Moon unhabitable To conclude 't is a great vanity to say no worse for short-sighted Creatures and of narrow understandings to prescribe to Providence what is necessary and indispensable to the frame and order of an habitable World We proceed to his fourth Chapter which is to shew the inconveniences that would fall upon the inhabitants of the Earth in case it had such a posture as the Theorist hath assign'd to the Antediluvian Earth namely that its Axis was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick or Perpendicular to its Plane and not oblique as it stands now But will this Author vouch that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe or even about our Sun that have this posture which he blames so much Jupiter is known to have a perpetual Equinox and his Axis parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick And Mars hath little or no obliquity that is observable And must this be a reflection upon Providence Or must we suppose that these Planets have no inhabitants or that their habitations are very bad and incommodious Jupiter is the noblest Planet we have in our Heaven whether you consider its magnitude or the number of its Attendants If then a Planet of that order and dignity have such a position and aspect to the Sun why might not our Earth have had the same proper to that state and agreeable to the Divine wisdom Yet he is so bold as to say or suppose That this cannâ—t well agree with the infinite Wisdom of its Maker as if he was able to make a measure or standard for all the Works of God 'T is a crude and injudicious thing from a few particulars the rest unknown to make an universal conclusion which forward wits are apt to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad pauca respiciens facilè pronuncias was Aristotle's observation of old and it holds in all Ages This Examiner censures the Theorist very rudely for making use of Phyfical Causes and not arguing from Final Causes which he says are the true Principles of Natural Philosophy But if this be the use he makes of Final Causes To tell God Almighty what is best to be done in this or that World I had rather content my self with Physical Causes to know what God hath done and conclude it to be the best and that we should judge it so if we had the same extent of thought and prospect its Maker had There are indeed some Final Causes that are so manifest that I should think it sottishness or obstinacy for a Man to deny them but I should also think that Man presumptuous that should pretend to draw the Scheme and Plan of every World from his Idea of Final Causes There are some men that mightily cry out against Reason yet none more fond of it than they are when they can get it on their side So some men inveigh against Physical Causes when others make use of them and yet as gladly as any make use of them themselves when they can make them serve their purpose And when they cannot reach them then they despise them and are all for Final Causes This Author says God always chuses such constitutions and positions of things as bring with them the greatest good and utility to the Universe Very true to the Universe But who made him judge what is best to the Universe Does he look upon this Earth as the Universe whereof it is but a small particle or an atome in comparison Must there be no variety in the numberless worlds which God hath made Must they all be one and the same thing repeated again and again That I 'm sure does not well agree with the infinite Wisdom and Power of God But suppose we did confine our Thoughts to this Earth We may be assur'd that it hath undergone and will undergo within the compass of its duration very different states and yet all accommodate to Providence Those that suppose the Heavens and the Earth never to have had any other constitution and construction than what they have now or that there hath never been any great change and revolution in our Natural World follow the very doctrine which S. Peter opposes and confutes in his 2d Epistle I mean the doctrine of those Scoffers as he calls them who said All things the Heavens and the Earth have remained in the same state they are in now from the beginning or from the Creation and are to continue so In confutation of this opinion S. Peter there minds them of the Change made at the Deluge and of the different constitution and construction of the Heavens and the Earth before and after the Deluge whereby they were dispos'd to undergo a different fate one by Water and the other by Fire And he tells us in the same place that after the Conflagration there will be New Heavens and a New Earth So that there is no one fixt and permanent state even of this Earth according to the Will and Wisdom of Providence But enough hath been said by the Theorist upon this subject Theor. Lat. l. 1. c. 1. 2. Review p. 160 c. Archaeol l. 2. c. 3 5 6. and if they will not consider the arguments propos'd there 't would be in vain to repeat them here These things premis'd Let 's consider what inconveniences are alledged or what Arguments against that equality of Seasons or the grand cause of them the Parallelism of the Axis of the Earth with the Axis of the Sun He says upon this supposition there is more heat now in the Climates of the Earth than could have been then And what if there be whether his computation which is aim'd against another Author be true or false 't is little to the Theory If the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates who would desire the extream heats of Summer But he says That heat would not be sufficient for the generation of Vegetables How does that appear supposing that heat constant throughout the whole Year Does he think there are no Vegetables in Jupiter which hath still the same position the Theorist gave to the Antediluvian Earth And as to heat that Planet is at vastly a greater distance from the Sun than our Earth and consequently hath so much less heat yet I cannot believe that great Planet to be only a huge lump of bald and barren Earth As to our Antediluvian Earth 't is probable that the constitution of Plants and Animals was different then from what it is now as their longaevity was different to which any excesses of heat or cold are noxious and the frequency and multiplicity of generations and corruptions in the present Earth is part of that vanity to which it was subjected But this Examiner says moreover If the first Earth had that position the greatest part of it would not be habitable But how much less habitable would it be than the present Earth where the open Sea which was not then
