CHAP. I. An Examination of the Theo­rists general Argument which he uses to prove the Truth of his Theory.

IN the second and third Chapters the Theorist makes way for an Argu­ment which he alledges in his seventh to prove the truth of his Theory, viz. that all other wayes for the explication of Noah's Flood are false and impossible, and that he has given the only possible, and consistent Idea of an universal flood, and therefore it came to pass the way he has assigned and no other. This Argument we see is founded upon two Propositions. 1st. That no other way is possible, and 2dly That his own Theo­ry is an intelligible and consistent expli­cation of the universal flood. This last Proposition I intend to examin in the following Chapter, and the first in this.

The Theorist, to prove all the com­mon ways of explicating the universal deluge false and impossible, Calculates [Page 29] the quantity of water, which would be sufficient to cover the whole earth, a­bove the tops of the highest Mountains, and finds that no less than eight Oce­ans of water could be sufficient for such a work. Now it is certain (says he) that such a stock of waters could neither come from the Sea, the Rain, or subterraneous Caverns, & Channels of the earth, there being no such quantity of water in na­ture, as would be requisite for such a purpose: and therefore the explication of the deluge from these causes is im­possible. Neither will he allow any supercelestial waters to make up the eight Oceans necessary for the deluge. For if there were any such waters, the Heavens above where they lay must be either solid or fluid. If solid as Glass or Chrystal, how could the waters get thro them to descend upon the earth? If fluid as the Air or AEther, how could the waters rest upon them it being heavier than Air? But if you will suppose, that waters were brought down from this imaginary region, to drown the world, in that vast quantity that would be necessary, what became of them when the deluge ceased? It would be a hard task to lift seven or eight O­ceans [Page 30] of water up among the spheres, and there is no room for them here be­low. Thus the Theorist thinks, that the vulgar makes the deluge impossible and unintelligible upon a double ac­count, both in requiring more water than can be found, and more, if found, than can be dispos'd of.

This is the sum of the Theorist's Ar­gument, why all other methods and ex­plications of the deluge are false, and impossible, which I have here related, because I think it an evident demonstra­tion of the impossibility of all Natural and Mechanical explications of the de­luge whatsoever, even his own not ex­cepted, as I shall shew in its due place: it being impossible for Nature, not as­sisted with extraordinary divine power, to bring so much water upon the earth; and if it were once brought, it is as im­possible to move it.

But all this does no way prove, that the deluge might not have been brought upon the earth by the Almighty power of God. Cannot he bring out the wa­ters from the deep, or the Abysse as from a Storehouse, and sustain them from running down again with the same ease he made the waters of the red Sea stand [Page 31] on an heap, while the Israelites passed through? Is any thing of this nature too hard for the Almighty to perform? Might not he, if there were not enough in the abysse, bring water on the earth from the Heavens above, which might have been there from the Creation not­withstanding the Theorist's question, How could they rest there? Since the same power might keep them in their place, that detains the Moon or any o­ther of the Planets in their orbits; and perhaps from some of these, or from o­ther places best known to the Divine wisdom, some of this water was brought upon the earth, and afterwards remov'd by the Omnipotent hand of God who only worketh great wonders. Is not this a much easier and shorter account of the deluge than the Theorist's, which is built upon false and precarious prin­ciples, inconsequential conclusions, which after all will not be sufficient to produce the desired effect?

But it seems the Theorist is not very willing to acknowledge that God Al­mighty had any hand in that great Ca­tastrophe of the world, tho' it be plain­ly told us in Scripture that he was the immediate Author thereof, Gen. 6.17. [Page 32] Behold, (saith God) I even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the Earth. Nor do I see any reason why he ought not to acknowledg the universal deluge of the world to be Miraculous, as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by raining of Fire and Brimstone; since they were both sent as punishments for the sins of men: neither of which, without doubt, had ever happened if man had continu­ed in the state of Innocence.

The Scriptures give us an account of several Miracles wrought by the hand of Omnipotence upon occasions, which did not so necessarily require them. Why ought we then to deny this universal destruction of the earth to be miracu­lous? Miracles are the great & wonderful works of God, by which he sheweth his Dominion and Power, and that his King­dom reacheth over all, even Nature her self, and that he does not confine himself to the ordinary methods of acting, but can alter them according to his pleasure. Were not they given us to convince us of the sacred truths contained in holy Scripture? Was it not by the demon­strative force of Miracles that Moses and the Apostles proved their divine Missi­on, beyond all that other Framers of [Page 33] Religions could pretend to? And tho' our holy Faith stands so well confirmed by real miracles, that we are neither to make nor admit of any false ones, yet certainly we are not to detract from the value of the true ones, by pretending to deduce them from Natural and Mecha­nical causes, when they are no ways ex­plicable by them. It is therefore both the easiest and safest way, to refer the wonderful destruction of the old world to the Omnipotent hand of God, who can do whatsoever he pleases.

CHAP. II. Of the Chaos.

THat the Earth was formed from a Chaos, must be unquestionably own'd by all, who acknowledge the truth of the Holy Scriptures, for they tell us, that in the beginning the Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: which is a most excellent description of that Cha­os, from which the world arose. From it therefore the Theorist begins to frame his Antediluvian earth by the sole help of Natural and Mechanical causes. He supposes the Chaos to be the matter of the earth and heavens, without form or regularity, reduc'd into a fluid Masse, wherein are the materials and ingredi­ents of all Bodies mingled in confusion one with another, without any order of higher or lower, heavier or lighter, so­lid or volatile. The first change he imagins that did happen to this Masse, was, that the heaviest and grossest parts sunk down towards the middle of it (for there he supposes the Center of its [Page 35] gravity) and constituted the hard and so­lid interior part of the earth. The rest of the Masse which swam above, was also divided by the same principle of gravity into two orders of bodies, the one liquid like water, the other vola­tile like air. For the fine and active parts disintangling themselves by de­grees from the rest, did mount above them, and having motion enough to keep themselves upon the wing, did play in these open places, where they were to constitute that body we call Air: the other parts being grosser than these settled in a masse together under the air, upon the body of the earth, composing not only water strictly so called, but the whole Masse of liquors or liquid bodies belonging to the earth; of which there were two kinds, one of which is fat, oily and light, and the other lean and more earthy, like common water. Now it being well known that these two li­quors mixed together, if left to them­selves and the general action of nature, separate one from another, as in Cream and thin Milk, oil and water, and such like. So we cannot doubt but that the same effect would follow here, and the more oily and light parts of this Masse [Page 36] would get above the other and swim upon it. Thus would the whole Masse of liquids be divided into two lesser Masses.

Now if we look over again these two great Masses of Air and Water, we can­not but imagin, that they were both at first very muddy and impure: for the air was yet thick, grosse and dark, there being abundance of terrestrial particles swiming in it still, after the grossest were sunk down, and the lesser and lighter, which remain'd in the Air, did sink too, but more slowly. So that in their descent they did meet with the oily liquor upon the face of the deep, which did intangle and stop them from pas­sing any further, so as mixing there with that unctuous substance, they did compose a certain slime, or fat, soft earth, spread upon the face of the wa­ters. And this thin and tender Orb en­creased more and more as the little ear­thy particles detain'd in the air could make their way to it; and mingled with that oily liquor, till at length they suckt it all up, and were wholly incorporated together: which was the first concreti­on and firm consistent substance upon the face of the Chaos.

[Page 37]After this fashion has the Theorist formed his Antediluvian habitable world, which doth not much differ from the Cartesian method of making the earth: only Des Cartes being somewhat wiser than the Theorist, would not allow the outward crust, within whose bowels the waters were shut up, to be a habitable earth, knowing well that neither man nor beast could live long without water. But he made the crust first broken, and the waters flow out, before he plac'd any inhabitants on it. Another small difference betwixt the two hypotheses, is, that Mons. Des Cartes never thought of making the exterior Orb of oily liquids, which the Theorist asserts to be abso­lutely necessary towards the formation of the crust. For if it were not, says he, for the oily liquor which swims upon the surface of the Abyss, the particles of earth which fell through the air had sunk to the bottom, and had never formed the exterior Orb of earth.

