would desire the extream heats of Summer I answer every one that observes how necessary the Summers heat is to the production of Vegetables and the ripening of their seed which could never be brought to any perfection did the Sun shine always in the Equator whereby the action of the Sun in our Latitude would be little more than half of what it is at present in a Summers day which therefore could never be sufficient for the growth and perfection of Vegetables But says he how does this appear supposing the heat constant Are there no Vegetables in Jupiter which has still the position the Theorist gave the Primitive Earth and which is vastly further distant from the Sun and by consequence must have much less of his heat Whether there are Vegetables in Jupiter neither the Theorist nor I can determine for we were never there to see and I believe it was never revealed to him or any body else that there are But supposing there are vegetables there what is that to us Does he think them of the same nature and texture of parts that ours are of Or that ours if they were transplanted thither could grow and ripen in such a cold soil when it is certain that they require at least twenty five times a greater heat or influence from the Sun than is in that Planet Besides it is requisite as I shew'd in the Examination that our plants and vegetables should have very different degrees of heat and therefore there must be such changes and alterations in the seasons as are necessary to produce the design'd effect for that heat which is requir'd for the first growth and vegetation of a plant will not be sufficient for the ripening and perfecting of the seed thereof and that which is necessary for the bringing the seed to perfection would quite wither the green and tender herb and therefore since this variety of seasons and alterations of heat cannot be obtain'd either in Jupiter or in the Theorist's Antediluvian Earth it is plain that our plants could never have been brought to perfection in either of those places But it seems this Defender is of the opinion that the plants and vegetables of the Primitive Earth were of a different nature and constitution from those we have now so that he must think that the nature of all our plants was perfectly alter'd and chang'd or that God Almighty having destroy'd the old was pleas'd to give us a quite new species of vegetables and plants this is a miracle that is recorded no where in Scripture or any where else that I know of and I hope he will not think us oblig'd on his word to believe it I affirm'd also that if the Earth had such a position as the Theorist assign'd it that the greatest part of it wou'd not be habitable For he himself acknowledges that the Torrid Zone was uninhabitable in that Earth and I am sure that the greatest part of the two temperate Zones would not have sufficient heat to ripen their Corn and Fruits and consequently would be nothing else but a Desart To this he replys with this question How much less habitable would it be than the present Earth where the open Sea which was not then takes up half its surface I answer that upon the same consideration I cannot see how any part of it should be habitable for there being no open Sea whose surface is expos'd to the heat of the Sun I cannot imagine how there could be vapours enough drawn up to furnish the Earth with Waters Dews and Mists For when it is requisite that one half of the Earths surface should be cover'd with water on purpose to furnish vapours enough for Rain and Rivers how can it be supply'd if there were no Sea at all Can any Man suppose that the Sun acted as freely thro' a Crust of an immense thickness to raise vapours as it does now upon the surface of the open Sea This by the way I think is a very good argument against the Theorist who asserted that the Primitive Earth had no Sea But the Defender thinks that it would be very hard if the seasons of the Year were the same as they are now that the Inhabitants of the Earth should be confin'd to Herbs Fruits and Water especially in the colder Climates where the Winters are so long and the cold vehement this he thinks would be a most unmerciful imposition Really as hard and unmerciful as it is there are a very considerable number of people in these cold Countries the greatest part of whose Food is Bread Herbs Roots Milk Cheese and the like and who seldom tast any Flesh-meats And why might not the Antediluvians lead the same kind of life I cannot see that the imposition is harder upon one than the other The Defender says that the change of the position of the Earth's Axis is matter of fact and must be prov'd from History And he wishes the Examiner would consult Antiquity which would give him a more favourable opinion of the Theory as to this point One would imagine by this that this Gentleman had the Observations of some Antediluvian Astronomers to produce who had found that the inclination of the Earths Axis was chang'd from a perpendicular into the present oblique posture But instead of those he only quotes some Philosophers that did not live within some thousands of Years of the time when this change was suppos'd to be made What credit is there to be given to such a Tradition Can we imagine that there can be any thing certainly known from Authors that liv'd so long after the time of this change Especially when these men have said a thousand other things that neither the Theorist nor any body else can believe And yet if we consider what they have said we shall find it but very little to his purpose Diogenes