not affect Eisensmidius for it proceeds upon a supposition which that Author does not allow namely That the Vertical Lines or the Lines of Gravity are to be drawn directly to the Center of the Earth whereas Eisensmidius supposes they ought to be drawn at right Angles to the Tangent of each respective Horizon and would not in all Figures lead directly to the Center However we do not wonder that he is so rude to strangers seeing he bears so hard in other places upon some of our own learned Country-men We proceed now to the Theorist's Second Observation about Lunar Eclipses and the Shade of the Earth This Shade is generally presumed to be exactly round as the Section of a Cone And yet the best Astronomers have doubted of it and some upon that occasion have doubted of the Figure of the Earth Kepler in an Observation of a Lunar Total Eclipse not finding the Shade of the Earth perfectly round but rather Oblong ut ejus dimetiens à Zonâ Torridâ consurgentis sit minor dimetiente ejus à Polis Terrae surgentis suspects that the Figure of the Earth was so too And that we must conclude it to be so from this Observation if there was not some Obliquity in the rays of the Sun whereof he shews no cause or occasion Si retinenda esset inquit rectitudo radiorum Globus ipse Terrae fiet Ovifâ—rmis diametro per Polos longiore And a-like Observation to this he cites from Tycho Brahé in a central or next to central Eclipse of the Moon These two great Astronomers it seems did not find the Shade of the Earth to be justly Conical And thereby take away the reason or lessen the doubt which hindred M. Deschales from concluding upon another Observation the Figure of the Earth to be Oval The Third Observation of the Theorist's remains which is about the return of the Sun unto the Polar parts of the Earth whether that be according to the rules of a Spherical Surface The Observations that have been made hitherto in the Northern Climates about the return of the Sun to them make it quicker than will easily consist with a Spherical Figure of the Earth much less are they favourable to a Gibbous Form For that gibbosity under the Equator must needs hinder the appearance and discovery of the Sun in the respective Polar parts more than a Spherical Figure would do Now it hath been observ'd in Nova Zembla That the returning Sun appear'd to them 17. days sooner than they expected according to the rules of Astronomy the Earth being supposed truly Spherical and this may be thought an Argument that the Earth is rather deprest in its middle parts I leave the matter to further examination I know 't is usually imputed to Refractions but that is upon the presumption that the Earth is justly Spherical and a better answer upon that supposition I think cannot be found Tho I think it will not be easie in that way and upon that solution to make all the Phaenomena agree or to shew that the Refractions could make so great a difference However this is no improper Topick to be consider'd in reference to the determination of the Figure of the Earth and for that purpose it was noted by the Theorist We have now done with that side of the Question that respects the Oblong Figure of the Earth and it remains to consider the other part I mean the opinion of those that make the Earth protuberant about the Equator or an oblate Spheroid This the Learned Monsieur Hugens thinks may be prov'd by experiments made about the different Vibrations of Pendulums in different Latitudes of the Earth 'T is found he says by experience that a Pendulum near the Equator makes its Vibrations slower than another of the same length further from the Equator And gives an instance of it from an experiment made at Caiene in America which is 4 or 5 degrees from the Equator compar'd with another made at Paris From this Tryal he concludes first that the gravitation is less under and near the Equator than towards the Poles according to their several degrees of Latitude Then he infers by consequence that the Land and the Sea are higher towards the Equator than towards the Poles And in conclusion That the figure of the Earth is Protuberant and Gibbous in the Middle and more flatted or of a shorter Diameter betwixt Pole and Pole In this conclusion you see there are several things to be considered according to the Premises First matter of Fact concerning the inequality of Vibrations in equal Pendulums according to their different Latitudes then the following inferences made from thaâ— inequality As to matter of fact Monsieur Hugens seems to be doubtful himself He does not vouch it from his own experience but he takes it from the report of Monsieur Richer whose Person or Character I do not know nor whether his relation be Extant in Print However Monsieur Hugens speaks dubiously of the experiment as such an one whereof we ought to expect further Confirmation For he says we cannot Trust entirely to this first observation whereof we have not any circumstance noted to us and still less to those that are said to be made at Guadaloupe at a greater Latitude where the Pendule is said to be shorter by two lines than that at Paris We must expect to be more justly inform'd of these different lengths of Pendules as well under the Line as in other Climates And he refers us to a further trial by his Clocks rectified for a second voyage whereof I have yet heard no report If matter of Fact be dubious or experiments discordant we cannot be assured of the Conclusion It were to be wish'd That this different gravitation in different Latitudes might be prov'd by other experiments than that of the Pendulum Methinks in ponderous Bodies this difference might become Sensible Not indeed by a Balance or Scales for the supposed decrease of Gravity would have the same effect upon the Counterpoise as upon the Body weighed but by other Powers that do not depend immediately upon Gravity as Springs or any other Engines or by rarefactions or whatsoever hath the force to raise sustain or remove ponderous Bodies For such Powers must have a less effect with us than near the Equator where the gravitation of Bodies that make the counterpoise is supposed to be much lessen'd Neither do I know if they have try'd the Barometer whether that will diâ—cover any such elevation at or near the Equator the Mercury sinking there much lower than with us or indeed to nothing if the height be comparatively so great as is suppos'd It seems strange that the difference of 17 Miles call it little or call it great compar'd with the semidiameter of the Earth should have a sensible effect upon Pendulums and upon nothing else Methinks that height of the Equator should make a different Horizon as to the Heavens or
