Chaos To shew this he supposes that the Chaos had Mountains and Rocks swiming in it or according to his expression huge lumps of solid matter These are things I confess which I never heard of before in a Chaos which hath been always describ'd and suppos'd a mass of fluid matter all over But this Author confidently says We must conclude THEREFORE that the Chaos was not so fluid a mass c. This therefore refers us to an antecedent reason which is this He says to make the Chaos an entirely fluid mass is hard to be granted since the greatest parts of Bodies we have in the Earth at least so far as we can discern are hard and solid and there is not such a quantity of water in the Earth as would be requisite to soften and liquifie them all Besides a great part of them as Stones and Metals are uncapable of being liquified by water Very good What is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos or that they were liquified by water This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own or to some other Author's Hypothesis that run in his mind The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition However let 's consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with the Laws of Nature What made these huge lumps of solid matter whether Stone or Metal to swim in the fluid mass This is against all rules of Gravity and of Staticks as he seems to acknowledge and urge it when he thought it to his purpose In the precedent Chapter p. 42. when he speaks of Stones and Minerals he says 'T is certain that these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the bottom if they were left to themselves And he that will not allow dust or little earthy particles to float upon an Oily Liquor I wonder how he will make not little particles but these huge solid lumps of Stone Metals or Minerals to float in the Chaos He seems to own and be sensible of this inconvenience p. 50. and thereupon finds an expedient or evasion which a lesser Wit would not have thought on He supposes that these huge firm solid Lumps were hollow like empty bottles and that would keep them from sinking But who told him they were hollow Is not this precarious or if one would use such terms as he does is not this Chimerical and ridiculous What made those solid firm Lumps hollow When or where or how were their inward parts scrap'd out of them Nor would this hollowness however they came by it make them swim unless there was a meer Vacuum in each of them If they were filled with the liquid matter of the Chaos they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid but they would still be heavier than an equal bulk of the fluid Chaos and consequently would sink in it the preponderancy that would arise from the shell or solid part still remaining Now let 's consider how such Mountains or long ridges of Mountains as we have upon the Earth were formed and setled by these floating Lumps He says part of these lumps or masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid would compose a Mountain as there are Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas But are not mountains of Rock and Stone such as ours commonly are heavier than mountains of Ice that is specifically lighter than Water This might have been consider'd by the Examiner in drawing the paralel And still I 'm at a loss what Fluid it is he means when he says These Lumps or Masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid Does he mean by this Fluid the whole Chaos Did these Mountains stand at the top of the Chaos partly within and partly above it Then what drew them down below if they stood equally pois'd there in their Fluid and as high as the Moon if the Chaos reacht so high This one would think could not be his meaning 't is so extravagant and yet there was no other Fluid than the general Chaos till that was divided and distinguisht into several Masses Then indeed there was an Abyss or a region of Waters that covered the interiour Earth and was separate from the Air above Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the waters or Fluid this Author means upon which his Mountains stood then the rest of the Earth as it came to be form'd must be continu'd and joyn'd with these Mountains and in like manner laid over the waters so as in this method you see we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss This is a very favourable stroke for the Theorist and grants him in effect his principal conclusion viz. That the first anteluvian Earth was built over the Abyss This being admitted there could be no universal Deluge without a disruption of that Earth and an eruption of the Abyss which is a main point gain'd And 't is plain we make no false Logick in collecting this from his Principles and Concessions For as we said before if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss they must have a continuity and conjunction with the rest of the surface of the Earth if they were such as our Mountains are now and so all the habitable Earth must be spread upon the Abyss But still he hath another difficulty to encounter How the great Chanel of the Sea was made upon this supposition Why was not that part of the Globe fill'd up by the descent of the earthy particles of the Chaos as well as the rest