other causes than the heat of the Sun Tho' the arguments I have already given clearly prove that there was no rarefaction of the vapours caused by the heat of the Sun within the Abyss yet I shew'd that granting the Suns heat had reach't the Abyss even then an Universal Deluge could not follow from thence because I demonstrated by a Calculation that if the Suns heat drew vapours from the Abyss sufficient to furnish the Rivers on the Earth it must have exhausted this great treasure long before the time of the Deluge This manner of Examining the Defender calls contention and going from one extream to another tho' for my part I think there cannot be fairer dealing than first to prove that his Principles and Hypotheses are false and disagreeable to Nature and then supposing them true to shew that his reasonings upon 'em are false and inconclusive and the causes he assigns are no ways proportionable to the effects he would account for However our Author assures us that there are a great many uncertainties in the computation He knows I did not pretend to give an exact estimation of the Water that the Rivers sent into the Sea I can suppose that I have not come within the truth by one two or three Cubical Miles of Water which is as much as I need to allow nay I will grant him that I have erred a twentieth part or even one half if he pleases and yet the argument will be strong enough For according to the computation the Abyss ought to have been exhausted in the space of 460. Years now from the Creation to the time of the Deluge there were 1600. Years By which it is evident that which ever of these Hypotheses he takes the Abyss must have been empty long before the time of the Deluge But he thinks I go in this Calculation on principles that are not allow'd by the Theorist because I suppose the Waters of the present Sea equal to the Waters of the great Abyss whereas says he there was near twice as much Water in the great deep as is now in the Ocean seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth and the Sea reaches but to the half of it I always presum'd that it was the Theorist's Hypothesis that the Crust fell down upon the Abyss and drove the Waters from their place so that the greatest part of the Waters in the Abyss after they had overflowed the Earth came and settled at last in the Sea There might indeed have been some Water left in the Hollows and Cavities of the Earth but 't would be inconsiderable in respect of the whole and the Theorist himself asserts that if the Earth should disgorge all the Waters in its bowels it would not amount to above half an Ocean and in the Latin Edition he thinks that it is altogether incredible that the Water within the Earth should be as great as what is in the Sea and Rivers So that this Gentleman who asserts that there was almost twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean seems never to have read the Theory or to have understood the Theorist's Hypothesis which he endeavours to defend But what if there were twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean yet even in that case the whole must have been exhausted long before the Deluge since one Ocean could have been drawn up in the space of 460. Years Nay if we suppose that there were but just so many Rivers in the Primitive Earth as there are now in ours whereas in proportion to the dry Land there ought to have been twice as many yet in the space of 1600. Years there is time enough to have the whole Abyss exhausted as is evident by the Calculation The Defender alledges that the Rivers were not supply'd by the vapours only from the Abyss but also from the Earth and Waters upon it This evasion was foreseen and obviated by me in the 165. Page of the Examination where I prov'd that there must be at least the same quantity of vapour exhal'd from the Abyss as was before because the same cause still continuing to act would still produce the same effect and the Abyss having at first furnished the Rivers with a sufficient quantity of Water would still continue to furnish 'em in the same quantity nay rather in a much greater since according to the Theory the heat of the Sun was stronger and stronger every day upon the Abyss and the vapours exhal'd were so many at last that not being all of them able to crowd thro' the Pores they broke the thick Crust of the Earth with their violent effect to expand themselves and fly upwards Thus we see all the shifts and evasions which this Author makes are not of the least weight against my computation But supposing that all the Water in the present Ocean was then in the Abyss yet I prov'd that from the fall of the Crust there could arise no Universal Deluge because the Theorist himself prov'd that there must be at least eight Oceans of Water requir'd to cover the Earth The Defender confesses that the Water in the Abyss was not sufficient to make a Deluge in the nature of a standing Pool over-topping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains as it is usually conceiv'd but the Deluge that rose from the fall of the Crust was rather like a rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping them with its Raging Waves and Impetuous Fluctuations I beg the Theorist's pardon for mistaking him I thought that he design'd to explain Noahs Deluge and not one of his own imagination Now I can easily prove that such a Deluge as this Gentleman conceives is no ways like that which happen'd in the days of Noah For tho' the Theorist computed but eight Oceans of Water that were sufficient to cover the whole Earth above the tops of the highest Mountains yet I determined the quantity more nicely in my Remarks on Mr. Whistons Theory where I prov'd that there must be at least three and twenty Oceans of Water that were necessary for such an effect From which it is evident that the Water in the Abyss could but cover one part of twenty three at a time and the other twenty two parts must remain dry and that after the Water had overflowed this part it must have proceeded to the next and so successively till at last it had overflow'd the whole Earth This is the way that our Author must conceive the Deluge Let us see now what account the Scriptures give us of Noahs Deluge Genes Chap. 7. v. 2. it is said That the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened and the rain was upon the Earth fourty days and fourty nights And again vers 17. And the flood was fourty days upon the Earth and the waters increased and bare up the Ark and it was lift up above the Earth vers 18.