REFLECTIONS UPON THE Theory of the Earth OCCASION'D BY A Late EXAMINATION of it In a Letter to a Friend LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1699. ERRATA PAge 11. Line 7. r. antediluvian P. 42. l. 25 and 26. r. Ellipsis Ibid. l. 29. r. Isosceles SIR I Receiv'd the honour of your Letter with the Book you was pleas'd to send me containing an Examination of The Theory of the Earth And according as you desire I shall give you my thoughts of it in as narrow a compass as I can The Author of the Theory you know hath set down in Three Propositions the Foundation of the Whole Work and so long as those Propositions stand firm the substance of the Theory is safe whatsoever becomes of particular modes of explication in some parts which are as Problems and may be explained several ways without prejudice to the Principles upon which the Theory stands The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum viz. That the Earth rise from a Chaos This is not call'd into question and this being granted He lays down Three Propositions consecutively First That the Primitive or Ante-diluvian Earth was of a different form and construction from the present Earth Secondly That the face of that Earth as it rise from a Chaos was smooth regular and uniform without Mountains or Rocks and without an open Sea Thirdly That the disruption of the Abyss or dissolution of that Primeval Earth and its fall into the Abyss was the cause of the Universal Deluge and of the destruction of the Old World As also of the irregular form of the present Earth These are the Three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the Fourth Fifth and Sixth Chapters of the Theory And for a further proof and confirmation of them especially of the last another Proposition is added chap. 7. in these words The present form and structure of the Earth both as to the surface and as to the interiour parts of it so far as they are accessible and known to us do exactly answer to the foregoing Theory concerning the form and dissolution of the First Earth and is not so justly explained by any other Hypothesis yet known This is offer'd as a proof à posteriori as they call it or from the effects to show the consent and agreeement of the parts and construction of the present Earth to that Supposition of its being a sort of Ruine or the effect and remains of a disruption or dissolution And to make this good The Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general Form of the present Earth and its irregularity Then shows more particularly the marks or signatures of a ruine or disruption in several parts of it as in Mountains and Rocks in the great Chanel of the Sea and in Subterraneous Cavities and other broken and disfigur'd parts of the Earth These conclusions with their arguments are the Summ and principal Contents of the First Book But I must also mind you of a Corollary in the Second Book drawn from these primary Propositions which concerns the situation of the Primitive Earth For the Theorist supposes that the posture of that Earth or of its Axis was not oblique to the Axis of the Sun or of the Ecliptick as it is now but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick By reason of which Position there was a perpetual Spring or perpetual Equinox in that Primitive Earth This though a consequence only from the first Propositions I thought fit to mind you of as being one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this Theory This being the state of the Theory or of those parts of it that support the rest and wherein its strength consists he that will attack it to purpose must throw down in the first place these leading Propositions If the Examiner had taken this method and confuted the proofs that are brought in confirmation of each of them he needed have done no more For the Foundation being destroyed the Superstructure would fall of its own accord But if instead of this you only pick out a loose stone here or there or strike off a Pinnacle this will not weaken the Foundation nor have any considerable effect upon the whole Building Let us therefore consider in the first place what this Examiner hath said against these Fundamental Propofitions and accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work His first Chapter is to show that the Deluge might be made by a Miracle But who ever deny'd that No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do whatsoever he pleases to the utmost extent of possibilities But he does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted Doth he suppose that the Deluge could be made without any increase of Waters upon the Earth If there was an increase of Waters either they were created a-new or brought thither from some other part of the Universe So far is plain And if he supposes a New Creation of Waters for this purpose and an annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood it had been fair to have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis in the 3d Chapter of the Theory And seeing there is no mention made of any such thing in the Sacred History if he assert it he must bring some proof of his assertion for we are not upon such terms as to trust upon bare word On the other hand if he proceed upon such Waters as were already in being and for his purpose either bring down supercelestial Water or bring up subterraneous he must tell us what those Waters are and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the Second and Third Chapters of the Theory We must have some fixt point some mark to aim at if the case be argued Upon the whole I think this his First Chapter might have been spar'd as either affirming nothing particularly or giving no proof of what is affirm'd In his next Chapter about the Chaos I was in hopes to have found some thing more considerable but besides his long excerpta out of the Theory both here and elsewhere which make a good part of his Book I find nothing but two small Objections against the formation of the First Earth as it is describ'd by the Theorist This Examiner says That the little earthy particles of the Chaos would not swim upon the surface of Oil or any such unctuous liquor for how little soever yet being earthy and Earth being heavier than Oil they must descend thorough it But he grants that dust will swim upon Oil and I willingly allow if these descending parts were huge lumps of solid matter such as we shall meet with in his next Chapter they would easily break through both the Oil and the Water under it but that little tenuious particles or small dust should float upon Oil I think is no wonder And he is so kind as
