other causes than the heat of the Sun Tho' the arguments I have already given clearly prove that there was no rarefaction of the vapours caused by the heat of the Sun within the Abyss yet I shew'd that granting the Suns heat had reach't the Abyss even then an Universal Deluge could not follow from thence because I demonstrated by a Calculation that if the Suns heat drew vapours from the Abyss sufficient to furnish the Rivers on the Earth it must have exhausted this great treasure long before the time of the Deluge This manner of Examining the Defender calls contention and going from one extream to another tho' for my part I think there cannot be fairer dealing than first to prove that his Principles and Hypotheses are false and disagreeable to Nature and then supposing them true to shew that his reasonings upon 'em are false and inconclusive and the causes he assigns are no ways proportionable to the effects he would account for However our Author assures us that there are a great many uncertainties in the computation He knows I did not pretend to give an exact estimation of the Water that the Rivers sent into the Sea I can suppose that I have not come within the truth by one two or three Cubical Miles of Water which is as much as I need to allow nay I will grant him that I have erred a twentieth part or even one half if he pleases and yet the argument will be strong enough For according to the computation the Abyss ought to have been exhausted in the space of 460. Years now from the Creation to the time of the Deluge there were 1600. Years By which it is evident that which ever of these Hypotheses he takes the Abyss must have been empty long before the time of the Deluge But he thinks I go in this Calculation on principles that are not allow'd by the Theorist because I suppose the Waters of the present Sea equal to the Waters of the great Abyss whereas says he there was near twice as much Water in the great deep as is now in the Ocean seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth and the Sea reaches but to the half of it I always presum'd that it was the Theorist's Hypothesis that the Crust fell down upon the Abyss and drove the Waters from their place so that the greatest part of the Waters in the Abyss after they had overflowed the Earth came and settled at last in the Sea There might indeed have been some Water left in the Hollows and Cavities of the Earth but 't would be inconsiderable in respect of the whole and the Theorist himself asserts that if the Earth should disgorge all the Waters in its bowels it would not amount to above half an Ocean and in the Latin Edition he thinks that it is altogether incredible that the Water within the Earth should be as great as what is in the Sea and Rivers So that this Gentleman who asserts that there was almost twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean seems never to have read the Theory or to have understood the Theorist's Hypothesis which he endeavours to defend But what if there were twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean yet even in that case the whole must have been exhausted long before the Deluge since one Ocean could have been drawn up in the space of 460. Years Nay if we suppose that there were but just so many Rivers in the Primitive Earth as there are now in ours whereas in proportion to the dry Land there ought to have been twice as many yet in the space of 1600. Years there is time enough to have the whole Abyss exhausted as is evident by the Calculation The Defender alledges that the Rivers were not supply'd by the vapours only from the Abyss but also from the Earth and Waters upon it This evasion was foreseen and obviated by me in the 165. Page of the Examination where I prov'd that there must be at least the same quantity of vapour exhal'd from the Abyss as was before because the same cause still continuing to act would still produce the same effect and the Abyss having at first furnished the Rivers with a sufficient quantity of Water would still continue to furnish 'em in the same quantity nay rather in a much greater since according to the Theory the heat of the Sun was stronger and stronger every day upon the Abyss and the vapours exhal'd were so many at last that not being all of them able to crowd thro' the Pores they broke the thick Crust of the Earth with their violent effect to expand themselves and fly upwards Thus we see all the shifts and evasions which this Author makes are not of the least weight against my computation But supposing that all the Water in the present Ocean was then in the Abyss yet I prov'd that from the fall of the Crust there could arise no Universal Deluge because the Theorist himself prov'd that there must be at least eight Oceans of Water requir'd to cover the Earth The Defender confesses that the Water in the Abyss was not sufficient to make a Deluge in the nature of a standing Pool over-topping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains as it is usually conceiv'd but the Deluge that rose from the fall of the Crust was rather like a rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping them with its Raging Waves and Impetuous Fluctuations I beg the Theorist's pardon for mistaking him I thought that he design'd to explain Noahs Deluge and not one of his own imagination Now I can easily prove that such a Deluge as this Gentleman conceives is no ways like that which happen'd in the days of Noah For tho' the Theorist computed but eight Oceans of Water that were sufficient to cover the whole Earth above the tops of the highest Mountains yet I determined the quantity more nicely in my Remarks on Mr. Whistons Theory where I prov'd that there must be at least three and twenty Oceans of Water that were necessary for such an effect From which it is evident that the Water in the Abyss could but cover one part of twenty three at a time and the other twenty two parts must remain dry and that after the Water had overflowed this part it must have proceeded to the next and so successively till at last it had overflow'd the whole Earth This is the way that our Author must conceive the Deluge Let us see now what account the Scriptures give us of Noahs Deluge Genes Chap. 7. v. 2. it is said That the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened and the rain was upon the Earth fourty days and fourty nights And again vers 17. And the flood was fourty days upon the Earth and the waters increased and bare up the Ark and it was lift up above the Earth vers 18.