And the waters prevail'd and were increased greatly upon the Earth and the Ark went upon the face of the waters vers 19. And the waters prevail'd exceedingly upon the Earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered vers 20. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered vers 24. And the waters prevail'd upon the Earth an hundred and fifty days Chap. 8. ver 1. And God made a wind to pass over the Earth and the waters asswaged verss 2. The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped and the rain from heaven was restrained vers 3. And the waters returned from off the Earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated ver 5. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month In the tenth month on the fifth day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen We may observe from this that the Scriptures inform us that the whole Earth was under a Deluge at the same time that the waters increased and prevailed gradually every where for the space of 150. days that all the high hills under the whole heavens were covered that all these Mountains lay under Water for several months that the Ark swam and was carry'd up above the Mountains and when the Waters began to abate it rested at last upon one of them that it was the eighth month from the beginning of the Deluge when the tops of the Mountains first began to appear till which time they lay all of them hid and covered with Water Now in the Theorist's imaginary Deluge it is plain as I have already observ'd that there was but a twenty third part of the Earth covered with Water at the same time it is also evident that the Waters could not increase gradually in any one place for the space of 150. days since the whole Earth was to be cover'd over with waters in that time His single Ocean of Water could not stay but the three and twentieth part of that time in one place and therefore it must have gone off from that place and left it dry long before the end of those days Nor is this Idea of a Deluge less consistent with Reason and Philosophy than it is with Scripture Is it possible to conceive a moving wandring Mountain of Water For Water naturally settles its self into a surface concentrical to the Earth and by whatever force or however it should be rais'd into an heap it will immediately spread it self uniformly upon the surface of the Earth and descend by whatever ways it can If therefore we should suppose all the waters in the Abyss drawn or forced up to cover the hills of any one place it will immediately descend and form it self into a surface parallel to the Horizon and so spread its self equally every where upon the Valleys of the Earth leaving the Mountains quite uncover'd The Theorist himself acknowledges that a Mountain of Water is an impossible thing and indeed this notion of a Deluge seems to be so extravagant that I can scarce think that any body will be so credulous as to believe it and yet it is impossible that it can be any other ways if we suppose all the Mountains of the Earth to have been cover'd with an Ocean of Water of no greater dimensions than that assign'd in the Theory which cannot cover more than the three and twentieth part of the Earths surface The Defender in vain alledges that we are to conceive this Ocean as a mighty rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping with its Raging waves and Impetuous Fluctuations all the Mountains for this will not at all take away the absurdity because motion can never multiply any body nor make it to be at more places than one at a time Water can only by motion be in many places successively which will give us the Idea of such a moving heap or Mountain of waters as we have just now prov'd impossible Nor is this notion of a Deluge agreeable to the principles of the Theory For let us suppose the Crust to have been broken by the force of vapours endeavouring to expand themselves it must immediately fall down and drive the Water of the Abyss out of its place some one way and some another this Water will ascend with a very considerable force let us suppose as far as five Miles perpendicular height after which it will descend again and fall to the ground and all this will be by computation in much less time than one day These waters having acquired a great force by their fall will descend very swiftly into the Vallies and Cavities of the Earth and leave both Mountains and Upper-grounds quite uncovered And as the Waters that were raised by the fall of the Crust could cover no more than a twenty third part of the Earths surface so it is evident it could remain but a very short time upon the tops of those Mountains it overflow'd whereas in Noah's Deluge all the Mountains of the Earth lay under water for the space of 150. days Thus I have prov'd that the Deluge the Defender endeavour'd to explain is neither consistent with the holy Scriptures true Reason and Philosophy nor the Principles of the Theory from whence he pretends to deduce it Of the Figure of the Earth THO' what the Theorist has said in relation to the Figure of the Earth be one of his grossest and most palpable errors and tho' there is a positive demonstration that it is of a Figure directly contrary to that he assigns yet his Defender thinks himself oblig'd to maintain it and therefore spends more time and paper about it than upon any other point He is not contented with what has been said by several Mathematicians and Philosophers of the present Age upon this Subject tho' one would think that they knew the methods to determine the Figure of the Earth much better than either the Theorist or himself He is afraid that they will give it against him and therefore he appeals from them to some farther Observations that He and the Theorist point out and direct us to make As to observe for instance whether the extent of a degree be the same in different Latitudes or whether the shadow of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round as also to observe if towards the Poles the return of the Sun to their Horizon be according to the rules of a Sphaerical Surface of the Earth These are the Observations the Theorist would have made to determine the controversy Which I will now consider leaving the Defenders Observations to be examined in a proper place I noted in the Examination that I did not think any Observations that could be made upon different measures of a Degree in different Latitudes could be so nice and exact as would be necessary to determine the point in controversy For supposing that the greatest Diameter of the