The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos'd to take up half of the Globe how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill'd seeing it was encompast with the Chaos as well as any other parts Was the motion of the particles suspended from descending upon that part of the Globe or were they fill'd up at first and afterwards thrown out again to make room for the Sea This may deserve his consideration as well as the Mountains And how dextrous soever this Author may be in other things I know not but in my mind he hath no good hand in making Mountains and I 'm afraid he would have no better success in forming the Chanel of the Sea which he is wisely pleased to take no notice of And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no good luck in assigning the Efficient Causes of Mountains from the Chaos and therefore he is willing to bear off from that point and to lay the whole stress upon their Final Causes without any regard to their origin or how they came first into being His words are these But supposing the Efficient Causes of Mountains unknown or impossible to be assign'd yet still there remains the final causes to be enquir'd into which will do as well for our purpose with what follows there concerning those Authors that exclude final causes If there be such Authors let
make or occasion such a Deluge For the Rivers of the Earth being then supply'd from the Abyss by such a time or before the time of the Deluge he says there would be no Water left in it Thus he goes from one extream to another Before he said the power of the Sun could not reach or affect the Abyss to draw out any Vapours from it now he would make the Evaporation so excessive that it would have emptied the great Abyss before the Deluge This is a great undertaking and to make it good he takes a great compass He pretends to show us what quantity of Water all the Rivers of the Earth throw into the Sea every day and beginning with the River Po and taking his measure from that he supposes there are such a certain number of equivalent Rivers upon the face of the whole Earth and if the Po casts so much Water into the Sea the rest will cast so much more and in conclusion so much as would empty the Abyss You will easily believe Sir there must be great uncertainties in this computation But if that was certain as it is far from it still he goes upon suppositions that are not allowed by the Theorist For first He supposes the waters of the present Sea to be equal to the Waters of the Great Abyss Whereas supposing them of the same depth there would be near twice as much Water in the Great Deep as is now in the Ocean seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth and the Sea reaches but to half of it Secondly He should prove that the Rivers of the Antediluvian Earth were as many and as great as we have now The Torrid Zone then had none and much less would serve the Temperate Climates than is requisit now for the whole Earth Besides The Rivers of that Earth were not supply'd by Vapours only from the Abyss but also from all the Earth and all the Waters upon the Earth And when the Rivers were partly lost and spent in the Torrid Zone they were in a great measure exhal'd there and drawn into the Air by the heat of the Sun and would fall again in another place to make new Rains and a new supply to the Rivers So in like manner when he supposes the Rivers that were upon the Earth at the time of the disruption of the Great Deep to have thrown themselves off the Land as if they were lost and makes a computation how much Waters all the Rivers of the Earth amount to This I say is a needless computation as to the present purpose For whatsoever mass of Waters they amounted to it would not be lost if they fell down and joyned with the Abyss they would increase its store and be thrown up again by the fall of the fragments making so much a greater mass to overflow the Earth So that nothing is gain'd by this Supposition the effect would be the same as to the Deluge Whether the Waters above the Earth and those under the Earth met together sooner or later when their forces were joyned they would still have the same effect as we said before of the Vapours And to conclude that point The whole summ of Waters or Vapours convertible into waters that were from the beginning or at any time would still be preserv'd above ground or under ground and that would turn to the same account as to the Flood These Waters and Vapours all collected the Theorist supposes sufficient upon a dissolution of the Earth to make the Deluge Not indeed in the nature of a standing Pool as it is usually conceiv'd A quiet Pool I say overtopping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains but as a rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping them with its raging Waves and impetuous fluctuations when it was violently forc'd out of all its Chanels and the Vapours condens'd into Rain Such an inundation as this would be sufficient to destroy both Man and Beast and other Creatures those few excepted that were miraculously preserv'd in the Ark. This is the Theorist's Explication of the Deluge and I see nothing in this Argument that will destroy or weaken it Now this being the state of the Deluge