But notwithstanding this, I believe it may be easily made evident (tho nei­ther of their Systems are true) that the Therorist's hypothesis is the worst of the two. Which I will prove from his own concessions: for he has already own'd [Page 38] that the oily liquor is much lighter than the watery Orb. He has menti­oned also that the terrestrial particles when falling from the air, if the Orb were only water, would sink to the bot­tom; and therefore those particles must be heavier than water. From thence, I think, it does necessarily follow, that these terrestrial particles must also be heavier than the oily fluid which is lighter than water, and therefore they will more easily descend thro' it than they did thro' water, it being well known that there are several bodies which will swim in water, but sink in oil.

But that which seems to have deceiv'd the Theorist in this point was that he had observed that small dust, tho' specifically heavier than oil, yet being thrown upon it, it did not sink, and therefore he concluded, that a great deal of it, if cast upon the surface of oil after the same manner, would not de­scend, but form a solid concrete sub­stance upon the surface of the oil. But this consequence will soon appear to be false, if we consider the true reason why some bodies, tho' specifically heavier than the fluid in which they are put, do [Page 39] not sink, but swim upon the surface: which is this. That there is scarce any liquid in nature which is absolutely flu­id, and whose parts do not resist separa­tion one from another, and therefore will somewhat hinder or retard the de­scent of bodies thro them. Now this resistance (all other things being alike) is always proportional to the surface of the body descending: so that small bo­dies, whose weight or force to move or separate the parts of the fluid, is but ve­ry little, may have a surface so large, that they cannot overcome the resistance of the fluid, that is, they cannot make way for their descent thro' the fluid, and therefore must swim upon the sur­face of it: but the surfaces of bodies not increasing in the same proportion with their solidities or weights, small bodies (will have a greater resistance in propor­tion to their weight, than greater ones of the same intensive gravity, and con­sequently the one will descend when the other cannot. As for example, suppose a sphere of an inch diameter was put into an oily fluid, whose resistance was just equal to the force of gravity in the descending body: there being an aequili­brium, the former would swim in the [Page 40] latter. Now if another sphere of two inches diameter and of the same inten­sive gravity were put in the same fluid, in gravity or force by which it would separate the particles of the fluid, would be eight times greater than the descend­ing force of the former sphere; and if in resistance were also eight times great­er, it is plain that it also could not de­scend: but the resistance being always, (as I noted before) as the surface of the descending body, is only in the present case four times greater; which will not equal the force of its gravity, and there­fore the sphere must descend. So in our present case, tho' some small grains of dust or earth may swim upon the sur­face of Oil, yet these when increas'd by the addition of a great many others which fall upon them, augment their weight (the same resistance continuing) and must fall to the bottom.

Besides this, the earthy particles fall­ing from a great height, some of them descending from places as high as the Moon, as the Theorist will have them, must needs in their descent [...]ire a ve­ry considerable degree of velocity, with which falling upon the surface of the oily Orb, they will not only by that [Page 41] force descend themselves, but also car­ry down with them, and condense what­soever bodies they met in their way or found swimming upon the surface of the oil. Now that the force of a descend­ing body is so great as to perform this effect, I think is clear to any who con­siders that a heavy body runs down fif­teen foot in a second, and that the spaces thro' which it does move, are al­ways in duplicate proportion to its times, as is demonstrated by Galileo and confirmed by the experiments of Riscioli: from whence by calculation it will follow that a body would run down four thousand miles in the space of twenty three seconds, abstracting from the resistance of the air. But if we will suppose but the hundredth part of this space run thro' in that time, allowing all the rest for the resistance of the Medium, yet even in that case, the velocity would far exceed that of the swiftest bullet that can be shot out of a Cannon.

Thus, I think, I have made it evident, that the particles of earth, after falling thro' the air, could not rest upon the surface of the oily Orb, to form there an hardened habitable [...], not only [Page 42] upon the account of their greater gra­vity, which the Theorist acknowledges, and is also plain by experience, com­mon earth being near twice as heavy as water; but also upon the account of the great force by which they must of necessity fall upon the liquid Orb, which will carry them down towards the Center.

I hope now it will appear to any thinking man, plainly impossible, that either oil or water should sustain such an immense heavy Orb, in which was not only the soft earth, which in few places in ten foot deep, but also a pro­digious quantity of stones and minerals much heavier than water: for it is cer­tain that these great heavy bodies must have sunk to the bottom if they were left to themselves, and yet these bodies make up the greatest part of our out­ward earth. I know the Theorist does boldly affirm, that there was neither Me­tals nor Minerals in the primitive earth, but this is both contrary to reason and Scripture, for the Holy Scriptures tell us, that Tuhal Cain before the floud, was an instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron: and I would fain know, how there could be such Artificers before the [Page 43] flood when according to him there was no such thing to be seen as Metals. Be­sides, 'tis hardly possible to build an Ark, that should contain all the terre­strial and aerial animals, without Iron. The Americans without any Iron made themselves small Cannoes of one solid piece of Timber which they hollowed by burning, but it would be a strange Tree that was of the dimensions of the Ark, and could contain so many animals as it did. These things do (in my judge­ment) plainly show, that the Theorists opinion in this point is utterly false.

From what I have already said, I think, it may be clearly demonstrated, that the Fabrick of the [...] can never be deduced from a Chaos, by the sole help of Mechanical principles and Natu­ral causes. For it is evident to any one who has eyes (tho there have been some wise Philosophers of another opinion that the Land is higher than the Wa­ter; and it is also plainly experienced, that common arable earth or clay is much heavier than water and if we descend into the Mines or Pits, we shall find the matter there to be three or four times heavier than the earth a­bove. Now it is plain from what I [Page 44] have already proved, that in a Chaos, the true change that would follow from Mechanical principles and Natural cau­ses, is, that if all were fluid, the heaviest & solidest Bodies would subside and fall to the Center, every one taking place according to the specifick gravity; so that the lighter Bodies would always be forced uppermost: the earth there­fore being heavier than the water, must of necessary place it self nigher the Cen­ter, and leave the water to cover the face of the whole Orb. Thus the sur­face of the World could never be in­habited by any other Animal than Fishes. But in how much wiser order than this, has the great Creator of the World plac'd all the Bodies of the earth, so that notwithstanding the greater gravi­ty of the Land, it is raised higher than the Sea, and thereby made fit and ha­bitable both for man and beasts, with­out the help of Natural and Mecha­nical causes, which would have produc'd the contrary effect.

Several other arguments might be brought to demonstrate that the f [...]me of this World was the result of wis­dom and counsel, and not of the ne­cessary and essential Laws of motion and [Page 45] gravitation, which could never have either made or supported the World. I always wonder'd at the wild and ex­travagant fancy of the Philosophers, who thought that brute and stupid mat­ter would by it self, without some su­preme and intelligent director, fall in­to a regular and beautiful structure, whose parts should be so extreamly well adapted to various uses, as if they had been the result of wisdom and contri­vance. I will conclude this Chapter with a discourse of the Theorist in his 10th Chap. lib. 2.

‘In the construction of the Body of an Animal, (says he) there is more of thought and contrivance, more of ex­quisite invention, and fit dispositions of parts, than is in all the Temples, Palaces, Ships, Theaters, or any other pieces of Architecture the World ever yet saw, and not Architecture only, but all other Mechanism whatsoever, Engines, Clock-work, or any other is not comparable to the Body of a liv­ing creature. Seeing then we acknow­ledge these artificial works, whereso­ever we meet with them, to be the effects of wit, understanding and rea­son; is it not manifest partiality or [Page 46] stupidity rather, to deny the works of nature, which excell these in all de­grees, to proceed from an intelligent principle? Let them take any piece of human art, or any Machine fram'd by the wit of man, and compare it with the Body of an Animal, either for diversity and multiplicity of work­manship, or curiosity in the Minute parts, or just connexion and depen­dance of one thing upon another, or fit subserviency to the ends propos'd of Life, Motion, Use, and Ornament to the creature: and if in all these respects, they find it superior to any work of human production, as they certainly must, why should it be thought to proceed from inferior and senseless causes? ought we not in this as well as in other respects to proportion the causes to the effect, and to speak truth, and bring an ho­nest verdict for Nature as well as for Art?’