not the hundredth part of the difficulty or intricacy of those which he pretends to know Well to convince him I will here repeat the demonstration somewhat plainer than I did in the Examination Let us suppose two bodies moving in two equal Cycloids it is demonstrated by Mr. Hugens that the time of the descent thro' these Cycloids is to the time of the descent thro' the Axis of the Cycloids always in a given proportion viz. as the Semiperiphery of a Circle is to its Diameter and therefore if the time of the descent or vibration in these two equal Cycloids should be unequal the time of the descent thro' their Axes will be also unequal Now the Axes of the Cycloids being equal and the time in which the Bodies move thro' them unequal it is evident that the two forces which move these two Bodies must also be unequal that is the accelerating force of Gravity in the one will be greater then the accelerating force in the other or which is the same thing supposing the Bodies equal the Conatus that the one has to go downwards will be stronger than the Conatus that the other has to go downwards that is the Gravity of the one will be greater than the Gravity in the other Now this is the very case in hand for we find by the Observations of Pendulums that a Body Vibrating in a Cycloid here will perform its Vibrations in shorter time than when it Vibrates in the same Cycloid at the Equator and therefore it is a demonstration that the Gravity at the Equator is not so great as it is here Which if the Defender had well understood he needed not to have troubled himself about the making of other Experiments since there can be none that are more nice than this For tho' the difference of time for one single Vibration be very insensible yet this difference being often repeated will come at last to be very sensible and by observing it for a longer time we may come to as great exactness as we please From this we may conclude that there can be no experiments made which will more nicely determine the different Gravities at the Equator and here than what is to be done by observations from Pendulums and that no body will speak against such Experiments but they who do not understand them But however we will now consider the Experiments the Defender would have made to examine the different Gravities here and at the Equator He tells us he would not have it made by a Balance or Scales but by such powers as do not immediately depend upon Gravity as Springs or other Engines Rarefactions or whatsoever has the force to raise sustain or remove ponderous Bodies But how does this Author know but these Springs and Engines may change their force also at the Equator and so be able to raise no greater weight than they will do here Has not the weather a very great effect upon the Elasticity of all sorts of Springs which it alters according to the dryness or dampness of the Air And can we be sure that the same Spring in so different Climates and seasons will preserve the same Elasticity But granting that Springs would not alter their Elasticity in different Climates and seasons yet the difference between the Gravity here and that which is at the Equator is so small the one being to the other as 690. to 689. that the difference of their effects would be scarce sensible For let us suppose that a weight here extended a Spring to the length of an inch the same weight would not draw it out so far at the Equator by 1 690 of an inch which quantity is so small that we should need good Microscopes to perceive it The next Experiment the Defender would try is that of the Barometer for he thinks the Mercury should sink much lower there than with us or indeed to nothing if the height be comparatively so great as is supposed It is hard to conceive why the Mercury should sink lower at the Equator than it does here I cannot suppose he concludes so because it is lighter there than here for upon that account it ought to rise higher neither can I suppose that he thinks it ought to sink because the Air is not so high there as here for the Air turns round the Earths Axis as well as other Bodies and therefore it must have a Centrifugal force as the rest have and where this Centrifugal force is greatest which is under the Equator it will rise highest from the surface of the Earth Since then we can see no way by which he can prove this paradox we must leave it and desire him to make it out in his next Book There are some other Experiments that the Defender would try to know the exact Figure of the Earth as for instance He says the height of the Equator should make a different Horizon as to the Heavens or the Earth and Sea East and West from North and South the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid the other the Sea also must be seventeen miles deeper at the Equator than at the Poles Then in reference to Rivers the motion of those that rise near the Equator must be swift and rapid but very slow must the motion be of those that ascend to it if at all they can be suppos'd to climb so great a Hill The great River of the Amazons rises five degrees from the Equator yet runs up to the Equator with a vast load of Waters Rio de Nigro has a longer course against the bent of the Earth and crossing the Equator falls into the Southern Sea The Nile in Africk crosses the Line and has a long course on this side of it Rivers do not rise higher by a natural course than the Fountains head and Hydrographers do not assign above two foot in a mile for the descent of Rivers but upon this Hypothesis there will be fourteen or fifteen foot for every mile in Rivers descending from the Equator which is a precipitation rather than a Navigable Stream Suppose says he a Canal cut from the Equator to the Poles it would be a paradox to say that water would not flow in this Canal having fourteen or fifteen foot descent for every mile but it would be a greater paradox to suppose that Rivers would rise to the Equator and with the same celerity as we see they do upon an ascent of so many feet These are the Defenders thoughts on this subject it is scarce imaginable how any one should be so forward in defending the Theory that appears so intirely unacquainted with Natural Philosophy as this Author does However if it be not too late for him to learn I will do what I can to inform him and consider what he has said His first thought that there should be a different Horizon as to the Heavens the Earth and the Sea East and West