As also Petrus Aponeusis in his Conciliator Diff. has these words Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis immobilis ordinate directe concurrebant tum virtus perfectiori modo à primo principio per medias causas taliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora cum causae tunc sibi invicem correspondebant These Testimonies I own do sufficiently convince me not that the Theorist's position of the Primitive Earth was the true one but that the Defender who has alledg'd them to prove his point does not understand them For he could not have quoted any thing that was less to his purpose than they are I know not what skill this Author has in the new Astronomy but I am sure he does not understand it if it be put into an old fashion dress No doubt he thought that these Authors mean't by such words that at first the Equator and Ecliptick were coincident when they never dream't of any such thing They as their own words inform us suppose with all the old Astronomers two Zodiacks the one of which is exactly placed under the other and the uppermost being immoveable the lowest in which the fixed Stars are placed moves exactly under it and performs its course from West to East according to some in the space of 25000. Years At first these two Circles had the same beginning the Constellation Aries being exactly in the sign of the Ecliptick of the same name and the Constellation Taurus was exactly in the sign Taurus the Stars also that make up the sigure of Gemini were exactly under the sign Gemini of the immoveable Zodiack and so in the rest By which these Astrological Gentlemen thought that both their forces being united their efficacy and vertue upon the Earth would be very strong But now that the moveable Zodiack has mov'd these two Circles have not the same beginning and the Stars that make up the figure of Aries are not in the sign Aries but in Taurus and those Stars which compose the sign of Taurus are no more in Taurus but in Gemini so the Stars of Gemini are got into Cancer and those of Cancer into Leo c. as may plainly be seen on any Coelestial Globe Which they suppose to be perform'd by the motion of the eighth Sphere or the moveable Zodiack of which all the old Astronomers speak whom if he pleases he may consult particularly he may read Clavius's Notes on Sacrobosco de Sphaera which is as common and as good a Book as he can find on the subject But it seems the Defender thinks that this would appear more to his purpose if the old fashion disguise were taken off and the business apply'd to the true System of the Heavens Well let us see if it is so The new Astronomers suppose that the Stars are immoveable and that the Earth turns round the Sun so that its Axis makes always the acute Angle of 66½° with the Plane of its Orbit if this Axis were perfectly directed to the same point of the Heavens or mov'd always precisely parallel to its self then the fixed Stars would seem to have no other motion but the diurnal But because the Earths Axis varies a little from an exact parallelism and does not precisely point to the same Star when it is in the same place of its Orbit but makes a small Angle with a line that obtains the position it had formerly in the same place hence it happens that the Equinoctial points or the common section of the Equator and the Ecliptick retrocede or move backwards from East to West and this is that which the Astronomers call the precession of the Equinox by which the fixed Stars seem to move from the West to the East with a very slow motion and the Constellation Aries which at first was in the sign Aries has now got into Taurus and Taurus has seem'd to move into Gemini Gemini into Cancer c. From hence it appears that according either to the old or new Astronomers the fixed Stars change their Longitude daily but not their Latitude and they have always suppos'd that the Axis of the World has kept still the same Angle with the Plane of the Ecliptick I will now leave it to any indifferent Reader or even to the Theorist and his Defender to judge if these quotations signify any thing to the purpose or if they are not stronger arguments against the Theorist's position than for it Since the Defender has advis'd me to consult Antiquity I suppose it will not be amiss to alledge the testimony of a very ancient Philosopher whose authority ought at least to be as great as Leucippus's Anaxagoras's Empedocles's or even Plato's I mean the Divinely inspir'd Moses who is the most ancient Writer that is now extant and the only one who gives us an account of the state and condition of the Primitive World of which the Philosophers adduced by the Theorist were altogether ignorant in his Writings there is not one word of the coincidence of the Ecliptick and the Equator or of the perpetual Equinox and Spring that was observ'd in the Primitive Earth Moses supposes no such thing but rather the contrary for in giving an account of the Creation he tells us that God said let there be lights in the firmament of the Heavens to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years from this it is observable that Moses supposes that there were different seasons from the very Creation and that their variety proceeded from the different motion of the Heavenly bodies and more particularly of the Sun whereas if the Theorist's Hypothesis had been true the motion of the Sun could have made no variety of seasons but the Year would have remain'd with the same face and tenour having but one continued season Thus it is evident that the Theorists supposition in this matter is directly contrary to that of Moses and I think that his testimony ought to be of greater force with any candid Reader even supposing that he had no Divine Inspiration than any thing that could have been said by such Philosophers as the Theorist has brought who lived not till many hundred years after Moses's time I found fault with the Theorist for saying the Earth was inclin'd to the Ecliptick it being impossible to conceive how a Sphere can be inclin'd to a Plane passing thro' its Center as the Ecliptick does thro' the Centre of the Earth The Defender endeavours to excuse himself in this matter telling us it is the expression of the ancient Philosophers tho' he thinks it may be properly called an obliquation I would not have him raise a scandal on the ancient Philosophers without good grounds which I scarce believe he has for his assertion yet if they said any such thing I did not think that the Theorist was so great an admirer of the old Philosophers that in complaisance to them he would