I desire the Theorist may apply this excellent discourse to himself, and con­sider whether this Argument which he produces against the Epicureans and Atheists, does not fully show the absur­dity of his own Theory.

CHAP. III. Of the Mountains.

THE Theorist frames his Antedi­luvian Earth, smooth, regular and uniform, without Mountains and with­out a Sea. The proof which he brings for this bold assertion, is, that the Globe of the Earth could not rise immedi­ately from a Chaos into the irregular form, in which it is at present; the Cha­os, says he, being a fluid Masse, which we know does necessarily fall into a spherical surface, whose parts are equi­distant from the Centre, in an equal and even convexity one with another. And since upon the distinction of the Chaos, and separation into several ele­mentary Masses, the Water would na­turally have a superior place to the Earth, 'tis manifest there could be no habitable Earth form'd out of the Cha­os unless by some concretion upon the face of the Water. Then lastly seeing this concrete Orb of Earth upon the face of the Water would be of the same form with the surface of the Wa­ter [Page 48] it was spread upon, there being no causes that we know of, to make an inequality in it, we must conclude it equal and uniform, and without Moun­tains, as also without a Sea. For the Sea and all the Masse of Water was in­clos'd within this exterior Earth, which had no other basis or foundation to rest upon.

This is the Theorist's great argument why the face of the primitive earth was smooth and uniform and without Mountains; which if we consider nar­rowly, it will appear to depend upon a precarious and false supposition, name­ly that the great Masse of matter which we have now for our earth, was, when in a Chaos, an entirely fluid Masse, which is a hard thing to be granted, since the greatest parts of Bodys 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 liquify them all. Besides, a great part of them, as Stones and Me­tals, are uncapable of being liquified by water. We must conclude therefore that the Chaos was not so fluid a Masse, as would be necessary for to have it's [Page 49] surface even and uniform. Why might not there have been in this great Masse huge lumps of firm and solid matter, which without any form, order, or re­gularity, might be jumbled together, and swimming up and down, some on the surface, and some within the fluid? I will leave it to any to judge which ap­pears most like a Chaos, this which I have describ'd, or his, which is a re­gular, uniform fluid of a spherical fi­gure, so composed and mix'd with all Bodies that no part of it, at least at the same distance from the Centre, is thick­er than another: which must necessarily fall out, if the Chaos had an exact spherical figure, as the Theorist suppo­ses. If it were otherwise, it is plain by Hydrostatical Principles, that there the fluid would rise highest, where it is thinnest, or lightest; and consequently it would not have its surface uniform, e­qually even and distant from the Centre.

Indeed, methinks the Theorist's first figure of the Chaos, does very much contradict his own hypothesis. There you may see represented great pieces of hard and solid matter of no regular figure, swimming confusedly in the fluid; any one of which seems to bear a far [Page 50] greater proportion, to the whole Masse than the highest hills could do to the whole Earth.

But perhaps it may be said that all these hard and solid Bodies being hea­vier than the fluid in which they swam, fell down and compos'd the Central so­lid. And so far I must own indeed, that all the Bodies in that great Masse, which were heavier than water, if left to the laws of gravity, would necessarily fall down toward the Centre. But certain it is that in such a great heap of matter, and so different mixtures of all sorts,

there must be several that were spe­cifically lighter than the water in which they swam, and therefore after that the heaviest had fallen to the Centre, they would still float upon the sur­face, so much of them being under wa­ter as would equal in quantity a bulk of water of the same gravity with the whole Masse, as it is demonstrated by Archimedes 5. Proposition. Lib. 1. De In­sidentibus Humido; so that all the rest of the Masse standing out or being higher than the fluid would compose a Mountain. And that hills may be thus [Page 51] made, I think is confirmed by the ob­servation of those who have failed in the Northern Seas, where they see great Mountains of Ice floating upon the top of the waters, and yet there is but a very small difference between the spe­cifick gravity of water and Ice, it be­ing as eight to seven according to Mr. Boyle's observations. If then we will suppose all Mountains hollow and full of Caverns, there being a great many to our certain knowledge that are so, or else joined to some light matter, so that the whole composition may be lighter than water or the fluid Chaos; this would necessarily produce Moun­tains.

And now I hope the Theorist will own that the evenness and uniformity of the earth is not so necessary a conse­quence from its production out of a Chaos, as he at first imagined: since I have shewed him how mountains might have been form'd from his own princi­ples of Statick [...] and Gravitation. Yet I am of the opinion that there were other principles concurring to the formation of the world, besides gravitation and the known laws of motion, which I think if left to themselves would ne­ver [Page 52] produce any tolerable or habita­ble world.

But supposing the efficient cause of Mountains unknown or impossible to be assigned; yet still there remains the final cause to be inquired into, which will do as well for our purpose. For if I prove them to be as useful to the inhabitants of the primitive earth, as they are now to us, and that in our present state they are absolutely ne­cessary, not only for our well being, but also for our bare subsistance; I think from thence it will demonstra­tively follow that they were in the pri­mitive earth as well as in ours. And therefore the groundless assertion of the Theorist that the face of the Antediluvi­an earth was smooth regular and uni­form, is as false as 'tis bold and daring.

I know there is a sort of men in this age who have excluded all final causes from the consideration of a Philosopher, as being unworthy of his enquiry, sup­posing his business is only to find out the true formal and efficient causes of all things, and not to concern himself with the design of nature, or the great end for which the God of Nature made any thing. But indeed these men have [Page 53] been so unhappy in their searches, that I dare boldly say they have not so much as discovered the true real and efficient cause of any one of the Phaenomena which was not known and better ex­plain'd before; tho' they have pretend­ed to lay open the essences and formal causes of all things, and to shew the man­ner, how the Universe was formed from the principles of Matter and Motion.

But whatever they pretend, certain it is, that final causes are worthy of the consideration of all men, and much more of a Philosopher. By them we are led into the admiration of the wis­dom of God, and discover his care and providence over the world; By them we demonstrate that the World could never be made by chance; but it must be a being of Infinite wisdom that form'd it for such various uses as are to be seen in it. And therefore by all wise and considering men they are much more to be valued than efficient cau­ses, if they could be discovered; which only tell us how the thing was per­form'd, and not the use for which it was design'd. 'Tis true indeed, it is not easy to discover the use of every thing in the Universe; but from the admi­rable [Page 54] contrivance of those things, the uses of which we do know, and from the infinite wisdome of God, it may be easily concluded, that every thing in nature has its use, and is in some manner serviceable to the good of the whole.

They who desire to see more concern­ing the usefulness of final causes, may consult Mr. Boyle of final causes, Mr. Ray's wisdome of God in the works of the Creation, and some late ingenious essays upon the nature and evidence of faith by Dr. Cockburn.

I must confess I cannot but think it a strange and presuming boldness in the Theorist to assert, that Mountains are plac'd in no order one with another, that can either respect use or beauty: and that if they are singly consider'd, they do not consist of any proportion of parts, that is referable to any de­sign, or hath the least footsteps of art or counsel. Notwithstanding this strange assertion, I am sure, if we were with­out these shapeless and ill figur'd old Rocks and Mountains, as he calls them, we should soon find the want of them. It being impossible to subsist or live without them.