from North and South the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid another is such unintelligible language as would puzzle a Mathematician to imagine how it were possible for a man to put such words together with a design to mean any thing But however if I may humbly guess at what this incomprehensible Gentleman intends I suppose he would say that the Section of the Earth is a Circle one way and an Ellipsis the other As for his other thought viz. That the Sea ought to be seventeen miles deeper at the Equator than at the Poles he would have done well to have offered us some of his abstruse reasons why it ought to be so for a common Reader that is not used to his profound way of thinking cannot easily perceive any for he will not suppose without any arguments for it that the Channel of the Sea is exactly of a Spherical surface but rather think with the rest of mankind that it is raised after the same manner that the surface of the Sea is and is further distant from the Center at the Equator than at the Poles His next is a very strange thought about Rivers For says he if the Earth were of a broad Spheroidical Figure and if we should suppose a Canal cut from the Equator to the Poles it were a paradox to say that the water will not descend from the Equator to the Poles but it would be a greater to suppose that Rivers would rise from thence to the Equator Well if this be a paradox I hope he will thank me if I teach him how to solve it Now this being the Figure which arises from the force of Gravity joined with the Centrifugal force it is evident that as long as these two causes continue to act this Figure will remain the same and the fluid will not alter its position nor descend from AE to P but that cause which first brought it into such a posture will always preserve it in the same Or if we should suppose this Figure alter'd or chang'd by any external force so that the Diameter of the Equator was made shorter it is evident that assoon as this external force is taken off that the fluid being acted by the two already mentioned forces will immediately restore its self into its former natural figure and the parts of the fluid will never come to an equilibrium one with another till they settle so as that the Spheroid have the same surface it had before Let us next suppose this fluid Spheroid to be chang'd into a solid one all except one Channel extended from AE to P and as deep as you please The fluid in this Channel having the same forces to act upon it according to the same direction and in the same manner will still keep the same position without ever changing its figure and every part will remain in the same place that it was in before it being indifferent to the fluid in the Channel AE P whether the matter next it be fluid or not fluid solid or not solid Before I leave this subject I cannot but observe that tho' our Author perhaps is very well acquainted with the Antediluvian Geography and the rise of its Rivers yet it seems that his skill is not very great in the modern For he makes Nile in Africk to cross the line whereas if he had consulted the modern Geographers and their observations he had seen that the Nile rises some degrees on this side of the line as it is to be seen in Ludolphus's Map of Aethiopia After this fine discourse of our Authors about the ascending of Rivers towards the Equator to conclude the argument he says that if this difference of Pendulums were found it will still bear a dispute from what Physical causes it proceeds He indeed may dispute it and perhaps will never come to know it as long as he lives but I believe very few else will ever doubt but that it proceeds from a greater Gravity in the one place than there is in the other especially since it can be prov'd from demonstrative principles that if there be two Pendulums of equal lengths that perform their Vibrations in unequal times that the Gravity where the swiftest Pendulum Vibrates is greater than where the slowest is This I say can be demonstrated from most evident and Geometrical principles and if the Defender does not understand them it will be his wisest course to suspend his judgement till he has learn't as much of the Elements of Geometry and Mechanism as will qualify him to comprehend them I not only prov'd this variation of Gravity from its effect upon Pendulums but I also shew'd the cause of it and that it must be so upon supposition that the Earth turns round its own Axis For all Bodies that turn round an Axis endeavour to recede from that Axis and because at the Equator Bodies moved swiftest the Circles there being greatest this Conatus or Centrifugal force would be also greatest now this force at the Equinoctial acting directly against the force of Gravity which it does no where besides it is evident that upon this account Gravity must be less there than any where else Upon the account of this diminution of Gravity it must follow also that the Diameter of the Equator will be greater than its Axis or that the Matter at the Equator rises higher than at the Poles The Defender says that this is agreed and own'd on all hands in case there were no impediment to hinder the rising or retrocession of the middle parts but says he the Theorist did believe that the Vortex was of a shorter Diameter there than thro' the Poles which hindred the rising of the fluid What this impediment is or what should occasion this straitness of the Orb at the Equator I know not I hope the Theorist does not suppose that there is a great iron hoop at those parts a solid ring like that of Saturns which keeps in the fluid from rising Yet how it should be else kept in is beyond my skill to guess I wish he would explain this more at length that we might know what he means by it The Author tells us that those who affirm that the Earth is in form of a broad Spheroid will allow of no Vortices to the Planets but then says he they must assign some other sufficient cause to carry the Planets in their Periodical motions with the same velocity for innumerable Ages about their common Center and the secondary about the Primary as also what gives them their diurnal rotation and the different position of their Axes I thought that this Defender had been better acquainted with the history of Philosophy for these twelve years past than it seems he is One would think that he had done nothing but por'd upon the Theory all this time since he is not acquainted with what is known to every body that pretends to Philosophy now a days He