have spoken non-sense He tells me that Situs rectus is another expression I quarrel with really tho' perhaps it is not very proper I do not remember that I any where found fault with it and he might have spared himself the trouble of citing a passage out of Hugens nothing to his purpose for Mons Hugens who always speaks sense does not say that Jupiter himself but that his Axis is right to the Plane of his Orbit But tho' the Defender endeavours to excuse the Theorist for his improprieties of expression yet he passes over without any excuse the great error which he made in assigning the cause of the suppos'd change of position which the Earths Axis suffer'd at the Deluge The Theorist said that at first the Earth was equally pois'd and therefore he thought it must keep its Axis steady and parallel to the Axis of the Eliptick but at the Deluge it lost the Equilibration as he calls it and one end or Pole becoming heavier than the other the heaviest end inclin'd towards the Sun in which said posture he says the Earth has ever since continu'd I must acknowledge that I could not read this without some indignation and am asham'd to find one who pretends to give a Mechanical account of the Creation and of the changes the World has since underwent discourse in so crude a manner that it may clearly be seen that he has not so much as a common insight into that learning which would have taught him the present posture of the Earth and its Axis For I shew'd in the Examination that every one that understood the Elements of the new Astronomy knew perfectly that one Pole of the Earth was not more inclin'd to the Sun than another and that if such a change had really happen'd to the Earth viz. that one Pole of it had become heavier than the other that Pole had always inclin'd to the Sun and made a perpetual Summer in all the places of the Hemisphere while the other injoy'd a continual Winter and because no such thing happen'd but both the Poles were equally inclin'd to the Sun it was a demonstration that no such change of Gravitation happen'd to the Earth The Defender is pleas'd to take no notice of this argument and yet has the confidence to assert that he thinks the Theorist's reasons very probable for the causes of the suppos'd change of the position of the Earths Axis But the Theorist in the last Edition of his English Theory seems to have found out another cause which he thinks in some measure contributed to the change of the Earth's position and that it is the change of the Direction of the Magnetick particles which he says followed upon the dissolution of the Earth But before we can know if this would do we must discover what these Magnetick particles are what their direction is what it was before the Deluge what afterwards how it came to be chang'd and how this change produced a change in the position of the Earths Axis And till he pretend to give a Mechanical account of these things he can no more expect a distinct answer from me than if he had said all this had been done by some occult quality For loose and general Harangues about Effluviums Particles subtle Matter Modes and Motions signify very little more to explain Nature than the Qualities and Attractions of the old Philosophers whom the Theorist upon this account so often derides 't is indeed but another sort of Cant and affords as little satisfaction to the mind Before I proceed and further I must own I was mistaken when I said that the Axis of Jupiter was obliquie to the Plane of its Orbit In reading of Hugen's Systema Saturninum I remember'd that this position was affirm'd of Saturn and I thought that I had read there that Jupiter had a like position which I wrote down without consulting the Book it self which I had not then by me The Defender has mistaken my meaning when he imagines I said that according to the Theorist both Jupiter and Saturn were Antediluvian Planets for the particle whom in the parenthesis refers only to Jupiter tho' in the mean time I own the expression is ambiguous and may refer to both At last the Defender comes to give us a short account of the Theorist's Creed as to this point which he conceives to be thus The Earth was at first in an even and parallel posture with the Axis of the Sun or as he explains himself in the 2d. Page of his Reflections its Axis was not oblique to the Axis of the Sun or the Ecliptick but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick Then the Earth had a perpetual Equinox and unity of Seasons and the Heavens and fixed Stars moved uniformly and concentrically with the Earth but when the earth changed its posture into that which it has now it had the position of its Axis chang'd into a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator and the Heavens seem'd to turn round upon another Axis different from those of the Sun or the Earth I must beg this Author's leave to say that he has grosly misrepresented the Theorist who so far as I can discover never expressed himself to any such purpose I thought that there were already errors enough in this Theory so that he needed not have made them more by false misrepresentations For I can find no such thing in either the Latin or English Theory as that the Axis of the Earth was ever parallel to the Axis of the Sun It is said indeed that the Axis of the Earth was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick and perpendicular to its Plane and this I must own is false but were it trne yet what the Defender advances upon it would be impossible viz. that the Axis of the Earth would also be parallel to the Axis of the Sun for since the Axis of the Sun is not perpendicular but stands at oblique Angles upon the Plane of the Ecliptick as is evident from Gallileo in his Book de Macchie Solari Scheiners Rosa Vrsina Kepler Mons Cassini Mr. Flamstead and most of the Astronomers who have wrote upon this subject but even his own Master Des Cartes from whom he seems as industriously to dissent when he is in the right as he is always sure to transcribe him when he is in the wrong tells us that the Axis of the Sun makes an Angle of seven degrees with the Axis of the Ecliptick If I say what these Learned Men have observ'd be true then either the proposition advanced by the Defender or the 8th of the 11th of Euclid must be false This Author also tells us that before the Deluge the Earth having a right position the Heavens with the fixed Stars mov'd or seem'd to move concentrically with the Earth I cannot suppose that he mean't by this that all the fixed Stars seem'd to turn round the Earth in