[Page 55]For setting aside the use they may have in the production of various Plants and Metals, which are usefull to man­kind, and make a part of the compleat whole, and the Food which they yield to several Animals, which are design'd by Nature to live upon them; The high Hills being a refuge for the wild Goats, and the Rocks for the Conies; and not to mention the end they serve for in di­recting the Inland winds, and altering the weather, in fencing and bounding Empires and Countries, in all which without doubt they do us very consi­derable service; there is moreover one great and Universal use, which makes them absolutely necessary for the sub­sistance of Mankind. For without them it is certain we should have no Rivers, nor fresh currents of waters, and consequently we should want one of the greatest supports of Life. This the Learned and Ingenious Mathema­tician and Philosopher Mr. Edmund Halley has effectually proved in the Philosophical Transactions, where he gives us an account of the rise of Springs and Rivers from Vapours, ^* ‘That are raised copiously in the Sea, and by [Page 56] the winds are carried over the low Land to the high ridges of Mountains, where they are compelled by the stream of the air to mount up with it to the tops of the Mountains, where they presently precipitate, gleeting down by the cranies of the stones, and part of the Vapour entring into the Caverns of those Hills, the waters thereof gather as in an Alembick, in­to the basons of stone it finds; which being once filled, all the overplus of water that comes thither, runs over by the lowest place and breaking out by the sides of the Hills, forms single Springs, many of these running down by the valleys or gutts between the ridges of the hills, and coming to unite, form little rivulets or brooks, many of these again meeting in one common valley and gaining the plain ground being grown less rapid be­come a River, and many of these being united in one common chan­nel make such streames as the Rhine, the Rhone, and the Danube, which last one would hardly think the collection of waters condensed out of vapours, unless we consider how vast a tract of ground that River drains, and that it [Page 57] is the summ of all those springs which break out upon the South side of the Carpathian Mountains, & on the North side of the immense ridge of the Alpes, which is one continued chain of Mountains from Switzerland to the black Sea, so that it may almost pass for a rule, that the magnitude of a River or the quantity of water, which it evacuates, is proportional to the length and height of the ridges from whence its fountain arises.’

All this I take to be undeniably evi­dent. For that vapours are raised by the heat of the Sun from the Sea in such vast quantities as will be sufficient to serve all the Rivers, the same ingeni­ous Mr. Halley has demonstrated by Calculations. But it is also demonstra­ble that these vapours being of the same specifick gravity with the air in which they swim, must follow its mo­tion, that is, they must be carried by the winds over land untill they meet with such an obstacle as a hill in their way which resists their motion, where they must precipitate and gleet down by its side and so form Rivers and Springs. All this is not only clear from reason, but is also confirmed by the ex­perience [Page 58] of the same Mr. Halley while he was at St. Helena as he tells you, in the Philosophical Transactions.

And now methinks 'tis plain that hills are so very far from being placed in the earth without any art or con­trivance, that they demonstrate to us the admirable wisdome of their great maker, who has thus formed them for so necessary ends. If the earth were smooth, regular and uniform; water without doubt would stagnate and stink, for how is it possible for water to run where there is no rising ground, no upper land from which it is to descend to the lower and even parts of the earth.

I know the Theorist thinks, that he has clearly solved that great difficulty by the oval figure of his Antediluvian earth, in which he fancies that Rivers will run notwithstanding the earths regular and even surface. But when I come to discuss that point I will shew that the earth has not, nor ever had any such oval figure as he supposes, and upon supposition it had, yet even in that case there could be no cur­rent Water or Rivers; and where there is no current waters there must be but uncomfortable living. How many great [Page 59] parts of the world lie perfectly desti­tute of inhabitants for want of waters? Travellers tell us fearful stories of the incredible extremities they have suffered in going thorough the Desarts of Ara­bia for want of fresh waters.

It is plain therefore, that if the pri­mitive earth was inhabitable there must be Mountains in it, for I think I have already proved that in a smooth re­gular earth there could be no Rivers. And the great advantages, which Coun­tries reap by being well furnished with Rivers, is very evident; for without them there could be no great Towns, nor any converse with far inland Coun­tries; since without them it is almost impossible to supply a vast multitude of People with things necessary for life. If we should suppose the Thames taken away from London, or it's course di­verted so as to be at a great distance from it; there is no doubt but that City would quickly to its loss, very much find the want of so great an advantage; and from being one of the greatest in the space of some few hundred years, it would come to be one of the least Cities of the Universe.

It cannot be said, though Rivers [Page 60] are now in the present state of the world of great use and benefit to man­kind, that in the antediluvian earth there was no such necessity for them, there being no such great traffick as now, nor such a number of people to be main­tain'd by it. For this seeming ob­jection is clearly solved by the Theo­rist himself in his third Chapter Book I. where he proves the number of the an­tediluvian people to have been at least as great as they are now, and the world altogether as well peopled. And if so, since men lived then to a very great age, (some of them to nine hundred years) they would be well taught by experience, and understand most of those things which are useful and profitable for them, as well as we do now. But I need not go about to prove there were Antediluvian Rivers, since it is plainly asserted by Moses that there were such in the second Chapter of Genesis, whose authority I hope the Theorist will not deny. For he himself acknow­ledges their existence before the Floud, and endeavours to explain their rise without the help of mountains; which explication in its due place I will prove to be false and impossible.

[Page 61]Since therefore it is plain from Rea­son, from Scripture, and the Theorist's own concessions, that there were Rivers in the primitive Earth, and seeing it is impossible for any such to be without Mountains, without higher and lower grounds (the Theorist's Oval-figured earth not being sufficient for such an effect) From thence it does [...] evi­dently follow, that Mountains were be­fore the floud. And therefore his as­sertion that the primitive earth was smooth, regular and uniforme, is false and absurd.

CHAP. IV. Of the Perpendicular position of the Axis of the Earth to the plane of the Ecliptick.

AMong other Characters of the Gol­den Age with which the Theo­rist endows his primitive Earth, one is a perpetual Spring which was then all the world over, all the parts of the years being of one and the same tenour, face, and temper. Then, says he, there was no Winter nor Summer, Seed time or Har­vest, but a continual temperature of the Air and Verdure of the Earth. The reason which he brings for this assertion is, that at first the Axis of the Earth was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick, and consequently the plane of the AEquator being coincident with the plane of the Ecliptick, the Sun in its diurnal motion would seem to move always in the AE­quator, making equal Dayes and Nights throughout the year.

Notwithstanding this fine description of the Theorist's, I hope to make it [Page 63] appear in this Chapter, that the right position of the Earth (as he calls it) is so very far from being desirable as he imagins it is, that it is one of the worst it could have, and that therefore the Earth was never placed by God Al­mighty at the beginning of the world in such a position. For I here lay it down as an axiom which I am confident the Theorist will allow, that God at the beginning placed the Earth in such a position as was most advantageous to the whole, and tho perhaps another po­sition might have been fitter for some particular place, yet the whole would have been the worse for it: God by his infinite wisdome and goodness al­wayes choosing such constitutions and positions of things as bring with them the greatest good and utility to the Universe.

Let us therefore consider whither this right position, which the Theorist says was that of the primitive Earth was the best it could have, and if after examination we find that no such Cha­racter as that of best belonged to it, but rather the contrary, it being by far more disadvantageous to the Earth than the present one, we may confidently [Page 64] conclude from the above mentioned axiom that the Earth never had any such position.