Chaos To shew this he supposes that the Chaos had Mountains and Rocks swiming in it or according to his expression huge lumps of solid matter These are things I confess which I never heard of before in a Chaos which hath been always describ'd and suppos'd a mass of fluid matter all over But this Author confidently says We must conclude THEREFORE that the Chaos was not so fluid a mass c. This therefore refers us to an antecedent reason which is this He says to make the Chaos an entirely fluid mass is hard to be granted since the greatest parts of Bodies we have in the Earth at least so far as we can discern are hard and solid and there is not such a quantity of water in the Earth as would be requisite to soften and liquifie them all Besides a great part of them as Stones and Metals are uncapable of being liquified by water Very good What is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos or that they were liquified by water This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own or to some other Author's Hypothesis that run in his mind The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition However let 's consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with the Laws of Nature What made these huge lumps of solid matter whether Stone or Metal to swim in the fluid mass This is against all rules of Gravity and of Staticks as he seems to acknowledge and urge it when he thought it to his purpose In the precedent Chapter p. 42. when he speaks of Stones and Minerals he says 'T is certain that these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the bottom if they were left to themselves And he that will not allow dust or little earthy particles to float upon an Oily Liquor I wonder how he will make not little particles but these huge solid lumps of Stone Metals or Minerals to float in the Chaos He seems to own and be sensible of this inconvenience p. 50. and thereupon finds an expedient or evasion which a lesser Wit would not have thought on He supposes that these huge firm solid Lumps were hollow like empty bottles and that would keep them from sinking But who told him they were hollow Is not this precarious or if one would use such terms as he does is not this Chimerical and ridiculous What made those solid firm Lumps hollow When or where or how were their inward parts scrap'd out of them Nor would this hollowness however they came by it make them swim unless there was a meer Vacuum in each of them If they were filled with the liquid matter of the Chaos they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid but they would still be heavier than an equal bulk of the fluid Chaos and consequently would sink in it the preponderancy that would arise from the shell or solid part still remaining Now let 's consider how such Mountains or long ridges of Mountains as we have upon the Earth were formed and setled by these floating Lumps He says part of these lumps or masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid would compose a Mountain as there are Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas But are not mountains of Rock and Stone such as ours commonly are heavier than mountains of Ice that is specifically lighter than Water This might have been consider'd by the Examiner in drawing the paralel And still I 'm at a loss what Fluid it is he means when he says These Lumps or Masses standing out or being higher than the Fluid Does he mean by this Fluid the whole Chaos Did these Mountains stand at the top of the Chaos partly within and partly above it Then what drew them down below if they stood equally pois'd there in their Fluid and as high as the Moon if the Chaos reacht so high This one would think could not be his meaning 't is so extravagant and yet there was no other Fluid than the general Chaos till that was divided and distinguisht into several Masses Then indeed there was an Abyss or a region of Waters that covered the interiour Earth and was separate from the Air above Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the waters or Fluid this Author means upon which his Mountains stood then the rest of the Earth as it came to be form'd must be continu'd and joyn'd with these Mountains and in like manner laid over the waters so as in this method you see we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss This is a very favourable stroke for the Theorist and grants him in effect his principal conclusion viz. That the first anteluvian Earth was built over the Abyss This being admitted there could be no universal Deluge without a disruption of that Earth and an eruption of the Abyss which is a main point gain'd And 't is plain we make no false Logick in collecting this from his Principles and Concessions For as we said before if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss they must have a continuity and conjunction with the rest of the surface of the Earth if they were such as our Mountains are now and so all the habitable Earth must be spread upon the Abyss But still he hath another difficulty to encounter How the great Chanel of the Sea was made upon this supposition Why was not that part of the Globe fill'd up by the descent of the earthy particles of the Chaos as well as the rest The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos'd to take up half of the Globe how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill'd seeing it was encompast with the Chaos as well as any other parts Was the motion of the particles suspended from descending upon that part of the Globe or were they fill'd up at first and afterwards thrown out again to make room for the Sea This may deserve his consideration as well as the Mountains And how dextrous soever this Author may be in other things I know not but in my mind he hath no good hand in making Mountains and I 'm afraid he would have no better success in forming the Chanel of the Sea which he is wisely pleased to take no notice of And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no good luck in assigning the Efficient Causes of Mountains from the Chaos and therefore he is willing to bear off from that point and to lay the whole stress upon their Final Causes without any regard to their origin or how they came first into being His words are these But supposing the Efficient Causes of Mountains unknown or impossible to be assign'd yet still there remains the final causes to be enquir'd into which will do as well for our purpose with what follows there concerning those Authors that exclude final causes If there be such Authors let