Circles that have the Axis of the Earth for their Axis for they do so now and must do so whatever position the Earth obtains if the motions of the Stars be only apparent and caused by the real rotation of the Earth round its Axis I fancy therefore that by a concentrical motion he means if he means any thing that which is perform'd in a Circle which has the same Centre that the Earth has as the word implys and I am confirm'd in the opinion that this or some other strange thing is mean't by this word because the Theorist in his Archaeolog asserts that in his Primitive Earth all its Inhabitants would be Ascii that is they would have no shadow at twelve of the Clock or they would have the Sun vertical to them at that time This I dare venture to say is impossible in this or any other of the numberless Worlds that the Defender dreams of among the fixed Stars unless the Sun can be multiply'd or made to appear at many different places at the same time For every one that ever read any one Page about the first principles of Geography knows that all those who live under the same Meridian have twelve of the Clock at the same time and consequently if the Sun were at twelve of the Clock vertical to all those who live under it he must be in every point of that Meridian at the same time I leave the Reader to judge if these men whose notions in Astronomy and Geography are so distinct and clear are not very capable of making Theories and discourses about the posture of the Primitive Earth and the position of its Axis They should be advis'd before ever they venture again to make another Theory or defend this to learn something of the common principles of the Sphere Perhaps they think them too common and easy and such as every body may know that will be at the pains to study and therefore they despise them and go upon higher attempts to find out something that no body else can discover as the method how the Earth was made and what was the state and condition of the Antediluvian World But for my part I would rather be quite ignorant of the posture of the Primitive Earth and the position of its Axis than not know the common principles of Astronomy and the doctrine of the Sphere I am sure if this Author had spent but half the time upon this subject that he has done upon the Theory he might have avoided many absurdities and would not have talk't of the Axis of the Earth being chang'd into a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator and the Heavens seeming to turn round upon an Axis different from that of the Earth For it is well known that the apparent motion of the Heavens is about the Axis of the Earth and that the Axis of the Equator is the same with the Earths Axis and it is impossible that they could ever have been distinct It seems this Defender's acquaintance is only with the Antediluvian World for one would think by his way of writing that he knew nothing at all of this Worlds position or motions His discourse and terms are so odd and strange that I sometimes believe they were terms that were used by the Antediluvian Fathers for I am sure they cannot be accommodated to the present mode and manner of speaking The design of the fifth Chapter of the Examination is to consider the Theorist's method of forming Rivers in the Primitive Earth which according to him were furnished with Vapours drawn from the Abyss thro' the Crust by the heat of the Sun Against this I objected that from thence it would follow that there could be no Rivers for a considerable time after the first Creation of the Earth For one would think that it must necessarily require some time before the Suns heat could penetrate thro' a thick Crust to raise vapours from the Abyss all which time the Inhabitants of the Earth must be without Rivers The Defender thinks this objection may be answered by saying that the Earth was at first soft and moist and therefore could not but furnish store of vapours to supply the Rivers But this is nothing but a shift for if we bring it to a Calculation we shall find the cause no ways answerable to the effect I shew'd in the Examination that the quantity of water evacuated by all the Rivers every Year was at least equal to 263080. Cubical Miles now if we allow no more Rivers in the Primitive Earth than there are now in ours whereas in our proportion to the surface of the Land they ought to be double so many Cubical Miles of water will likewise be necessary every Year to supply the Primitive Rivers and if we admit that the Sun had penetrated the thick Crust in the space of ten Years which is a time little enough in all reason for such an effect the quantity of water that would be necessary to supply the Rivers for such a time must not be less than 263080. Cubical Miles which is such a quantity as would make the Earth very soft and moist indeed But it would be much rather a Marsh and Mire than an habitable Earth I objected also that it was impossible that the Rays of the Sun could ever reach thro' a vast thick Crust so as to be able to raise vapours from the Abyss Or if we should suppose that it did raise them yet it could not do it in such a quantity as would be requisite to furnish the Antediluvian Rivers For who can imagine that the Sun could act as freely upon the Abyss as it does now upon the open Sea Whose surface is expos'd to the continual heat of the Sun whereas the Abyss was inclos'd by a thick Crustation in which were all the Materials of Earth Sand Clay Gravel Ores and Metalline substances And seeing the Sea as it is now laid open to the action of the Sun is but just sufficient to supply us with Rain and Vapours does it not seem a thing against common sense to suppose that the Abyss inclos'd with a thick shell could have sent out a quantity of Vapours great enough for such an effect But I passed from these general words and reduced the matter to Calculation where I shew'd that if we allow'd the mouths of all the Pores Cracks and Chaps thro' which the Sun must have acted on the Abyss to have been 1 10000 part of the Earth's surface there would then have been five thousand times less Vapours to have serv'd twice as great a quantity of dry Land and therefore that in a Country as bigg as Britain there would not have been so much as one River nor so much Rain in a Year as does now fall in a day All the answer the Defender makes to this is that I suppose great cracks and pitts thro' which the Vapours ascended whose dimensions and capacities I examine at pleasure whereas he does not