according to the Theorist what this Author says in the next Paragraph p. 167. is either a misrepresentation or an equivocation For the Eight Oceans requir'd by the Theorist is the quantity of Water necessary for a Deluge in the way of a standing Pool whereas this Author represents it as if the Theorist required so much Water to make a Deluge upon his Hypothesis This I suppose upon reflection the Author cannot but see to be a mistake or a wilful misrepresentation This is the summ of his 7th Chapter There are besides some suggestions made which it may be were intended for objections by the Author As when he says p. 151. That the heat of the Sun would be intolerable upon the surface of the Earth if it could pierce and operate upon the Abyss We allow that its heat was intolerable in the Torrid Zone which thereby became unhabitable and there only the Sun was in its full strength and had its greatest effect upon the Abyss But in the other Climates the heat would be moderate enough nay so moderate that this Author says in another place it would not be sufficient to ripen fruits and in the whole of less force than it is now in the present constitution of the Earth So apt is contention to carry one out of one extream into another His last Objection is about the duration of the Flood That it could not last in its force 150 days if it had been made by a dissolution of the Earth and an Eruption of the Abyss But as this is affirm'd by him without proof so the contrary is sufficiently explain'd and made out both in the Lat. and English Theory p. 56. p. 52. I had forgot to tell him That he ought not to suppose as he seems to do when he is emptying the Abyss p. 165. That after the Torrid Zone was soak'd with Waters by the issues of the Rivers no more Waters or Vapours were drawn from it then than were before or consequently no less from the Abyss For when the middle parts of the Earth had drunk in those Waters the force of the Sun would be less upon the Abyss thorough those parts and the Vapours would be more and greater from them than before when they were dryer and in the same proportion there needed less supplies from the Abyss Chap. 6. Concerning the Figure of the Earth I deferr'd the consideration of This Chapter to the last because I thought it of more general concern and might deserve a fuller disquisition 'T is now you know become a common controversie or enquiry What the Figure of the Earth is Many think it not truly Spherical as it was imagin'd formerly but a Spheroid either oblong or oblate that is either extended in length toward the Poles like an
REFLECTIONS UPON THE Theory of the Earth OCCASION'D BY A Late EXAMINATION of it In a Letter to a Friend LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1699. ERRATA PAge 11. Line 7. r. antediluvian P. 42. l. 25 and 26. r. Ellipsis Ibid. l. 29. r. Isosceles SIR I Receiv'd the honour of your Letter with the Book you was pleas'd to send me containing an Examination of The Theory of the Earth And according as you desire I shall give you my thoughts of it in as narrow a compass as I can The Author of the Theory you know hath set down in Three Propositions the Foundation of the Whole Work and so long as those Propositions stand firm the substance of the Theory is safe whatsoever becomes of particular modes of explication in some parts which are as Problems and may be explained several ways without prejudice to the Principles upon which the Theory stands The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum viz. That the Earth rise from a Chaos This is not call'd into question and this being granted He lays down Three Propositions consecutively First That the Primitive or Ante-diluvian Earth was of a different form and construction from the present Earth Secondly That the face of that Earth as it rise from a Chaos was smooth regular and uniform without Mountains or Rocks and without an open Sea Thirdly That the disruption of the Abyss or dissolution of that Primeval Earth and its fall into the Abyss was the cause of the Universal Deluge and of the destruction of the Old World As also of the irregular form of the present Earth These are the Three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the Fourth Fifth and Sixth Chapters of the Theory And for a further proof and confirmation of them especially of the last another Proposition is added chap. 7. in these words The present form and structure of the Earth both as to the surface and as to the interiour parts of it so far as they are accessible and known to us do exactly answer to the foregoing Theory concerning the form and dissolution of the First Earth and is not so justly explained by any other Hypothesis yet known This is offer'd as a proof à posteriori as they call it or from the effects to show the consent and agreeement of the parts and construction of the present Earth to that Supposition of its being a sort of Ruine or the effect and remains of a disruption or dissolution And to make this good The Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general Form of the present Earth and its irregularity Then shows more particularly the marks or signatures of a ruine or disruption in several parts of it as in Mountains and Rocks in the great Chanel of the