That great and learned Astronomer Kepler, who certainly had more than an ordinary penetration (nay perhaps a divine impulse) in discovering the works of Nature and Providence, in his Epito­me Astronomiae Copernicanae, has shewed that the present position of the earths Axis is by far preferable to any other, especially to that of the perpendicu­lar position to the plane of the Eclip­tick, for he tells us in his Lib. 3. Part 4. That if the Axis of the earth about which it turned stood at right angles, with the plane of the Ecliptick, and the earth in the mean time turned round the Sun as it does now, that then in­deed the Sun would seem to rise and set every day, and make its circuit from West to East, under the fixed stars in the space of a year, but then there would be no division of the Ecliptick in­to halves, quarters, and signs, no distincti­on of the year by its different quali­ties of heat and cold, every night would be equal to every day, there would be two places in the Earth to whose in­habitants more than half the Sun could [Page 65] never appear but its Centre would con­tinually turn round in their Horizons, never rising higher nor falling low­er, the nearer one came to the aequator, so much higher would he have the Sun in his meridian, but in the same place it would alwayes be at a constant height at twelve of the Clock. In the aequator, the Sun throughout the whole year would alwayes be vertical when it comes to the meridian, and there only, would there be an intense and perpetual Sum­mer, when at the poles, and in places near them, there would be an eternal Winter without any intermission of Frost and Snow. The Sun also would alwayes Rise and Set in the same points of their Horizons, and therefore, there would be no alteration in the Earth, but upon the account of day and night, and no sort of changes in the year which would alwayes keep the same tenour and face, the annual mo­tion of the earth being of no use.

These are the effects which the Learn­ed Kepler has shewed, would necessari­ly follow from the position of the Earths axis, which besides, that it makes the Earths Annual circuit round the Sun of no sort of use and advantage to [Page 66] it, (And this I suppose cannot well a­gree with the infinite wisdom of its Maker,) it brings with it such a train of consequences, which if men would consider, I believe there would be few so fond of changes, as to be willing to have the present oblique position al­tered for the perpendicular one of the Theorist, which would render this whole Island no better than a wilder­ness, and the greatest part of the Earth not habitable.

For under the AEquinoctial, to whose inhabitants, the Sun would continually at twelve of the Clock, shine perpendi­cularly and even throughout the Torrid Zone there would be an intolerable scorching heat; In the Frigid Zone the cold could not be indured, and the greatest part of the two temperate Zones would not have a sufficient quantity of heat to ripen their fruits. All men in England are sensible that the heat we have in Summer, is but just great enough to bring our Corn and Fruits to perfection, and therefore if the heat we have in Summer, were no greater than it is now about the 10th of March, or the 11th of September, the Ground would not be able to produce any ve­getables [Page 67] to supply us with food, so that all of us must have changed our Cli­mate for some more fertile Soil which receives more of the Suns influence.

This may serve to shew how vain and false the Theorist's assertion is, that the primitive earth had its axis per­pendicular to the plane of the ecliptick, and that this position is so far from being the best it could have, that it may be justly reckoned among the worse sort of positions. I come now to shew the great advantages we reap by the present position of the Earth, and how apt it is to serve the ends for which it was designed by its wise con­triver.

Kepler in the above mentioned book tels us, that the earth was designed a place for those things which are liable to Generation and Corruption, and therefore it was by no means fit that the Sun should shine upon every part of it throughout the year with an equal tenour and force, but there ought to be such alterations and changes of his heat as are necessary to produce the de­sign'd effects, for it is plain that diffe­rent degrees of heat are requir'd for the production and ripening of most [Page 68] Plants, the heat that is requisite for the first growth of a vegetable, not being sufficient for the ripening and perfect­ing the seed thereof, and that degree of heat which is necessary for bringing the seed to perfection, would quite wither the green and tender herb.

Now all this is obtained by the pre­sent position of the Earth, and the in­clination of its Axis, to the plane of the Ecliptick, for from thence arises the va­riety of Seasons, and different degrees of heat and cold. We perceive in the Spring time, that we have the heat of the Sun still increasing in such a measure, as the Plants require for their nutriti­on and growth. At last the Sun arrives at his greatest meridian height, and then the Plants bring forth their Seeds which grow every day more and more perfect and then are fully ripe and fit for food, and when the Sun has performed his work in our part of the World, he returns again to the tropick of Capri­corne, to make room for the Snow and Ice which comes in the Winter for the moistening and preparing the earth for a new Crop. And tho in the Torrid Zone, they never have any Snow or Ice, yet at the time of the year when [Page 69] the Sun is vertical to them, there falls such a quantity of rain, as not only cools the Air, and makes the Heat of the Sun tolerable, but also fattens the ground and prepares it for the pro­duction of fruits.

But there is one more considerable advantage which we reap by the pre­sent position of the earth which I will here insert: because I do not know that 'tis taken notice of by any. And it is that by the present inclination of the earths axis to the plane of the ecliptick, we who live beyond forty five degrees of Latitude, have more of the Suns heat throughout the year than if the Sun shined alwayes in the equator, that is if we take the summ of the Suns acti­ons upon us both in Summer and Win­ter, they are greater than its heat would be if it moved always in the equator, or which is the same thing, the aggre­gate of the Suns heat upon us while it describes any two opposite parallels, is greater than it would be if in these two dayes it described the equator, whereas in the Torrid Zone, and even in the temperate almost as far as forty five degrees of Latitude, the summ of the Suns heat in Summer and Winter is less [Page 70] than what it would be were the axis of the Earth perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptick.

I know Dr. Bently in his last Lecture for the Confutation of Atheism, asserts that tho the axis had been perpendicular, yet take the whole year about we should have had the same measure of heat we have now. But I am not sur­prised to find an error of this nature asserted by one who as it appears is not very well skilled in Astronomy; for, in the same Lecture, he confidently saies, that 'tis matter of fact and experience that the Moon alwaies shews the same Face to us, not once wheeling about her own Centre, whereas 'tis evident to any one who thinks, that the Moon shews the same face to us for this very reason, because she does turn once, in the time of her period, about her own Centre. But it were to be wished, that great Cri­ticks would confine their Labours to their Lexicons, and not venture to guess in those parts of Learning which are capable of demonstration, for this is our present case, and I undertake to shew, that we who live in this part of the World, and have greatest need of the Suns heat, have more [Page 71] of it take the whole year about, than if the Sun moved continually in the equator, whereas they that live in the Torrid Zone and in places near them, and who are rather too much exposed to the heat of the Sun, than too little, have by this means less of his heat than they would have had the earth observed a right position.

I think this consideration cannot but lead us into a transcendent admiration of the divine wisdome, which has placed the earth in such a posture as brings with it several conveniences beyond what we can easily discover without study and application, and I make no question, but if the rest of the works of nature were well observed, we should find several advantages which accrue to us by their present constitution which are far beyond the uses of them that are yet discovered, by which it will plainly appear that God hath chosen better for us than we could have done for our selves, but to return to our assertion which I design to prove by the Canon invented by that excellent Geometer Mr. Edmund Halley in the Phil. Trans. Numb. 203. viz. That the Sum of the Sines of the Suns Meridian Altitudes in any two op­posite [Page 72] parallels, being multiplied into the Sine of the semidiurnal Arch, and thereun­to adding in Summer, or substracting in Winter, the product of the length of the semi­diurnal Arch, (taken according to Van Ceu­len's Numbers) into the difference of the above said Sines of Meridian Altitudes: the Sum in one case, and difference in the other shall be as the Aggregate of all the Sines of the Suns Altitude, during his appear­ance above the Horizon in the proposed day. Thus that I may use Mr. Halley's own example. Let the Solstitial Heat in ♋ and ♑ be required at London, Lat. 51°. 3 2.

Diff. Ascen. 33°-11.

Arc. Semidi. aestiv. 123-11,

Arc. Semidi. hyb. 56-49. Sin. '638923

Arc. aestiv. mensura 2,149955.

Arc. hyber. mensura 991683.

Then 1, 140931 in, 836923 + '624417 in 2, 149955 = 2, 29734 And 1, 140931 [Page 73] in, 886929 −, 624417 in, 991638=33895 So that the Suns action will be as 2, 29734 in the day of the Summer Solstice and as 0, 33895 in the Day of the Winter Sol­stice.