And the waters prevail'd and were increased greatly upon the Earth and the Ark went upon the face of the waters vers 19. And the waters prevail'd exceedingly upon the Earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered vers 20. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered vers 24. And the waters prevail'd upon the Earth an hundred and fifty days Chap. 8. ver 1. And God made a wind to pass over the Earth and the waters asswaged verss 2. The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped and the rain from heaven was restrained vers 3. And the waters returned from off the Earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated ver 5. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month In the tenth month on the fifth day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen We may observe from this that the Scriptures inform us that the whole Earth was under a Deluge at the same time that the waters increased and prevailed gradually every where for the space of 150. days that all the high hills under the whole heavens were covered that all these Mountains lay under Water for several months that the Ark swam and was carry'd up above the Mountains and when the Waters began to abate it rested at last upon one of them that it was the eighth month from the beginning of the Deluge when the tops of the Mountains first began to appear till which time they lay all of them hid and covered with Water Now in the Theorist's imaginary Deluge it is plain as I have already observ'd that there was but a twenty third part of the Earth covered with Water at the same time it is also evident that the Waters could not increase gradually in any one place for the space of 150. days since the whole Earth was to be cover'd over with waters in that time His single Ocean of Water could not stay but the three and twentieth part of that time in one place and therefore it must have gone off from that place and left it dry long before the end of those days Nor is this Idea of a Deluge less consistent with Reason and Philosophy than it is with Scripture Is it possible to conceive a moving wandring Mountain of Water For Water naturally settles its self into a surface concentrical to the Earth and by whatever force or however it should be rais'd into an heap it will immediately spread it self uniformly upon the surface of the Earth and descend by whatever ways it can If therefore we should suppose all the waters in the Abyss drawn or forced up to cover the hills of any one place it will immediately descend and form it self into a surface parallel to the Horizon and so spread its self equally every where upon the Valleys of the Earth leaving the Mountains quite uncover'd The Theorist himself acknowledges that a Mountain of Water is an impossible thing and indeed this notion of a Deluge seems to be so extravagant that I can scarce think that any body will be so credulous as to believe it and yet it is impossible that it can be any other ways if we suppose all the Mountains of the Earth to have been cover'd with an Ocean of Water of no greater dimensions than that assign'd in the Theory which cannot cover more than the three and twentieth part of the Earths surface The Defender in vain alledges that we are to conceive this Ocean as a mighty rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping with its Raging waves and Impetuous Fluctuations all the Mountains for this will not at all take away the absurdity because motion can never multiply any body nor make it to be at more places than one at a time Water can only by motion be in many places successively which will give us the Idea of such a moving heap or Mountain of waters as we have just now prov'd impossible Nor is this notion of a Deluge agreeable to the principles of the Theory For let us suppose the Crust to have been broken by the force of vapours endeavouring to expand themselves it must immediately fall down and drive the Water of the Abyss out of its place some one way and some another this Water will ascend with a very considerable force let us suppose as far as five Miles perpendicular height after which it will descend again and fall to the ground and all this will be by computation in much less time than one day These waters having acquired a great force by their fall will descend very swiftly into the Vallies and Cavities of the Earth and leave both Mountains and Upper-grounds quite uncovered And as the Waters that were raised by the fall of the Crust could cover no more than a twenty third part of the Earths surface so it is evident it could remain but a very short time upon the tops of those Mountains it overflow'd whereas in Noah's Deluge all the Mountains of the Earth lay under water for the space of 150. days Thus I have prov'd that the Deluge the Defender endeavour'd to explain is neither consistent with the holy Scriptures true Reason and Philosophy nor the Principles of the Theory from whence he pretends to deduce it Of the Figure of the Earth THO' what the Theorist has said in relation to the Figure of the Earth be one of his grossest and most palpable errors and tho' there is a positive demonstration that it is of a Figure directly contrary to that he assigns yet his Defender thinks himself oblig'd to maintain it and therefore spends more time and paper about it than upon any other point He is not contented with what has been said by several Mathematicians and Philosophers of the present Age upon this Subject tho' one would think that they knew the methods to determine the Figure of the Earth much better than either the Theorist or himself He is afraid that they will give it against him and therefore he appeals from them to some farther Observations that He and the Theorist point out and direct us to make As to observe for instance whether the extent of a degree be the same in different Latitudes or whether the shadow of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round as also to observe if towards the Poles the return of the Sun to their Horizon be according to the rules of a Sphaerical Surface of the Earth These are the Observations the Theorist would have made to determine the controversy Which I will now consider leaving the Defenders Observations to be examined in a proper place I noted in the Examination that I did not think any Observations that could be made upon different measures of a Degree in different Latitudes could be so nice and exact as would be necessary to determine the point in controversy For supposing that the greatest Diameter of the