Sea and in Subterraneous Cavities and other broken and disfigur'd parts of the Earth These conclusions with their arguments are the Summ and principal Contents of the First Book But I must also mind you of a Corollary in the Second Book drawn from these primary Propositions which concerns the situation of the Primitive Earth For the Theorist supposes that the posture of that Earth or of its Axis was not oblique to the Axis of the Sun or of the Ecliptick as it is now but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick By reason of which Position there was a perpetual Spring or perpetual Equinox in that Primitive Earth This though a consequence only from the first Propositions I thought fit to mind you of as being one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this Theory This being the state of the Theory or of those parts of it that support the rest and wherein its strength consists he that will attack it to purpose must throw down in the first place these leading Propositions If the Examiner had taken this method and confuted the proofs that are brought in confirmation of each of them he needed have done no more For the Foundation being destroyed the Superstructure would fall of its own accord But if instead of this you only pick out a loose stone here or there or strike off a Pinnacle this will not weaken the Foundation nor have any considerable effect upon the whole Building Let us therefore consider in the first place what this Examiner hath said against these Fundamental Propofitions and accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work His first Chapter is to show that the Deluge might be made by a Miracle But who ever deny'd that No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do whatsoever he pleases to the utmost extent of possibilities But he does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted Doth he suppose that the Deluge could be made without any increase of Waters upon the Earth If there was an increase of Waters either they were created a-new or brought thither from some other part of the Universe So far is plain And if he supposes a New Creation of Waters for this purpose and an annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood it had been fair to have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis in the 3d Chapter of the Theory And seeing there is no mention made of any such thing in the Sacred History if he assert it he must bring some proof of his assertion for we are not upon such terms as to trust upon bare word On the other hand if he proceed upon such Waters as were already in being and for his purpose either bring down supercelestial Water or bring up subterraneous he must tell us what those Waters are and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the Second and Third Chapters of the Theory We must have some fixt point some mark to aim at if the case be argued Upon the whole I think this his First Chapter might have been spar'd as either affirming nothing particularly or giving no proof of what is affirm'd In his next Chapter about the Chaos I was in hopes to have found some thing more considerable but besides his long excerpta out of the Theory both here and elsewhere which make a good part of his Book I find nothing but two small Objections against the formation of the First Earth as it is describ'd by the Theorist This Examiner says That the little earthy particles of the Chaos would not swim upon the surface of Oil or any such unctuous liquor for how little soever yet being earthy and Earth being heavier than Oil they must descend thorough it But he grants that dust will swim upon Oil and I willingly allow if these descending parts were huge lumps of solid matter such as we shall meet with in his next Chapter they would easily break through both the Oil and the Water under it but that little tenuious particles or small dust should float upon Oil I think is no wonder And he is so kind as
rotation of the Earth and its gravity without supposing the Globe form'd into that shape before it came to be hardned before it came to be loaded and stifned by Rocks and stony Mountains Therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allow'd that there was such a time such a state of the Earth when its tender Orb was capable of those impressions and modifications and that Orb must have lain above the Waters not under them nor radicated to the bottom of them for then such Causes could not have had such an effect upon it And in the last place This Concretion upon the Waters must have been throughout all the parts of the Earth or all the parts of the Land which are now rais'd above a Spherical Surface and no reason can be given as we noted before why the rest should not be cover'd as well as those So that in effect both the Hypotheses suppose that all the watery Globe was at first cover'd with an earthy Concretion Now this being admitted you have confirm'd the main point of the Theory namely That the Abyss was once or at first cover'd with a terrestrial Concretion or an Orb of Earth Grant this and we 'll compound for the rest let the Earth at present be of what Figure it will If there was such an original Earth that cover'd the Waters both the form and equilibration of