According to this Canon I have computed the Heat of the Sun for every five degrees of its declination both North and South, at the Latitude of 51 degrees as in the following Table,

By which it will appear that the heat of the Sun in the Latitude of 51 de­grees while it describes by its diurnal motion any too opposite parallels, is greater than if the Sun these two days had described the aequator, as for exam­ple, the heat of the Sun in the 20th de­gree of North declination is as 2, 13919 and in the 20th degree of South declina­tion [Page 74] as, 46916 which two added toge­ther make, 2, 60135 which is more than double the number 1, 25864 which re­presents the heat in one equinoctial day, and so in all the rest of the parallels. After the same manner the action of the Sun in Summer and Winter may be easily Calculated for any Latitude or distance from the aequator, by which it will plainly appear that the heat of the Sun while it moves from Aries to Libra, that is during the time it runs through the six Northern signs together with its heat while it moves from Libra to Aries again, in the six Southern signs, is greater to us who live beyond the 45th degree of Latitude, and consequently stand most in need of the Suns heat, than it would be had the axis of the earth stood at right angles with the plane of the ecliptick, by which the Sun would seem to move in no other circle than the equator as the Theorist imagines it did before the Flood.

The next thing I am to make out is that the heat of the Sun in the Torrid Zone, and even in the two temperate Zones almost as far as to the 45th degree of Latitude is less than it would have been had the Theorist's position of the [Page 75] earth been the true one and this is ma­nifest by the following Table Calculat­ed by Mr. Halley in the above menti­oned Philosophical Transactions.

Where it plainly appears, that the ag­gregate of the Suns heat while he is in ♋ and ♑ and so in any other two opposite parallels, is less to those who live in the Torrid zone, than if the Sun by his diurnal motion had described con­tinually the equator.

Thus we see how admirably conve­nient the present position of the earth is upon several accounts, and how ex­cellently it is fitted to our use and pur­poses above any other that we can ima­gine [Page 76] & therefore we can never enough admire the Divine wisdom for such an excellent contrivance, This shews us al­so how much we ought to regard final causes in Natural Philosophy, which in things of this nature are by far more certain and convincing than any of the Physical and Mechanical ones which the Theorist brings to prove the truth of his assertion which have brought him into many strange and dangerous errors, it being just that God Almighty should deliver these men up to follow strange delusions, who neglecting to proceed upon final causes the true principles of Natural Philosophy, and to square their notions according to the Divine Reve­lations contained in Holy Scripture have followed the wild and extravagant Fancies of their own imaginations.

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 as it is now, is, that it is certain by observation that Saturn and Iupiter (whom the The­orist will allow to have suffered no De­luge as yet) have their axis not perpen­dicular but inclined to the planes of their orbits, and the position is true of [Page 77] all the other Planets as far as they can be observed, and therefore it is reason­able to suppose that the same must have been the position of the earth at the beginning, for where universally the same effect is observed, there it will be agreeable to the maxims of Natural Phi­losophy, to assign the same cause, nature being uniform and not taking different methods to perform the same thing.

It remains now that I examin the reasons the Theorist alledges to prove that the earth before the flood had its axis perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptick; it is says he, the immediate re­sult of gravity or libration that a bo­dy freely left to its self should settle in such a posture as best answers to its gravitation, and this earth whereof we speak being uniform and every way e­qually ballanced, there is no reason why it should incline at one end more than at the other towards the Sun, as if you will suppose a Ship to stand North and South under the equator if it was equal­ly built and equally ballanced it would not incline to one Pole more than to the other but keep its axis parallel to the axis of the earth, so those great Ships that sail about the Sun once in so ma­ny [Page 78] years whilst they are uniformly built and equally poised keep steady and even with the axis of their orbits, but if they loose that equality and the centre of their gravity change the heavier end will incline more towards the centre of their motion, and the other end will recede from it, so particularly our earth which makes one in that airy fleet when it escaped so narrowly being shipwrackt in the great Deluge, was however so broken and disordered that it lost its equal poise and thereupon the centre of its gravity changing, one Pole became more inclined towards the Sun and the other more removed from it, in which skew posture it hath stood ever since.

Here the Theorist puts his false rea­soning in fine words, and dresses it out in gayety according to the present mode, that it may go the smoother off, but at the same time he shews us how little he is skilled either in Astronomy or Geometry, for he tells us in one place, that the earth stands inclined to the Sun or the Ecliptick, but how a sphere can be inclined to a plane passing through its centre is far beyond my Geometry to conceive. I am sure he will find no such thing said by the Geometers or [Page 79] the Astronomers before him, but he may be easily pardoned for this small error, because he meant well, viz. that the axis of the earth was inclin'd to the plane of the Ecliptick with which it makes an angle of 66°½ But he has committed a far greater blunder than this which is not so easily to be for­given him, for a World-maker ought at least to understand something of Astronomy and of the Copernican sy­stem which he embraces, but it is plain that he does not know the Elements of that system, since he asserts that one Pole of the earth is more inclined to the Sun than the other, this is a posi­tion I never heard was given to the earth before. I wish he would inform us which of the two Poles is most in­clined to the Sun, for I am sure Coper­nicus, Kepler and Gallileo the first revivers of the Pythagorean system never said any such thing, they held that both Poles were equally removed from the plane of the ecliptick,, the axis which joins them making with it an angle of 66°½ and keeping a position alwayes parallel to it self and therefore whatever in­clination one Pole had at any time of the year to the Sun, the opposite Pole [Page 80] would have the same inclination at the opposite time of the year, and therefore both Poles are equally inclined to the Sun.

'Tis true indeed that if one hemis­phere were heavier than the other; the heaviest Pole would alwayes look towards the Sun to which it gravitates, and by consequence there would be no parallelisme observed in the axis of the earth, for if there were a Globe swim­ming in water, one of whose Poles were heavier than the other, it is de­monstrable that the heaviest side would alwayes be towards the centre of the earth, but since the earth does alwayes keep its axis parallel to it self, and by that means makes the variety of sea­sons which otherwise would not hap­pen, I think it a demonstration that the Theorist's opinion in this point is false and ridiculous. For if at the De­luge the earth had lost its equal poise, and its Centre of gravity had been al­tered as he will have it, the true effect of this alteration would be that the Pole which was next to the Centre of gravity had been alwayes turned to­wards the Sun, and the people living near it had injoyed a perpetual Sum­mer [Page 81] and one continued day without any night, whilst those in the opposite Pole had lived in perpetual darkness, Frost and Snow, having but one eternal Win­ter without any vicissitude of seasons. These therefore being the necessary con­sequences of such a change of gravity in the earth as the Theorist imagines, and since none of them did ever hap­pen to it, but the earth does still keep its axis parallel to it self; I think it is demonstratively evident that the earth received no such shock by the Deluge as was sufficient to alter the Centre of its gravity, and consequently the po­sition of its Poles in respect of the Sun.

'Tis true, a sphere put in aequilibra­tion, and made turn round about a point without any other motion, ne­cessarily keeps all its diameters parallel to themselves, and by consequence the axis which is one of them must also be parallel to its self, for since the time of its revolution is determined, it will perform its period in that time with the least motion possible, which is only when all the diameters of the sphere in all parts of its orbit are parallel to them­selves as is demonstrated by the Geo­meters, [Page 82] Nature generally taking the shortest courses in all its operations, at least it takes that one and determinate method for performing its work, which the Philosophers call the unicum in na­turâ, I wonder therefore why some should make a third motion for the Earth, whereby it keeps its axis al­wayes parallel to it self, for this is ra­ther the effect of rest than any new motion; for it is not the parallelism, but the declination of the axis from exact parallelism, (by which the Stars seeme to move tho very slowly accord­ing to the series of the signs) which ought to be called a new motion.

But I will pass from this Subject, and consider the Theorists Argument for the right position of the Earth drawn from its aequilibration, which he sayes is the immediate result and common ef­fect of gravity or libration. For a Bo­dy sayes he freely left to its self in a fluid medium will settle it self in such a posture as will best answer to its gra­vity, and the Earth being uniformly ballanced, there is no reason why it should incline at one end more than at the other towards the Sun. This he il­lustrates by the similitude of a Ship [Page 83] equally ballanc'd, and placed North and South under the equator. But after all this Argument and Similitude, I can see as yet no reason why the axis of the Earth should be perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptick more than any other of its diameters, for it is demon­started by the writers of Hydrostaticks, that a sphere whose centre of Gravity is the same with its centre of Magni­tude if put in a fluid of the same spe­cifick gravity with it self, will re­tain any given position, and therefore there can be no reason drawn from the earths gravity or equilibration why the position of its axis should be perpen­dicular to the plane of the Ecliptick ra­ther than any other of its diameters.