takes up half of its surface and makes it unhabitable 'T is likely the Torrid Zone was unhabitable in that Earth but 't is probable the Poles or Polar parts were more habitable than they are now seeing they would have the Sun or rather Half-Sun perpetually in their Horizon And as to the temperate Climates as we call them they would be under such a gentle and constant warmth as would be more grateful to the Inhabitants and more proper and effectual for a continual Verdure and Vegetation than any region of the present Earth is now But this Objector does not consider on the other hand what an hard life they would lead in those days at least in many parts of the Earth if the seasons of the year were the same they are now and they confin'd to Herbs Fruits and Water for that was the Diet of Mankind till the Deluge Should we not think it an unmerciful imposition now to be interdicted the use of Flesh-meat all the year long Or rather is it possible that the life of Man could be supported by Herbs and Fruits and Water in the colder Climates where the Winters are so long and barren and the cold so vehement But if you suppose a perpetual Spring throughout the Earth the Heavens mild and the juices of Fruits and Plants more nutritive that Objection would cease and their longaevity be more intelligible We come now to the Causes of the change in the posture of the Earth where the Theorist hath set down his conjectures what he thought the most probable to be the occasion of it namely either some inequality in the libration of the Earth after it was dissolved and broken or a change in the Magnetism of its Body consequent upon its dissolution and the different situation of its parts But this Examiner will neither allow any change to have been made in the position of the Earth since the beginning of the World nor if there was a change that it could be made from such Causes The first of these points you see is matter of fact and so it must be prov'd partly by History and partly by Reason Some things are noted before which argue that the Antediluvian Earth was different from the present in its frame and constitution as also in reference to the Heavens and the places are referred to where that matter is treated more largely by the Theorist If it be granted that there was a permanent change made in the state of Nature at the Deluge or any other time but deny'd that it was made by a change of the situation of the Earth and the consequences of it then this Writer must assign some other change made which would have the same effects that is which will answer and agree with the Phenomena of the First Earth and also of the present When this is done if it be clear and convictive we must acquiesce in it But I do not see that it is so much as attempted by this Author This suppos'd change I say is matter of Fact and therefore we must consult History and Reason for the proof or disproof of it As to History the Theorist hath cited to this purpose Leucippus Anaxagoras Democritus Empedocles Plato and Diogenes These were the most renowned Philosophers amongst the Ancients and all these speak of an inclination of the Earth or the Poles which hath been made in former ages These one would think might be allow'd as good witnesses of a former Tradition concerning a change in the situation of the Earth when nothing is brought against them And this change is particularly call'd by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disharmony or disconcerting of the motions of the Heavens which he makes the source and origin of the present Evils and inconveniences of Nature Besides he dates this change from the expiration of the reign of Saturn or when Jupiter came to take the government upon him And this you know in the style of those times signifies the end of the Golden Age. Thus far Plato carries the Tradition Now the Poets tell us expresly that there was a perpetual Spring or a perpetual Equinox in the time of Saturn and that the inequality of the Year or the diversity of Seasons was first introduc'd by Jupiter The Authors and places are well known and noted by the Theorist I need not repeat them here You see what this evidence amounts to both that there hath been a change and such a change as alter'd the course of the Year and brought in a vicissitude of Seasons And this according to the Doctrines or Traditions remaining amongst the Heathens The Jews and Christians say the same thing but in another manner They do not speak of the Golden Age or of the reign of Saturn or Jupiter but of the state of Paradise or Gan-Eden and concerning that they say the same things which the Heathen Authors say in different words The Jews make a perpetual Equinox in Paradise the Christians a perpetual serenity a perpetual Spring And this cannot be without a different situation of the Earth from what it hath now He may see the citations if he please in the Theory or Archaeologiae It were to be wisht that this Examiner would look a little into Antiquity when he hath time It may be that would awaken him into new thoughts and a more favourable opinion of the Theory as to this particular Give me leave to mind him in his own way what some ancient Astronomers have said relating to this subject Baptista Mantuanus speaking of the longaevity of the Antediluvians says Erant illis ut Astronomiâ experimento constat Coeli propitiores volunt namque Astronomi c. This he explains by an uniform and concentrical motion of the heavens and the Earth at that time To which he imputes the great vertue of their herbs and fruit and the long lives of their Animals Petrus Aponensis who liv'd above an Age before Mantuan gives us much what the same account For making an answer to this question utrum natura humana sit debilitata ab eo quod antiquitus necne He says Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis immobilis ordinatè directè concurrebant tunc virtus perfectiori modo à primo principio per medias causas taliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora cum causae tunc sibi invicem correspondeant Propter quod concludendum est tunc naturam humanam illo tempore ut sic fortiorem longaeviorem extitisse I give it in his own words as they are in his Conciliator Differ 9. Georgius Pictorius or an Author under his name unto the same question about the longaevity of the Antediluvians gives a like answer from the same Astronomer in these words Petrus Aponensis adfert rationem pro vario cursu dispositione coelorum modò vitam humanam breviari modò produci scribit Ex Astronomiâ argumentum colligens cùm ait