that Earth may easily appear and how by a dissolution of it a Deluge might arise But as to the present Earth the Theorist never affirm'd that its Figure was Oval but he noted such observations made or to be made as he thought might be proper to determine its Figure and still desires that they may be pursued He added also that he would be glad to receive any new ones that would demonstrate the precise Figure of the Earth And accordingly he is willing to consider in this particular and all others the Arguments and Remarks of such Eminent Authors as have lately given a new light to the System of the World This may suffice to have spoken in general concerning these two spheroidical Figures of the Earth We must now consider what particular objections are made by the Examiner against its Oval Figure He says admitting the Oval Figure of that first Earth it would not be capable however to give a course to the Rivers from the Polar Parts towards the Equinoctial And his reason is this because the same Causes which cast the Abyss or the Ocean towards the Poles would also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles But there is no parity of reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean and the Rivers We see in the flux and reflux of the Ocean let the Cause of it be what it will it hath not that effect upon Rivers nor upon Lakes nor upon lesser Seas Yet the circumrotation of the Earth continues the same And his confounding the Ocean and Rivers in the Antediluvian Earth is so much the worse seeing there never was an Ocean and Rivers together in that Earth While there was an open Ocean there were no Rivers and when there were Rivers there was no open Ocean but an inclos'd Abyss So ' tho he makes large Transcripts there and elsewhere out of the Theory he does not seem always to have well digested the method of it After this objection th' Examiner charges the Theorist with want of Skill in Logick but his charge is grounded upon another Misunderstanding or Misrepresentation He pretends there that the Theorist hath made such a Ratiocination as this All Bodies by reason of the Earths Diurnal Rotation do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion but by reason of the Pressure of the Air and the Streightness of the Orb they cannot recede from the Axis of their Motiâ—n therefore they will move towards the Poles where they will come nearer to the Axis of their Motion These are the Examiner's Words in that place where he says he will put the Theorist's reasoning in other Words But I do not like that Method unless th' Examiner were a more judicious or faithful Paraphrast than he seems to be let every one be Tryed by their own Words and if there be any false Logick or nonsence in the forecited words of th' Examiner let it fall upon their Author The Theorist said that Bodies by reason of the Earths Motion did conari à centro sui motus recedere These words this Translator renders endeavour to receed from the Axis of their motion and by changing the word Center into Axis whether carelesly or wilfully I know not of plain sence he hath made non-sence and then makes this Conclusion which follows indeed from his own words but not from those of the Theorist Because all Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion The Theorist's argumentation was plainly this Seeing in the rotation of the Earth Bodies tend from the Center of their motion if they meet with an impediment there they will move laterally in the next easiest and openest way and therefore the Waters under the Equator being stop'd in their first tendency would divert towards the Poles Wherein I think there is no false Logick That there was no impediment there he must prove by other Arguments than his own dictates or bare assertion which will not pass for a proof He proceeds now to discourse of the Centrifugal force and the effects of it together with gravity But he should have given us a better notion of the Centrifugal force than what he sets down there for he says p. 110. l. 24. A Centrifugal force is that force by which a Body is drawn towards the Center This is a strange signification of that word And in the next page l. 22. he says by this Centrifugal force Bodies endeavour to recede from the Center of their motion which is true but contrary to what he said just before I think 't is Gravity not Centrifugal force that brings Bodies towards the Center But to pass by this contradiction and to proceed What he says from other Authors about the proportions of the Centrifugal force and Gravity in Bodies turn'd round and particularly in Fluids how they would fly off more or less according to the Circles of their motion was always as hath been mention'd before suppos'd and allow'd by the Theorist if there was no restraint or pressure upon one part more than another of the fluid Globe So that he might have spared here six or seven pages In like manner he might have spar'd what he hath transcrib'd in his following Pages from those excellent Authors we referr'd to before about calculating the diminutions of Gravity made by the Centrifugal force in different Latitudes with other such excursions These I say might have been spar'd as needless upon this occasion or to the confutation of the Theory till the principal point upon which they depend