not the hundredth part of the difficulty or intricacy of those which he pretends to know Well to convince him I will here repeat the demonstration somewhat plainer than I did in the Examination Let us suppose two bodies moving in two equal Cycloids it is demonstrated by Mr. Hugens that the time of the descent thro' these Cycloids is to the time of the descent thro' the Axis of the Cycloids always in a given proportion viz. as the Semiperiphery of a Circle is to its Diameter and therefore if the time of the descent or vibration in these two equal Cycloids should be unequal the time of the descent thro' their Axes will be also unequal Now the Axes of the Cycloids being equal and the time in which the Bodies move thro' them unequal it is evident that the two forces which move these two Bodies must also be unequal that is the accelerating force of Gravity in the one will be greater then the accelerating force in the other or which is the same thing supposing the Bodies equal the Conatus that the one has to go downwards will be stronger than the Conatus that the other has to go downwards that is the Gravity of the one will be greater than the Gravity in the other Now this is the very case in hand for we find by the Observations of Pendulums that a Body Vibrating in a Cycloid here will perform its Vibrations in shorter time than when it Vibrates in the same Cycloid at the Equator and therefore it is a demonstration that the Gravity at the Equator is not so great as it is here Which if the Defender had well understood he needed not to have troubled himself about the making of other Experiments since there can be none that are more nice than this For tho' the difference of time for one single Vibration be very insensible yet this difference being often repeated will come at last to be very sensible and by observing it for a longer time we may come to as great exactness as we please From this we may conclude that there can be no experiments made which will more nicely determine the different Gravities at the Equator and here than what is to be done by observations from Pendulums and that no body will speak against such Experiments but they who do not understand them But however we will now consider the Experiments the Defender would have made to examine the different Gravities here and at the Equator He tells us he would not have it made by a Balance or Scales but by such powers as do not immediately depend upon Gravity as Springs or other Engines Rarefactions or whatsoever has the force to raise sustain or remove ponderous Bodies But how does this Author know but these Springs and Engines may change their force also at the Equator and so be able to raise no greater weight than they will do here Has not the weather a very great effect upon the Elasticity of all sorts of Springs which it alters according to the dryness or dampness of the Air And can we be sure that the same Spring in so different Climates and seasons will preserve the same Elasticity But granting that Springs would not alter their Elasticity in different Climates and seasons yet the difference between the Gravity here and that which is at the Equator is so small the one being to the other as 690. to 689. that the difference of their effects would be scarce sensible For let us suppose that a weight here extended a Spring to the length of an inch the same weight would not draw it out so far at the Equator by 1 690 of an inch which quantity is so small that we should need good Microscopes to perceive it The next Experiment the Defender would try is that of the Barometer for he thinks the Mercury should sink much lower there than with us or indeed to nothing if the height be comparatively so great as is supposed It is hard to conceive why the Mercury should sink lower at the Equator than it does here I cannot suppose he concludes so because it is lighter there than here for upon that account it ought to rise higher neither can I suppose that he thinks it ought to sink because the Air is not so high there as here for the Air turns round the Earths Axis as well as other Bodies and therefore it must have a Centrifugal force as the rest have and where this Centrifugal force is greatest which is under the Equator it will rise highest from the surface of the Earth Since then we can see no way by which he can prove this paradox we must leave it and desire him to make it out in his next Book There are some other Experiments that the Defender would try to know the exact Figure of the Earth as for instance He says the height of the Equator should make a different Horizon as to the Heavens or the Earth and Sea East and West from North and South the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid the other the Sea also must be seventeen miles deeper at the Equator than at the Poles Then in reference to Rivers the motion of those that rise near the Equator must be swift and rapid but very slow must the motion be of those that ascend to it if at all they can be suppos'd to climb so great a Hill The great River of the Amazons rises five degrees from the Equator yet runs up to the Equator with a vast load of Waters Rio de Nigro has a longer course against the bent of the Earth and crossing the Equator falls into the Southern Sea The Nile in Africk crosses the Line and has a long course on this side of it Rivers do not rise higher by a natural course than the Fountains head and Hydrographers do not assign above two foot in a mile for the descent of Rivers but upon this Hypothesis there will be fourteen or fifteen foot for every mile in Rivers descending from the Equator which is a precipitation rather than a Navigable Stream Suppose says he a Canal cut from the Equator to the Poles it would be a paradox to say that water would not flow in this Canal having fourteen or fifteen foot descent for every mile but it would be a greater paradox to suppose that Rivers would rise to the Equator and with the same celerity as we see they do upon an ascent of so many feet These are the Defenders thoughts on this subject it is scarce imaginable how any one should be so forward in defending the Theory that appears so intirely unacquainted with Natural Philosophy as this Author does However if it be not too late for him to learn I will do what I can to inform him and consider what he has said His first thought that there should be a different Horizon as to the Heavens the Earth and the Sea East and West