may find several hundreds of people that can tell him that there are other causes found for the Coelestial motions than the Vortices which will easily explain all those Phoenomena he has just now mentioned The causes why the Planets move in Elliptical Orbits are now discover'd it is known why they move swiftest at their Perihelia and slowest at their Aphelia The cause of the procession of the Equinox is now no longer a mystery and which is for our purpose it depends upon principles that ruine the Theorist's Figure of the Earth and assert the direct contrary making it in the form of a broad Spheroid The motion of the Moons Apogeon forward and of its Nodes backwards its variation and all its other motions are easily accounted for by the same causes none of which could ever be made out by the Vortices For by them we can't answer the first question the Defender puts viz. What is it that carrys the Planets round the Sun with the same velocity for many Ages Nay supposing that we were altogether ignorant of any other cause yet it is no hard matter to prove that the Vortices can never be the cause of the Coelestial motions and therefore there being no Vortex there can be no such thing as a straitness in the Orbit at the Equator which the Theorist and the Defender suppose But if I should allow them both their Vortices and the straitness of their Orbs I have already prov'd that they will signify nothing to their purpose The Defender tells us that this reasoning about the Figure of the Earth depends upon the Theorists Hypothesis that the Globe of it was once fluid and from thence he pretends to confirm the Theory For says he neither Figure of the Earth oblong or oblate can be proved from the rotation of the Earth and its Gravity without supposing the Globe formed into that shape before it came to be hardened before it came to be loaded and stiffned with Rocks and stony Mountains and therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allowed that there was such a time such a state of the Earth when its tender Orb was capable of these impressions and modifications and that Orb must have lyen above the waters not under them nor radicated to the bottom of them and in the last place this concretion upon the waters says he must have been throughout all the parts of the Earth for there is no reason why one part of the fluid should be covered more than another so says he that in effect we must suppose that all the watery Globe was at first covered over with an Earthy concretion Now this being admitted says he we have confirmed the main point of the Theory namely that the Abyss was at first covered over with an Orb of earth and if we will grant him this he will compound for the rest He is a little too unreasonable in expecting grants of such things as are altogether precarious and affirm'd without so much as a shew of an argument My business was to prove that he had deduced a wrong conclusion from his own Hypotheses and Principles and therefore supposing that the Globe of the Earth was once fluid I prov'd from thence that it must have settled it self into the figure of a broad Spheroid and not of an oblong one But yet I demonstrated that supposing the Earth to have been partly fluid and partly dry as it is at present that even in that ease the Figure of the Earth must be Spheroidical because we observe that the Land is very nearly of the same Figure with the Sea only raised a little higher that it may not be overflowed and composes with it the same solid but the Sea being fluid will settle its self into just such a figure as if the whole Globe were fluid that is as I have demonstrated its surface will be the same with that of a broad Spheroid and therefore the Land which is of the same figure will be so likewise And thus I hope I have prov'd that whether we suppose the Earth to have been at first intirely fluid or to have been compos'd of parts some solid and some fluid that from either of these suppositions it follows that the Figure of the Earth must be directly contrary to what the Theorist assigns But says our Author if the Earth was from the beginning in this present form firm and solid as it is now Rocky and Mountainous then the question is how the Parts or Regions of the Earth about the Equator could be raised above a Spherical figure or into an oblate Spheroid suppose then the waters raised by the circumvolution of the Earth how was the Terra firma raised or how could it be raised by that or any such cause These questions says he are no matter of difficulty to the Theorist who supposes the first Earth to have covered the Waters and to have taken their shape whatever it was as upon a mould However easy they may be to the Theorist I assure him that they are much easyer to me who suppose that God Almighty raised the Land at the beginning when he form'd the Earth into the Figure it has at present which otherwise could never have risen of its self The dry Land therefore was raised and formed into a Spheroidical Figure by its wise Creator on purpose that it might not be overflow'd by the Sea at the Equator which as I have prov'd must of necessity have been higher there than at the Poles and therefore if the Land at the Equator had remain'd in a Spherical Figure no higher than that which is at the Poles the Sea must of necessity have risen above it and spread its self upon it like an Inundation It was therefore wisely order'd by the Divine Providence that not only the Sea but the Land also should be form'd into a broad Spheroidical Figure on purpose that it might not be overflow'd with Waters That the Readers might observe the Theorist's great skill in drawing of consequences and how well his Oval-figur'd Earth was supported with reasons I gave them his argument thus 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 straitness of the Orb they cannot recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will move towards the Poles where they will come nearer to the Axis of their motion that is Because all bodies endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion In answer to this the Defender says that the Theorist asserted that all Bodies did conari à centro sui motus recedere which I have render'd endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion and by changing the word Center into Axis of plain sense says he I have made non-sense and then he is so free as to own that the conclusion