be better prov'd I made bold to say they were transcrib'd from those Authors as any one may see that please to consult the Originals Newt Philos Nat. princ math l. 3. prop. 18 19 20. Hugens Discours de la cause de la Pesanteur p. 147 148 c. And this French Discourse of Monsieur Hugens he hath not so much as once nam'd tho he hath taken so much from it And after all when these things are determin'd in Speculation it will still be a question what the True Physical Causes of them are At last for a further confirmation of the broad Spheroidical Figure of the Earth he adds an Observation from the Planet Jupiter which is found to be of such a Figure And therefore he says We need not doubt but that the Earth which is a Planet like the rest and turns round its Axis as they do is of the same Figure He might as well conclude that every Planet as well as the Earth is of the same Figure And what reason can he give why all the Planets that have a Rotation upon their Axis are not broad Spheroids as well as those two which he supposes to be so If that be a sufficient Cause and be found in other Planets as well as those why hath it not the same effect Or he might as well conclude That the Earth hath a perpetual Equinox because Jupiter hath so This is the same fault which he hath so often committed of measuring all the Works of God by one or two If a Man was transported into the Moon the nearest Planet or into Mercury that is so near the Sun or into Saturn or any of his Satellites that is so remote from it would he not find think you a much different face and state of those Planets from what we have upon this Earth Inhabitants of a different constitution the furniture of every World different Animals Plants Waters and other Inanimate Things As also different vicissitudes of Days and Nights and the Seasons of the Year according to their different Positions Revolutions and Forms Therefore not without reason we noted before how much the narrowness of some Mens Spirits Thoughts and Observations confine them to a particular Pattern and Model not considering the infinite variety of the Divine Works whereof we are not competent Judges Now comes in his rude censure of Dr. Eisensmidius both for his Mathematicks and bad Logick or want of common Sence But to this we have spoken before He also in the same Paragraph wonders at the Theorist's strange Logick to make the Centrifugal force of Bodies upon the Earth to be the cause of its Oblong Figure That indeed would be strange Logick if it was made the proximate cause of it But that is not the Theorist's Logick but the Examiner's as it is distorted and misrepresented by him The Theorist suppos'd the pressure of that tumour of the Waters occasion'd by the Centrifugal force as its original Cause to be the immediate Cause of the Oblong Figure of the Earth and that pressure suppos'd there is nothing illogical in the inference He had formerly taken notice of this reason from the streightness of the Orb in that part when he gave the Theorist's account of that Figure but he thought fit to forget it now that his charge might not appear lame This Sir is a short account of this Author's Objections But there are some things so often repeated by him that we are forc'd to take notice of them more than once As that about Miracles and Final Causes He truly notes that to be a much easier and shorter way of giving an account of the Deluge or other Revolutions of Nature But the question is not which is the shortest and easiest way but which is the truest No Man in his sences can question the Divine Omnipotency God could do these things purely miraculously if he pleas'd but the thing to be consider'd is Whether according to the methods of Providence in the Changes and Revolutions of the Natural World the Course of Nature and of Natural Causes is not made use of so far as they will go Both Moses and S. Peter mention Material Causes but always including the Divine Word and Superintendency The Theorist does not think as is sufficiently testified in several places that purely Material and Mechanical Causes guided only by the Laws of Motion could form this Earth and the furniture of it and does readily believe all Miracles recorded in Holy Writ or elsewhere well grounded But Miracles of our own making or imagining want Authority to support them Some Men when they are at a loss in the progress of their work call in a Miracle to relieve them in their distress You know what hath been noted both by Philosophers and others to that purpose As to Final Causes the Contemplation of them is very useful to moral purposes and of great satisfaction to the Mind where we can attain to them But we must not pretend to prove a thing to be so or so in Nature because we fancy it would be better so Nor deny it to be in such a manner because to our mind it would be better otherwise Almighty Power and Wisdom that have the whole complex and composition of the Universe in View take other measures than we can comprehend or account for Even in this small Earth that we inhabit there are several Plants and Animals which to us appear useless or noxious and yet no doubt would be found proper for this state if we had the whole prospect and Scheme