literal sense but that Moses receded from the Physical verity as he calls it and spoke only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Archeol p. 317. that is in plain English there is not a word of it true the World being neither Created nor Formed in the manner there recorded but that his History of the Formation of Heaven and Earth was not contriv'd to be agreeable to the truth but to the notions and dispositions of the people for whose use it was written To make this out he pretends to find many faults and incongruities in that History which I need not now particularly consider since there is none of them that is really incongruous and disagreeable either to the Nature of things or the Wisdom of God but only to his notions and ways of thinking As for instance when he says and he tells us that he speaks it with indignation that without the greatest reproach both to the Work and its Maker it is neither to be said or imagined Archeol p. 299. that this Farth which he stiles the very dregs and excrements of nature should be the chief and principal part of the Creation and the first born of every Creature so that there should be more time allow'd for the framing and ordering of it than what is bestowed on all the rest of the World However great the Theorist's indignation is that he has conceiv'd upon this account I am sure there are some that cannot read those Reflections of his upon this History without a much greater It may be suppos'd that Moses who had an immediate conversation with God Almighty knew better what was a reproach to the World and its Maker than the Theorist does and yet we find that he thought it no affront to the Divine Wisdom not only to say and imagine such a thing but also to write it and that with a design that it should be received as true by all future generations But says the Theorist the Sacred Writers do often speak in a Mystical Archeol p. 318. Allegorical or Metaphorical stile and according to the capacity of the people and why might not Moses do the same in delivering the History of the Creation To answer this let us consider in what cases the Scriptures are to be taken not in a literal but in an Allegorical and Metaphorical sense and then compare each of them with the present case to see if there is any parity of reason between them First then the Scriptures are to be understood in an Allegorical sense when their liternal meaning would imply a contradiction either to some other place of the Sacred Writings which is most evidently to be understood literally or to the nature of the things spoken of thus when God Almighty is said to have hands and feet ears and eyes to move and walk and to have the affections and passions belonging to Men all or any of these since they are a contradiction to the Infinite perfections of the Deity can never be understood in a literal meaning tho' there should be still some sort of analogy between them and the thing signified We are sure that this consideration can have no place in the Mosaick History of the Creation which most certainly does neither contradict any other part of the Scriptures nor is there any thing said there but what is plainly possible and can be performed by the Power of God who if he had pleas'd could have formed the World or any part of it how great soever in an instant In the next place the Scriptures are not to be taken in a real and literal meaning when they speak according to the system of appearances and the notions which we draw from our senses Thus when it represents the Earth plain and as having four Corners with the Heavens stretched over it like a Curtain In those indeed and in many other such like places of Scripture it is certain that it was the design of the Sacred Pen-men not to speak according to the reality and nature of the things themselves but according to the notions and opinions which people received of them from their senses or indeed when the Sun is said to move every day from East to West to Rise and Sett to stand still there is no necessity of imagining that all those things are really perform'd by the Sun but there the holy Pen-men as all other Writers which do not concern themselves with Astronomy speak according to the system of appearances and as the Heavenly motions are represented to them by their senses it being the common and receiv'd way of speaking from which we are not to recede if we design to be understood and even all those Astronomers who firmly believe the motion of the Earth when it is not their business to explain the true system of the Universe are forced to speak in the same Dialect and I believe we should scarce think a Man right in his wits that in writing or speaking upon any common subject instead of saying that the Sun rose or set or that it came to the East or went to the West of us would say that our Horizon moved till it came above the Sun or went under it or that our Horizon turned round till the East or West points of it came to be exactly under the Sun Now this can never be apply'd to the Mosaick History of the Creation since the method of the Formation of the World could never have appeared to our senses and without a Divine Revelation we should have been ignorant of it to this day and had never discover'd the order and method by which all things were form'd Moses certainly wrote that discourse on purpose to give us a true notion of the Creation and therefore was to speak of things as they were really formed without any respect had to appearances as they would be represented to humane senses since there was no Man then in being to whom they could have appeared and I am of the opinion that if he had purposely and directly wrote as much upon the System of the World and the motions of the Heavens as he has done upon the subject of the Creation all those who acknowledge the Divine Authority of his writings would have been oblig'd to believe it The next case wherein we are to recede from the literal sense in the interpretation of Scripture is when they deliver parables those being only contriv'd by their Writers to illustrate something wherein they would instruct the people can never be suppos'd to be understood in a literal meaning This way of writing is indeed very ancient and is of great use for informing Mankind in the precepts of Prudence and Morality which are never so easily retain'd or so strongly imprinted on our imagination as when they are couched under some Fable whose Moral is easily apprehended But then from the nature of those Parables and the manner of their delivery it is easy to perceive that their Authors never design'd