CHAP. V. Of Rivers.

THE Theorist having represented to us the first Earth as a smooth regular and uniform body without Mountains and without a Sea; In the 5th Chap. of his second book he starts a great difficulty how it was watered, from what causes, and in what man­ner, how could Fountains rise or Ri­vers flow in an Earth of that form and nature? he has shut up the Sea with thick walls on every side, and taken away all communication that could be 'twixt it and the external earth, he has removed all the Hills and Moun­tains where the Springs use to rise, and whence the Rivers descend to wa­ter the face of the ground, and lastly, he has left no issue for these Rivers, no Ocean to receive them, or any place to disburthen themselves into. So that his new found World is like to be a dry and barren wilderness, and so far from being Paradisaical that it would scarce be Habitable.

[Page 85]These indeed are great difficulties, and the Theorist has acknowledged them to be such, for he sayes there was nothing in his whole Theory that gave so rude a stop to his thoughts as that part of it concerning the Rivers of the first Earth. But as the difficul­ties are great, and as one would think insuperable, so no doubt the glory that redounds to the Theorist must be no­thing less, if they be clearly taken a­way.

To understand therefore what the state of the primitive Rivers and wa­ters would be, he finds it necessary to consider and examine how the rains fell in the first Earth, and he tells us that the order of nature in the Regions of the an would be very different from what it is now; there could be no vi­olent motions there, nor any thing that proceeded from extremity of cold, as Ice, Snow, or Hail, and as for Winds, they could neither be impetuous nor irregular in that Earth of his, seeing there were no Mountains, nor any o­ther inequalities to obstruct the course of the vapours, nor any unequal sea­sons, nor unequal actions of the Sun, but as for waters, meteors, dews and [Page 86] rains, there could not but be plenty of these in some part or other of that Earth; for the action of the Sun in raising vapours was very strong, and very constant, and the Earth was at first moist and soft, and according as it grew more dry, the rayes of the Sun would pierce more deep into it, and reach at length the great abyss which lay underneath and was an unexhausted storehouse of new vapours. Now the same heat which extracted these va­pours so copiously, would also hinder them from condensing into rain in the warmer parts of the Earth, and there being no mountains or contrary winds or any such causes, to stop or compress them, they would take their course where they were least resisted, which is towards the Poles and the colder re­gions of the Earth; for East and West, they would meet with as warm an air, and vapours as much agitated as them­selves, which therefore will not yield to their progress that way, but North and South they will find a more easy passage so that the concourse, of va­pours which were raised chiefty about the Equinoctial and middle parts of it would be towards the extreme parts or [Page 87] the Poles. When these vapours thus driven by the heat of the Sun were arrived in the cooler Regions near the Poles they would be condensed into rain, for wanting there the cause of their agitation, namely the heat of the Sun, their motion would soon begin to languish, and they would fall close to one another in the form of water.

Thus he thinks he has found a suf­ficient source for waters in the first earth, which would never fail, neither dimi­nish nor overflow. But tho' he esteems this an inexhaustible store-house, and an easy way to furnish Waters, yet if it be narrowly examined he will find it not in the least sufficient for such an effect.

For first according to his own hy­pothesis there could be no Rivers for a long time after the formation of the Earth till the Sun had crackt the out­ward crust thereof, and its heat had reacht the great abyss which the The­orist must needs own will require a very considerable space of time, one would think it would be several hun­dreds of years before the Suns heat could perform such an effect, during all which time the inhabitants of the [Page 88] Earth must be without waters and ri­vers, and lead very sad and uncomfort­able lives. Is this the fruit of the Golden Age? or is this consistent with the hap­piness of the antediluvian Fathers? in my opinion it is directly contrary to the Scriptures, for they give us an ac­count of rivers immediately after the formation of the Earth.

But 2dly, I will hereafter prove that the Suns Beams did never yet reach so deep in the Earth as the thickness of the first crustation must have been, and consequently there never could arise a­ny vapours from the abyss to furnish the rivers.

3dly, Supposing the heat of the Sun to have crackt the crust, and to have raised vapours from the abyss, yet it is certain it could not do it in such a quantity as would be sufficient to fur­nish the Earth with waters. And now the Theorist will tell us, what can be more sufficient than the whole orb of water, sure this would do or else no­thing could, this he will say is an in­exhaustible treasure that the rivers could never drain, and therefore there was no fear of want of waters from thence. Yes there was reason to fear it [Page 89] very much, for supposing that there was enough in the abyss, yet perhaps the action of the Sun would not raise so much as would be sufficient to wa­ter the Earth, so there may be enough of Gold in the bowels of the earth, but if we cannot come at it we shall never be the richer for it.

That I may examine this, I will sup­pose that the mouths of these cracks which the Sun is said to have made by its heat to be a 1/10000 part of the surface of the earth, this will exceed 2600 square miles which I think is as much as the Theorist can reasonably allow them, for if it were but one con­tinued crack round the equator of a miles breadth it would not exceed 25000. miles.

2dly, I will suppose with the The­orist that one half of the surface of the present earth is Land and the other is Sea, and by consequence the mouths of those pits or cracks must be one five thousandth part of the whole of the now Ocean. Now it is evident that vapours drawn by a determinate heat from any quantity of water in a de­terminate time are alwayes proportio­nable to the surface of that water: for [Page 90] from a double surface there will be ex­haled a double quantity of vapour, from a triple surface a triple quantity of vapour, and so on. Therefore the surface of the Sea being 5000 times bigger than the mouths of these cracks, there will be exhaled from it 5000 times more water than what in that case could be drawn from the abyss. And therefore if the whole crust of the Antediluvian earth were but of the same bigness with our now dry land, it would have but one five thousandth part of the water to furnish it, that our present earth has; but because ac­cording to the Theorist, the surface of the dry land was then twice as big as it is now, there being at that time no Ocean which takes up one half of the surface: therefore it is plain that any particular Country in that case would have ten thousand times less water than it now has, there being five thousand times fewer vapours to water a double surface of Land; that is, in a Country, as big as the Island of Britain, there would not be so much as one River, nor so much rain in a year as does now fall in one day.

We see therefore how well the The­orist [Page 91] has watered his Antediluvian earth from the inexhaustible treasure of the abyss as he calls it. For however im­mense that great store-house was, yet still there would be a great scarcity of water on the surface of the earth.

Not. Except we will suppose the heat of the Sun in the primitive world considerably greater than it is in our earth, there must be less water drawn from the abyss than what I shewed from the former Calculation, and that be­cause the Sun could not shine so long upon the surface of the abyss thorow the cracks as it does now upon the Sea, by reason the crust of the earth would intercept all the rayes of the Sun till it came to be of a considerable height as is plain by this Figure.

[Page 92] Where if S represent the Sun in the equator, and PQ the sensible Horizon, mn the surface of the abyss opened by the pit PnmR the Sun must be at the height HS above the Horizon before its heat can reach the surface of the waters. The heat also upon the sur­face nm would not be so great by rea­son of the cold orb of earth which did incircle it. And upon these and some other accounts the Sun would not raise so much water from the abyss as it does now from the same quantity of surface in the Sea, but I will not take any ad­vantage of these considerations leave­ing them to be a recompence for the greater influence of the Sun which the Theorist sayes it had upon the Antedi­luvian earth.