of Providence As to Efficient Causes they must be either Material or Immaterial and whatsoever is prov'd to be the Immediate Effect of an Immaterial Cause is so much the more acceptable to the Theorist as it argues a Power above Matter But as to purely Material Causes they must be Mechanical There being no other Modes or Powers of Matter at least in the opinion of the Theorist but what are Mechanical And to explain Effects by such Causes is properly Natural Science We have taken notice before of this Author 's ambiguous use of words without declaring in what sence he uses them And he is no less ambiguous as to his opinions When he speaks of the Origin and Formation of the WORLD he does not tell us what he means by that word whether the great Compound of the Universe or that small part only where we reside His Centrifugal force he interprets in contrary sences or in contrary words and reserves the sence to himself Sometimes he speaks of the motion of the Sun and sometimes of the motion of the Earth and sticks to no System Neither does he tell us what he means by the Mosaical Abyss or Tehom Rabbah which the Theorist supposes to have been broken up at the Deluge We ought to know in what sence and signification he uses Words or Phrases at least if he use them in a different sence from that of the Theorist's I know Sir you will also take notice of his hard Words and course Language as That 's false that 's absurd that 's ridiculous This you will say is not usual Language amongst Gentlemen But we find it too usual with some Writers according to their particular temper and experience in the World For my part I think rudeness or disingenuity in examining the Writings of another Person fall more heavy in the construction of fair Readers upon him that uses them than upon him that suffers them I am Sir Your most humble Servant FINIS Engl. P. 37 38. P. 38 39. P. 40. P. 22. Note the pages are cited according to the 3d. Edit of the Engl. and the 2d of the Lat. Theor. Engl. Theor. ch 8. p. 71 c. Book II. Introd p. 15. P. 49. 51. P. 48. Ibid. P. 51. P. 50 51. P. 52. Eng. Theor. P. 54. Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. P. 54. P. 55. and 61. Gen. 2. 6. Galil Syst Cos p. 133. Hugen Cosmoth l. 2. p. 115. P. 66. P. 76. P. 63. Ch. 3. P. 66. De Patien l. 2. c. 27. Quaest Phys par 3. quaest 74. P. 189. P. 83. Eng. Theor. p. 134. P. 71. * Perpetuò enim illic fruuntur Aequinoctio quoniam axem motûs diurni Jupiter rectum fermè habet ad planum itineris sui circa Solem nec ut Tellus obliquum Hugen Cosmoth p. 105. P. 66. Ibid. P. 76. Engl. p. 113 114. Lat. p. 107. Cosmoth p. 105. P. 87. P. 88. P. 94 95. P. 97. P. 148. P. 158. P. 66. 69 c. P. 140. 143. Geogr. l. 1. prop. 4. Ibid. proâ— 36. Ephemer par 2. ad An. 1624. Disc de la Pesant p. 145 c. Ibid p. 149. Ibid. p. 166. * M. Hugens de la pesant p. 152. Il est a croire que la Terre a pris cette figure lors qu' elle a esté assemblée par l'effect de la pesanteur sa matiere aiant dés lors le mouvement circulaire de 24 heures Lat. Theor. lib. 2. p. 185. p. 103 104 c. P. 107. Theor. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 186. p. 108. P. 11 137 138. P. 142. P. 102 103. P. 31. Plat. Cratyl â—n p. 425. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm rei alicujus angustiis haeâ—ent ad machinas confugiant Deos inducunt This is also remark'd and render'd in other words by Tully de nat Deor. l. 1. Cùm explicare argumenti exitum non potestis confugitis ad Deum S. Austin also speaking about the Supercelestial Waters hath noted this method and reprov'd it in these words Nec quisquam istos ita debet refellere ut dicat secundum omnipotentiam Dei cui cuncta sunt possibilia oportere nos credere aquas etiam tam graves quà m novimus atque sentimus coelesti corpori in quo sunt sydera superfusas Nunc enim quemadmodùm Deus instituerit naturas rerum secundum Scripturam ejuâ— nos quaerere convenit non autem quod ipse in iis vel ex iis ad miraculum omnipotentia suae velit operari l. 2. Gen. ad lit You see discretion and moderation is to be used in these and such like matters
the Earth and Sea East and West from North and South The figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid in the other The Sea also must be of a prodigious depth at the Equator deeper by Seventeen Miles than at or near the Poles I would gladly know what experience there is of this Then in reference to our Rivers How swift and rapid upon this Hypothesis must the Rivers be that rise at or near the Equator or how slow the motion of those that ascend towards it if at all they can be supposed to clime so great an Hill The great River of the Amazons in Southern America is in some parts of it four or five degrees from the Equator others say much more Yet runs up to the Equator with that vast load of water and throws it self there into the Ocean In the Northern America Rio Negro is represented to us as having a longer course against the bent of the Earth and crossing the Equator falls down Southward several Degrees So the Nile in Africa crosses the Line and hath a long course on this side of it Rivers do not rise higher by a natural course than their Fountain's head and Hydrographers usually assign two foot or two foot and an half in a Mile for the