state both of the Animate and Inanimate World This is in short the state of the case which is sometimes express'd in different terms especially by the Ancients who generally followed another System of the Heavens and the Earth and were not always accurate in their expressions This Author would square and conform all the Planets to the model of the present Earth Whereas there is diversity of administrations in the Natural World as well as Spiritual yet the same Providence every where The Axes of the Planets are not all parallel to that of the Sun nor all oblique And those that are so have not all the same degree of obliquity yet we have reason to think them all habitable In some there are no different Seasons of the Year and in some they differ in another manner than ours and the periods of their Years are very different In like manner as to the Days in some they are longer in others shorter In the Moon a day lasts fourteen or fifteen of our Days and their Nights are proportionably longer than our Nights In Jupiter the Days are but of five hours and so the Nights that Planet being turned in ten hours about his Axis In Mercury we know little what the Seasons or Days are but its Year must be much shorter than ours As also is that of Venus And their heat from the Sun must be much greater Jupiter and Saturn are at vast distances from the Sun and must proportionably have less heat And Saturn must have a greater difference of Summer and Winter than we have by reason of his greater obliquity to the Sun These and such like observations show what vanity it is to make an universal standard from the state of our Earth Or to say This is best and to make things otherwise would be inconsistent with the infinite Wisdom of their Maker as this Examiner pretends to do But to return to his Objections This he suggests as one that in case of a perpetual Equinox the annual motion of the Earth about the Sun would be to no purpose Of this we are no competent-Judges no more than of the other differences formention'd in the conditions of the Planets Yet in that case a distinction and computation of Time might be made by their aspect to the different Signs of the Zodiack There may be for any thing we know in the extent of the Universe Planets or great opake Bodies that have no course about their Sun for reasons best known to their Maker And others that have no diurnal motion about their Axes Nor ought such states tho very different from ours be concluded incongruous If this Objection of his were of any force it would lie against Jupiter as well as against the Antediluvian Earth And this minds me of his objection taken from Saturn and Jupiter whose Axes he says are inclined to the Axis of the Ecliptick and yet according to the Theorist they have suffer'd no Deluge This is an unhappy Argument for I think it hath two errors in it But let us set down his words that there may be no mistake or misrepresentation Another argument which may be brought to convince the Theorist that the Axis of the Earth was at first inclined to the Plane of the Ecliptick is that it is certain by observation that Saturn and Jupiter whom the Theorist will allow to have suffered no Deluge as yet have their Axes not perpendicular but inclin'd to the Planes of their Orbits and the position is true of all the other Planets as far as they can be observ'd And therefore c. First as to Saturn I 'm sure the Theorist never thought that Planet to be now in its original form but to be broken and to have already suffer'd a dissolution as you may see in both Theories English and Latin Then as to the position of Jupiter I know not whence he has this certain observation that its Axis is oblique to the Plane of its Orbit For Hugenius tells us just the contrary and that it hath a perpetual Equinox Let these things be examin'd and hereafter let us be cautious how we take things upon the Examiner's word if he be found to have committed two faults in one Objection Furthermore He intimates p. 94. that the Theorist hath no mind to the notion of Attraction I believe so too nor in Philosophy to any other notion that is unconceivable He must tell us how this Attraction differs from an Occult Quality Whether it is a Mechanical Principle or no And if not from what Principle it arises When he hath told us this we shall be better able to judge of it After all to conclude this Chapter The one grand question with the Theorist whatsoever there may be with other Authors is this Whether the Earth has chang'd its situation since the beginning of the World And that it has done so the Theorist does still positively maintain Having insisted more largely upon these Four First Chapters as being most Fundamental in the Controversie we shall dispatch more readily this 5th and the 7th leaving the 6th Chapter to a more particular disquisition in the last place This Fifth Chapter is designed against the Rivers of the Primitive Earth according to that origin and derivation that is given them by the Theorist But it is to be noted in the first place That supposing they had any other origin or course than what is there assign'd excepting only an origin from Mountains the Theory continues still in force For this point about the Waters of the First Earth and the explication of them is one of those explications that admit of latitude and variety and therefore as to the Theory the question is only this Whether an habitable Earth may have Rivers without Mountains For if any Earth may have them without Mountains why not the Primitive Earth Now it will be hard for the Examiner or any other to prove That in every World where there are Waters and Rivers there are Mountains also We intimated before that the general frame of an Earth might be such as would give a course to Waters without particular Mountains But we will leave that at present to a further consideration and observe now what his proofs are that there could be no Rivers in the Primitive Earth First he says According to the Theorist's own Hypothesis there could be no Rivers for a long time after the formation of the Earth Where is this said by the Theorist His Hypothesis supposes that the soft and moist Earth could not but afford store of Vapours at first as this Author in another place hath noted for the sence of the Theorist p. 86. and now he says the quite contrary The Chanels of the Rivers indeed would not be so deep and hollow at first as they are now their cavities being wrought by degrees but still there would not want Vapours to supply them Then he says when that first moisture of the Earth was