they should be receiv'd as true History all their aim was that we should attend to the Moral for the sake of which the Parable was contriv'd this is plain from the Parable of Jotham of the Trees choosing themselves a King and from all the Parables of our Saviour But the History of the Creation is a very different case from any of them Moses does not give it us as a Fable only contriv'd for the sake of some Moral meaning which he would have thereby understood but delivers it seriously as matter of fact which he would have us believe as firmly and truly as any other part of his History and this a Man of integrity could never have given himself leave to do had he not been satisfied that the History was exactly true But if the Theorists Hypothesis about the Mosaical History of the Creation were true it seems that Moses must have been guilty of imposture in a very high degree for he supposes that History to have been absolutely false and without any foundation in the reality of things and at the same time freely owns that Moses wrote it with a design that it should be receiv'd as true not by one Man only but by a great and populous Nation and that not for one Generation but through all succeeding Ages this I take to be strange doctrine and no ways agreeable to the high esteem we owe either to that great Prophet or to the Veracity of that unerring Spirit that assisted him in writing But it is the Theorists opinion Pag. 320 321. that Moses thought it necessary to give the Jews a Cosmogonia a Theory of the Earth each of their neighbouring Nations as he guesses had one of their own which were generally erroneous and inconsistent with the true Religion and if so some of them might have had his Theory for ought we know now he thinks that without doubt the Jews had taken one from them or had made one for themselves unless they had been otherwise provided by Moses he illustrates this with a very decent similitude Si nuptam non dederis siliam ipsa sibi maritum queret e famulis forsan aut humili plebe if you do not get a Husband for your Daughter she will find one for her self your Foot-man perhaps or some one as mean Well but since the Jews were to have a Cosmogonia why should they not have been taught the true one O says the Theorist that was by no means sitting for they were an ignorant indocible people and could never have been taught true and solid Philosophy such as his own Theory is For let us feign says he at least and 't is but feigning at best that our Theory is true let us suppose the Primitive Earth to have been made in the same form and manner as is describ'd in the Theory had not Moses spent his time well in teaching such Philosophers Can we suppose that those Brick-makers those who still smelt strong of the Oinions and Garlick of Egypt those who could not distinguish a Molten Calf from God Almighty can we says he suppose that ever they could have learnt the true principles of things or the Laws of nature and motion to have deliver'd those things to them would have been to cast Pearls before Swine The Theorist may have as great thoughts of his Theory as he pleases but it is my humble opinion that there is very little skill required either in the Laws of motion or Natural Philosophy to understand it as well as he himself does there is no necessity of a long proof for this since we are sure there are some that have not only Read it but even stood up in the Defence of it that seem to understand as little of real Philosophy and less of Mechanicks than the most ignorant of his Brick-makers Let us now assume the same liberty with the Theorist Pag. 319. that he has done with Moses and let us suppose that the Theorist should get a Congregation of Jews who I believe are still as dull as ever they were and should begin to Harangue them thus Be it known unto you Men Brethren and Fathers That this Earth which we now press with our feet and find so firm and solid under us was once a fluid Chaos that is that I may adapt my discourse to your low capacities a medly or a confused Mass of Earth Water and Air mixed and blended together How it came to be so or how long it continu'd in that state I know as little as you do only I am sure that it was once so and I would have you take my word for it at last this disorderly Mass came to settle and all Bodies took their place according to their weight the great heavy Bodies fell lowest and compos'd the innermost solid next to them the Water took its place and over it the Oil spread it self above all there was a huge thick Orb of Air full of mud and earthy particles those by degrees fell down upon the surface of the Oil and at first made a thick slime which thro' time began to harden and compose a firm and solid Crust over the face of the Waters that was able to sustain the weight of all the rest of the descending particles What deep reach of thought is requir'd for the understanding of this How many and what are the Laws of nature and motion that the Jews must know before they can comprehend it in my mind the less they knew of those things the fitter they would be to understand the Theory at least I am sure they would be more easily perswaded to believe it We see now that this way of reasoning as the Theorist has apply'd it is of no force against the Mosaick History for his refin'd Theory if it had been true might have been as easily comprehended by the Jews as the plain and simple Cosmogonia of Moses The Theorist perhaps may think that I have here and elsewhere treated his Theory with too much contempt and disdain but let him consider how meanly he himself has spoke of some of Moses's writings with how much scorn and derision he has rejected his History of the Creation let him think how plainly and openly he has ridicul'd the state of Innocence and the Fall of Man let him compare what he has said in the 7th 8th and 9th Chapters of his Archeologiae Lib. II. with the hardest Expressions in this discourse against his Theory and I am confident he will find no reason to complain of uncivil usage His Defender 't is true accuses me of hard words and course language in saying that 's false that 's absurd that 's ridiculous whereas most of the Philosophers have been forced to use the same expressions insomuch that they became Philosophical terms and till the Defender began to write so smoothly Men were never accounted rude and uncivil for using of them Nay the Theorist himself has been sometimes pleased to deliver himself in