descent of Rivers but upon this Hypothesis there will be fourteen or fifteen foot in respect of the center of the Earth for every Mile in Rivers descending from the Equator which is a Precipitation rather than a Navigable Stream Suppose a Canal cut from the Equator to the Pole t' would be a paradox to say the water would not flow in this Chanel nor descend towards the Pole having Fourteen or Fifteen foot descent for every Mile according to your figure of the Earth And also it would be as great or 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 And after all to conclude the argument If this difference of Pendulums be found it will still bear a dispute from what Physical Causes that difference Proceeds Thus far we have considered what arguments have been brought for the oblate figure of the Earth from Effects and have noted such observations to be made as we thought might be useful for discovery of Truth on what side soever it may fall We are now to consider an argument taken from the Causes and brought by these Authors to prove the same spheroidical figure of the Globe To this purpose they observe as is obvious and reasonable that in the diurnal motion of the Earth the middle parts about the Equator where the circles are greatest and consequently the motion swiftest would fly off with a greater force and so rise higher than the other parts that were mov'd in lesser circles in the same time and would have less force to remove themselves from the center of their Motion This is agreed on all hands and was own'd by the Theorist in a fluid Globe turn'd about it's Axis in case there was no impediment to hinder the rising or recession of those middle parts But before we speak to that on both sides you see it must be suppos'd and granted That the Globe of the Earth was once Fluid or the exterior Orb of it and we ought to consider when or at what time that was It must have been surely at the first formation of the Earth when it rise from a Chaos and before its parts were Consolidated and grown Hard. Supposing then that the interiour Orb of the Earth was once cover'd over with an Orb of water The question will be How this Orb of water came to be cover'd with dry Land or came to be divided into Land and Water as it is Now. These Questions are no matter of difficulty to the Theorist who supposes the First Earth to have covered the Waters and to have taken their shape whatsoever it was as upon a mould Then upon its Dissolution and Disruption at the Deluge to have faln into that uneven and interrupted Form it hath now But seeing this method does not please the Examiner He must tell us how upon his Hypothesis the Land or solid parts of the Earth could be rais'd above a Spherical Convexity into such a gibbous Figure as he supposes them now to have under the Equator Monsieur Hugens makes this broad Spheroid of the Earth to have been the effect of Gravity in the formation of the Earth the matter whereof being then turned round it would as he thinks be brought to settle in this Oblate Figure Very well but this must be in its very first Concretion from a Chaos before it was fixt and compact as it is now For the rotation of the Earth could have no such effect upon it after it was hard Now if you admit the exteriour Globe of the Earth to have been in such a state betwixt fixtness and fluidity it will lead us directly to the Theorist's Hypothesis which supposes a soft and tender Concretion at first over all the face of the Waters I say over all the face of the Waters for it must be Universal both because there is no reason why these earthy Particles that made the Concretion should not fall upon one part of the Globe as well as upon another and also if they did not fall upon the Equinoctial parts how came there to be Land in that part or that Land rais'd higher than the rest as this Hypothesis will have it In these remarks upon the protuberant Figure of the Earth you see it is allow'd that there would be a greater tendency from the Center in the middle parts of the Globe and the Waters would rise there if there was no impediment But the Theorist did believe that the Vortex or circumfluent Orb was streighter or of a shorter diameter there than thorough the Poles and consequently the Waters having less room to dilate would be press'd and detruded towards the Poles These Authors it may be will allow no Vortices to the Planets but then they must assign some other sufficient cause to carry the Planets in their periodical motions and with the same velocity for innumerable ages about their common Center and the secondary about their primary As also what gives them their diurnal rotation and the different position of their Axes Neither would it be easie to conceive how a great mass of fluid and volatile matter having no current or determination any one way and being often checkt in its progressive motion should not fall into circular motions or into Vortices of one sort or other Especially if you place in this mass some great solid Bodies turned about their Axes These are more general Problems and when they are determin'd with certainty we shall better judge of the particulars that depend upon them But I say still that neither Figure of the Earth Oblong or Oblate can be prov'd from the