lessened there could be no supply of Vapours from the Abyss seeing the heat of the Sun could not reach so far nor raise Vapours from it or at least not in a sufficient quantity As he pretends to prove hereafter But in the mean time he speaks of great cracks or pits whose dimensions and capacities he examines at pleasure and by these he makes the Theorist to suppose the Vapours to ascend Now I do not find that the Theorist makes any mention of these Pits nor any use of those cracks for that purpose The only question is Whether the heat of the Sun in that Earth would reach so low as the Abyss when the Earth was more dry'd and its pores enlarg'd So that this objection as he states it seems to refer to some other Author But now supposing the Vapours rais'd he considers what course they would take or which way they would move in the open Air. But before that be examin'd we must take notice how unfairly he deals with the Theorist when he seems to make him suppose that Mountains make way for the motion and dilatation of Vapours Which he never suppos'd nor is it possible he should suppose it in the First Earth where there were no Mountains Neither does the Theorist suppose as this Author would insinuate that Mountains or Cold dilate Vapours but on the contrary that they stop and compress them as the words are cited even by the Examiner a little before p. 86. Then as to the course of the Vapours when they are rais'd The Theorist supposes that would be towards the Poles and the coldest Climates But this Author says They would all move Westward or from East to West There being a continual wind blowing from the East to West according to the motion of the Sun Whether that Wind come from the motion of the Sun or of the Earth which is contrary is another question but however let them move at first to the West the question here is Where they would be condens'd or where they would fall And there is little probability that their condensation would be under the Equator where they are most agitated but rather by an impulse of new vapours they would soon divert towards the Poles And losing their agitation there would fall in Dews or Rains Which condensation being made and a passage open'd that way for new ones to supply their places there would be a continual draught of Vapours from the hotter to the colder parts of the Earth We proceed now to the Seventh Chapter which is in a good measure upon the same or a like subject with this namely concerning the penetration of the heat of the Sun into the Body of the Earth This he says cannot be to any considerable depth nor could it pass the exteriour Orb of the first Earth and affect the Abyss or raise vapours from it To prove this he supposes that exteriour Earth divided into so many surfaces as he pleases then supposing the heat diminish'd in every surface he concludes it could not possibly pass through so many Thus you may divide an Inch into an hundred or a thousand surfaces and prove from thence that no heat of the Sun could pierce through an Inch of Earth We must rather consider Pores than Surfaces in this case and whether those Pores were straight or oblique the motion would pass however ' tho not the Light And the heat of the Sun might have its effect by a direct or indirect motion to a great depth within the Earth notwithstanding the multitude of Surfaces that he imagines Those that think a Comet upon its nearer approach to the Sun would be pierc'd with its heat through and through and to such a degree as to become much hotter than red hot Iron will not think it strange that at our distance from the Sun its heat should have some proportionable effect upon the inward parts of the Earth And all those imaginary solid Surfaces do not hinder you see the Magnetick particles from running through the Body of the Earth and making the Globe one great Magnet But let those considerations have what effect they can this supposition however is nothing peculiar to the Theorist I know some learned men think the heat of the Sun does penetrate deep into the bowels of the Earth Others think it does not and either of them have their arguments These alledge the equal temper of Vaults and Mines at different seasons of the year The other say 't is true subterraneous places keep their equality of temper much better than the external Air and those differences that appear to us are in a great measure by comparison with the temper of our Bodies Then for their own opinion they take an argument from the generation of Metals and Minerals in the bowels of the Earth and other Subterraneous fossiles These we see are ripen'd by degrees in several ages and cannot as they think be brought to Maturity and raised into the exteriour Earth without the heat and influence of the Sun Of the same Sun that actuates all the Vegetable World that quickens Seeds and raises Juices into the roots of our deepest and tops of our highest Oakes and Cedars But let this remain a Problem I will instance in another remarkable Phaenomenon which is most for the present purpose I mean Earthquakes Let us consider the Causes of them and the Depths of them I think all agree that Earthquakes arise from the rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations and that this rarefaction must be made by some heat and no other is yet prov'd to us by this Author than that of the Sun Then as to the depth of Earthquakes we find they are deeper than the bottom of the Sea For besides that they communicate with different Countries divided by the Sea they are found sometimes to arise within the Sea and from the bottom of it at great depths This seems to prove that there may be a strong rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations far within the bowels of the Earth and the Theorist desires no more If in the present constitution of the Earth there may be such Concussions and Subversions for a great extent we have no reason to believe but there might be at a time appointed by Providence an Universal Disruption as that Earth was constituted Finally Whatsoever the causes of this Disruption and Dissolution were 't is certain there was a Disruption of the Abyss and that Disruption Universal as the Deluge was which answers sufficiently the design of the Theory However if he have a mind to see how this agrees with History both Sacred and Prophane he may consult if he please what the Theorist hath noted upon that argument Archaeol l. 2. c. 4. besides other places But this Author says further That supposing such a Disruption of the Abyss and Dissolution of the Exterior Earth no Universal Deluge however could follow upon it because there could not be Water enough left in the Abyss to
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