the while it was not visible but obscur'd by a dark and thick Atmosphere by which the power of its beams must be extreamly weakned In answer to this Vindic. pag. 9. he tells us That he does not suppose that all the Water that was in the Seas Lakes and Rivers of the first Earth made above the thousandth part of our present Ocean which he thinks might have been easily exhal'd by the Sun in one half year Now I would have him to consider this Objection a little further and he will find that it is not so light as he imagines it is he knows that there must be a certain proportion betwixt Land and Sea that the ground may be sufficiently furnished with rains and dews for the quantity of Vapour that is raised from Water all other things being alike is always in proportion to the surface of the Water and if the surface of our Sea were for example but the thousandth part of what it is now there would in that case be raised but the thousandth part of the Vapour from it that is at present raised from thence and because the dry Land by such a supposition would be near double of what it is now it follows from thence that any particular piece of ground would not have much above one part of two thousand of the rains and dews it has at present So that if this had been the case of the Primitive Earth it must have been absolutely barren and unfruitful But if that cannot be allow'd it is evident that there must have been a much greater Sea there to make it habitable than what Mr. Whiston supposes But if after all the Antediluvian Sea had been form'd only by the raising of Vapours by the Suns heat for one half year I do not see how it could have amounted to the ten thousandth part of our present Ocean For it is known that a few Clouds will more obscure the light of the Sun and by consequence diminish its heat in the same proportion than if nine in ten parts of its Disk were obseur'd by an Eclipse however I will only suppose that its heat was but just as much diminished by the thick Atmosphere Mr. Whiston speaks of which had perfectly darkned and obscured his body for more than two years as it would be in an Eclipse where nine ten parts of its Disk were obscur'd and then the number of Rays producing heat in any part being but a tenth part of what they are now upon us they would not raise above a tenth part of the Vapour that could be raised by the free and open action of the Sun But the Sun when it now acts upon us freely raises not much above one thousandth part of the present Ocean into Vapours therefore it is evident that in the other case it could not raise much above the ten thousandth part of the present Ocean and a Sea only formed from those Vapours would be little better than none at all But allowing it possible in the manner Mr. Whiston contends for allowing him too that this small stock of Waters was sufficient for the necessities of the Earth yet after all this way of forming the Primitive Sea is by no means agreeable to the account given us by Moses Where we are told that God divided the waters which were under the Firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament and the waters under the heavens he gathered together into one place and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas But Mr. Whiston tells us the Sea was made by those Waters that were raised into Vapour by the heat of the Sun that is according to his interpretation by the Waters above the Firmament which is directly contrary to Moses's account who says it was made by the gathering together of the Waters under the Firmament It must be strange turning and wresting of words that will bring both these ways to agree Besides if the Sea were formed as the New Theory says it was the dry Land must have appeared immediately upon the raising of the Vapours whereas according to Moses it did not appear till after the formation of the Sea It is plain then that this Theory of the Sea given us by Mr. Whiston is in every circumstance as inconsistent with the holy History as 't is with Reason and Philosophy Mr. Whiston acknowledges that my reasoning against his third Hypothesis of an only annual motion of the Earth before the Fall is strong and forcible and therefore he has been pleased here to invent another Hypothesis to support the former by which he hopes to remove all the difficulties that were raised against it viz. That the Earth did not revolve in a Circular Orbit till after the Fall but in a moderate Ellipse I shall not trouble my self with new answers as often as he thinks fit to contrive new Hypotheses and therefore will only give this reply at present that it will scarcely be allowed that but one half of the Primitive Earth was habitable before the Fall as it must be by such a supposition We know the more Hypotheses any Theory is clogg'd with the more precarious it looks such of them especially as do not naturally result from the whole Theory but are only introduced to remove some urgent difficulty are generally thought least of all to deserve any credit One of the great Beauties of the Theory was That assoon as the Comet was turned into a Planet it had a Circle for its Orbit and tho this beauty is not perfectly spoil'd yet its luster seems to be considerably diminished by the new supposition of his new sort of Figure call'd a moderate Ellipse Mr. Whiston is pleased to take notice of a supposed mistake he imagines have committed about the quantity of heat in the Primitive Earth which I reckoned from his principles must have been some hundreds of times greater than what is in the present This he says he is sure is a plain error who ever it was that made him so sure of it I am certain they have mightily deceived him If he had taken the pains to consider that the heat of the Sun for any small portion of time is always as a Rectangle contain'd betwixt the Sine of the Angle of incidence of the Ray producing heat and that time and had troubled himself a little further to calculate the proportion of the quantity of heat that was in the Primitive Earth upon his Hypothesis to that which is in our present Earth he would have found the mistake was not on my side but his own Every body knows that the longer any thing is exposed to the heat of the Sun the hotter it must be and this is so manifest that a great part of our heat in the Summer arises only thro' the length of time the Sun shines upon us For if our Summer and Winter days were each of them twelve hours long the heat in Summer would be to that in Winter in proportion