the while it was not visible but obscur'd by a dark and thick Atmosphere by which the power of its beams must be extreamly weakned In answer to this Vindic. pag. 9. he tells us That he does not suppose that all the Water that was in the Seas Lakes and Rivers of the first Earth made above the thousandth part of our present Ocean which he thinks might have been easily exhal'd by the Sun in one half year Now I would have him to consider this Objection a little further and he will find that it is not so light as he imagines it is he knows that there must be a certain proportion betwixt Land and Sea that the ground may be sufficiently furnished with rains and dews for the quantity of Vapour that is raised from Water all other things being alike is always in proportion to the surface of the Water and if the surface of our Sea were for example but the thousandth part of what it is now there would in that case be raised but the thousandth part of the Vapour from it that is at present raised from thence and because the dry Land by such a supposition would be near double of what it is now it follows from thence that any particular piece of ground would not have much above one part of two thousand of the rains and dews it has at present So that if this had been the case of the Primitive Earth it must have been absolutely barren and unfruitful But if that cannot be allow'd it is evident that there must have been a much greater Sea there to make it habitable than what Mr. Whiston supposes But if after all the Antediluvian Sea had been form'd only by the raising of Vapours by the Suns heat for one half year I do not see how it could have amounted to the ten thousandth part of our present Ocean For it is known that a few Clouds will more obscure the light of the Sun and by consequence diminish its heat in the same proportion than if nine in ten parts of its Disk were obseur'd by an Eclipse however I will only suppose that its heat was but just as much diminished by the thick Atmosphere Mr. Whiston speaks of which had perfectly darkned and obscured his body for more than two years as it would be in an Eclipse where nine ten parts of its Disk were obscur'd and then the number of Rays producing heat in any part being but a tenth part of what they are now upon us they would not raise above a tenth part of the Vapour that could be raised by the free and open action of the Sun But the Sun when it now acts upon us freely raises not much above one thousandth part of the present Ocean into Vapours therefore it is evident that in the other case it could not raise much above the ten thousandth part of the present Ocean and a Sea only formed from those Vapours would be little better than none at all But allowing it possible in the manner Mr. Whiston contends for allowing him too that this small stock of Waters was sufficient for the necessities of the Earth yet after all this way of forming the Primitive Sea is by no means agreeable to the account given us by Moses Where we are told that God divided the waters which were under the Firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament and the waters under the heavens he gathered together into one place and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas But Mr. Whiston tells us the Sea was made by those Waters that were raised into Vapour by the heat of the Sun that is according to his interpretation by the Waters above the Firmament which is directly contrary to Moses's account who says it was made by the gathering together of the Waters under the Firmament It must be strange turning and wresting of words that will bring both these ways to agree Besides if the Sea were formed as the New Theory says it was the dry Land must have appeared immediately upon the raising of the Vapours whereas according to Moses it did not appear till after the formation of the Sea It is plain then that this Theory of the Sea given us by Mr. Whiston is in every circumstance as inconsistent with the holy History as 't is with Reason and Philosophy Mr. Whiston acknowledges that my reasoning against his third Hypothesis of an only annual motion of the Earth before the Fall is strong and forcible and therefore he has been pleased here to invent another Hypothesis to support the former by which he hopes to remove all the difficulties that were raised against it viz. That the Earth did not revolve in a Circular Orbit till after the Fall but in a moderate Ellipse I shall not trouble my self with new answers as often as he thinks fit to contrive new Hypotheses and therefore will only give this reply at present that it will scarcely be allowed that but one half of the Primitive Earth was habitable before the Fall as it must be by such a supposition We know the more Hypotheses any Theory is clogg'd with the more precarious it looks such of them especially as do not naturally result from the whole Theory but are only introduced to remove some urgent difficulty are generally thought least of all to deserve any credit One of the great Beauties of the Theory was That assoon as the Comet was turned into a Planet it had a Circle for its Orbit and tho this beauty is not perfectly spoil'd yet its luster seems to be considerably diminished by the new supposition of his new sort of Figure call'd a moderate Ellipse Mr. Whiston is pleased to take notice of a supposed mistake he imagines have committed about the quantity of heat in the Primitive Earth which I reckoned from his principles must have been some hundreds of times greater than what is in the present This he says he is sure is a plain error who ever it was that made him so sure of it I am certain they have mightily deceived him If he had taken the pains to consider that the heat of the Sun for any small portion of time is always as a Rectangle contain'd betwixt the Sine of the Angle of incidence of the Ray producing heat and that time and had troubled himself a little further to calculate the proportion of the quantity of heat that was in the Primitive Earth upon his Hypothesis to that which is in our present Earth he would have found the mistake was not on my side but his own Every body knows that the longer any thing is exposed to the heat of the Sun the hotter it must be and this is so manifest that a great part of our heat in the Summer arises only thro' the length of time the Sun shines upon us For if our Summer and Winter days were each of them twelve hours long the heat in Summer would be to that in Winter in proportion