Oval or on the contrary swelling in breadth under the Equator and so shorter than a just Sphere betwixt Pole and Pole and broader in the middle parts 'T is true the Theorist is not directly concern'd in this controversie because he does not in the Theory affirm the present Earth to be Oblong or Oval not knowing what change might be made at its dissolution However it may be worth the while to enquire what Arguments are brought either from Causes or Effects to determine the Figure of the Earth whether past or present 'T is easie indeed by Observation to determine that the Earth is a Convex Body not plain as the Epicureans fansied and Convex on all sides and therefore in some sort Orbicular but whether it be truly Spherical those common Observations will not determine The Theorist nam'd and pointed at such Observations as he thought would be most likely to discover the precise Figure of the Earth As to observe for instance Whether the extent of a Degree was the same all the Earth over in different Latitudes or at different Distances from its Equator Then to observe whether the shade of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round or any other ways irregular And also to observe if towards the Poles the return of the Sun into their Horizon be according to the rules of a Spherical surface of the Earth Let us consider these separately as to the present Earth As to the measure of a Degree in different Latitudes we find that Authors are not all of the same mind Some will have them unequal and in such a manner according to their Distance from the Equator as from that to inferr that the Earth is Oblong This Examiner takes notice of Dr. Eisensmidius as one that hath made that observation and that inference from it and gives him very rude words upon that occasion making him a man of prodigious stupidity and carelesness and one that did not understand the first six Elements of Euclid or indeed those of common sence Whatsoever this Professor was he was not the first that made that observation and inference For another Mathematician better known had made the same some time before him I mean Milliet Deschales in his General Principles of Geography Fr. l. 1. propos 29. But 't is true he says this conjecture of his That the Figure of the Earth is Oval or Elliptick would not be well grounded if the shade of the Earth in Lunar Eclipses was found to be always perfectly round of which we shall have occasion to speak hereafter For this which he makes a scruple against his own opinion is by others made an occasion of suspecting that the Earth is really Oval But we must also acknowledge that the same Deschales in his Latin works does not own the observation but owns the inference which is that the Examiner quarrels with He owns it I say in these words Si figura terrae esset Ovalis plura milliaria decurrenda essent versus Aequinoctialem ad in veniendam in elevatione poli mutationem unius gradûs quà m versus polos And he gives this reason Quià Ovalis figura prope Vertices minorem sphaeram imitatur versus Aequinoctialem autem in majorem sphaeram degenerat And again having taken notice of the various computations of a degree upon the Earth he subjoyns Haec observationum discrepantia nonnullis suspicionem fecit Tellurem non omninò sphaericam esse sed sphaeroidem Ellipticam ità ut versus polos in minorem circulum abiret Sed opus est pluribus observationibus ad id persuadendum The Theorist did not assert either the Observation to be true or the Inference but mark'd it as an Observation that deserv'd to be enquir'd into in order to determine the Figure of the Earth For it seems apparent That if the Body of the Earth be Oblong or Oblate the extent of a Degree will not be really the same as if it was truly Spherical Neither do I know any single Observation that would give us more light or better help us to discover what the configuration of the Earth is than the measure of a Degree exactly taken in different Latitudes I hapned lately to be in company with a Learned Gentleman and amongst other things that fell into discourse I ask'd his opinion What inequality there would be in the Degrees of the Earth in case it was Oval and where it would fall Whether they would be greater towards the Poles or towards the Equator We were suddenly interrupted by the coming in of new Company but he said he would send me his Thoughts upon a little reflection and accordingly after a few days he was pleased to send me this Letter SIR HAving now some leisure the Elections for Parliament wherein I had any concern being over I have here sent you my Thoughts on a Subject we lately discours'd of at Kingsonton Whether in case the Earth is a long Spheroid the Degrees of Latitude would be greater near the Equator or near the Poles I conceive they would be greater near the Equator Let the Eclipsis BDCF represent the Earth draw the Line gp which may be a Tangent to the Eclipsis and likewise meeting with the Axis BC and its transverse FD after they are produc'd make the Triangle gAp an Isocleles and consequently the Angles at the base Agp. Apg each 45 Degrees I say HC will measure the 45. Degrees of Latitude near the Pole and DH which by inspection without farther demonstration is evidently bigger those near the Equator I ought to have premis'd that B and C represent the Poles It is plain the Inhabitants at H will be in the Latitude of 45 degrees by reason their Horizontal Plane gp is by construction 45 Degrees distant from the Horizon of the Inhabitants under the Line at D which lies parallel to the Axis BC. If the Earth be a broad Spheroid D and F representing the Poles then by the same method of reasoning the Degrees of Latitude will be greatest near the Poles But as the longest and shortest Diameter of the Earth has in no wise so great a disproportion as in the Figure their difference not exceeding the 200th part at most the inequality of the Degrees of Latitude will be proportionably less but in all cases the long Spheroid makes the Degrees greatest near the Equator and the broad Spheroid those greatest near the Poles I hope in a fortnight to have the satisfaction of seeing you in London and remain Sir Your most humble Servant The Examiner would do well to consider this least all the reproachful characters he casts upon Eisensmidius should recoil upon himself 'T is Prudence as well as Good Manners not to be fierce and vehement in Censures for fear of a mistake and a backblow However the pretended demonstration which this Examiner brings to prove That in case the Earth was Oblong the Degrees would be greater toward the Poles does
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
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