From hence we may fully answer an objection of the Atheists against a pro­vidence, for say they, where is the wis­dome of the Creator in having so much useless Sea to no purpose and so little dry Land, for which men are every day fighting, might not the half of the Sea have been dry Land. which might have been serviceable to mankind? But this as most of their other arguments against providence proceeds from a deep igno­rance [Page 93] of Natural Philosophy. For if there were but half the Sea that now is, there would be also but half the quantity of vapours, and consequently we could have but half so many Ri­vers as now there are, to supply all the dry Land we have at present and half as much more, The wise Creator therefore, did so prudently order it, that the Sea should be large enough to supply vapours for all the Land, which it would not do if it were less than it now is.

But I will suppose with the Theorist, that there was a quantity of vapours exhaled by the heat of the Sun from the abyss sufficient to furnish plenti­fully the whole earth. Yet still there is a great doubt how Rivers could be formed: for what wayes could the va­pours take their course to be condens­ed and form Springs if there were no winds to carry them, certainly they would stagnate near the mouths of the cracks and leave the rest of the earth never a whit the better for them, and every one that wanted water must go as far as the equator to fetch it. No sayes the Theorist there was no need for that, the vapours being very much [Page 94] agitated and rarified by the heat of the Sun, and being once in the open air, their course would be that way where they found the least resistance to their motion, and that would certainly be towards the Poles and colder regions of the earth, for East and West they would meet with as warm an air, and vapours as much agitated as themselves which therefore would not yield to their progress that way: But towards North and South they would find a more ea­sy passage, the cold of these parts at­tracting them as we call it, that is, making way to their motion and di­latation without much resistance, as mountains and cold places usually draw vapours from the warmer.

Here is a new use or imployment the Theorist has found for the Moun­tains and Cold to be Gentlemen-ushers, for the vapours, and make way for their motion. He had told us before that the Cold and Hills attracted vapours, but because that word was not Philo­sophical, (being exploded and ridiculed by those who call themselves new Philo­sophers) he explains himself and tells us by attraction he meant the making way for their motion and dilatation; [Page 95] but how a Mountain can make way to the dilatation and motion of vapours is far beyond my pitch of understand­ing, to me it seems reasonable that they should resist both, and hinder the va­pours either from moving forward or dilating themselves. Sure I am, Cold is so far from being any wayes con­ducive to the dilatation of vapours, that it does alwayes condense them, as is plain by cold stone walls which alwayes condense the vapours that fall up­on them.

But the vapours sayes the Theorist, are very much agitated by the heat of the Sun, which gives them their mo­tion; and therefore they would take their course towards the Poles where they find the least resistance. What other motion the heat of the Sun can give them, but upwards I cannot imagine, for by it they are raised and made spe­cifically lighter than the air in which they swim, and therefore by a known principle in Hydrostaticks they must rise till they come to air of the same gravity with themselves, but then what should drive them to the Poles? their great agitation sayes he, and the little resistance they find that way, the air [Page 96] in the East and West being more agi­tated than that towards North and South, and therefore will more resist their motions.

This is a very dark answer, for I can­not conceive why the air upon the North or South side of an atome of va­pour should be more agitated than that upon the East and West side, for sure I am, there is the same degree of heat on all sides of it, and therefore upon that account it should find an equal resistance every way. Nay the Theo­rist, or such an other Philosopher might with as good reason have proved, that their course would have been only East and West, for there the air was very much rarified and made thin by the heat of the Sun, the air towards North and South, not being so much rarified was thicker, and therefore would resist more, as water which is a thicker medium does more resist the motion of bodies in it than air. This seemes to me to be a much better grounded opinion than the Theorists, tho' both of them are abso­lutely false, and may be disprov'd by the very same reasons, for how can a­ny man fancy that vapours only driven by the heat of the Sun, would travel [Page 97] some thousands of miles through a fluid body of air as dense as themselves, this seems to be against the common noti­ons of every man, and therefore I think needs no particular calculations; I cannot but believe that the Theo­rist did see these absurdities, since they are so very palpable, but finding no way to extricate himself from these difficul­ties, he was fain to make the best shift he could, which is a very bad one, and still the worse by his management.

But so far is the Theorist mistaken in this point, that supposing the great agitation of the vapours, yet it is cer­tain that their true course would be quite contrary to what he asserts, name­ly, from East to West, and not towards the North and South parts of the World, for they would be carried that way by a wind, which would continually blow from East to West. This I think I am able to prove demonstratively thus.

It is well known to all the Philoso­phers, that the air is a very elastick fluid body, so that being comprest with the weight of the incumbent atmosphere, it will endeavour to expand it self, and fill up a great space. If all the air therefore were equally dense or com­prest, [Page 98] every part would equally resist anothers pressure, and from thence there could arise no motion, but if we should suppose in this atmosphere one part thinner and its tension weaker than the rest, it is certain that the circumambient air, whose force to expand it self is stronger, will rush in upon it, and keep up an equilibrium in the air.

Now suppose EZWN represent the Orb of Air, which surrounds the earth T, and the Sun were shining directly upon the Air at Z which therefore by the great heat of the Sun will be very considerably more rarified and ex­panded than the Air at E, but after­wards [Page 99] the Sun shifting to the West, and coming to shine directly upon W, and Air at Z being rarer than the Air at E, and the heat of it being gon, its tension or force to expand it self, will not be so strong as the tension of that which is at E, and therefore the Air at E, will rush into Z and keep up the equilibrium, Thus also when the Sun declines to W Westward, the heat there being greater than it is at Z, the Air there will be rarer tho of the same ten­sion with the Air at Z, but afterwards the Sun moving towards N, that which is at W cooles, and being rarified its tension will grow weaker, and therefore the Air at Z, will press in upon the Air at W, and condense it till its tension be­comes so strong that it is able to resist any further pressure; after the same man­ner will the Air move from W to N, and from N to E, that is, there will be a continual wind blowing from East to West according to the motion of the Sun; for wind is nothing but a strong stream of the Air moved according to such a direction. But this is testified by the experience of all who Sail to­ward the Indies, for they find a wind in the Atlantick and AEthiopick Oce­ans [Page 100] which continually blows from East to West.

Since therefore this is clearly agreeable both to reason and observations, there is no further doubt to be made of it. The wind therefore in the Torrid Zone of the primitive earth blowing continually from East to West, must of necessity car­ry with it all those bodyes which swim in it, and are of the same density with it self; All the vapours and exhalation therefore that can be drawn either from the abyss or earth by the heat of the Sun, since they swim in an Air of the same density with themselves, must be carryed from East to West by the motion of the winds, which is alwayes directed that way.

And now I hope it will be plain even to the Theorist himself (tho men are seldom convinced of the falshood of their own notions) that the vapours which are raised by the Sun under the Torrid Zone of the primitive earth could never have reached either of the Poles, and therefore most part of the Inhabi­tants of the earth must still have been without water since 'tis impossible any supplies could be brought to them from the AEquator.

CHAP. VI. Of the Figure of the Earth.

THE Theorist as he thinks having found a sufficient stock of waters for the supply of all the Rivers in the earth, does now enter upon the solution of another great difficulty, which is to shew, how in a smooth and regular earth the waters could run, and what way they would take their course after their arri­val at the Poles in vapour; for since there were no Hills, nor Mountains, nor high Lands, in the first Earth, the vapours falling in the Frigid Zones and towards the Poles, there it seems they would stand in Lakes and Pooles, having no descent one way more than another. The Theorist therefore to take off the objection, will have the earth not to be of an exact Spherical, but an Oval figure, in which he sayes it is manifest that the Polar parts are higher than the AEquinoctial that is more remote from the Centre as appears by his figure, and this he tells us will do the business, For by that means the vapours which fall at [Page 102] the extream parts of the earth will have a continual descent towards the middle parts thereof, and by consequence it will be a sufficient descent for the run­ning of Rivers.

Now I will readily grant that the figure of the earth is not Spherical but Spheroidical, but I can see no reason why it should be an oblong Spheroid and not a broad one, for it may be of a Spheroidical figure, tho the Axis of it were shorter than the Diameter of its equator, and if it were so, I would fain know by what means the vapours would flow from the Poles to the Equator.

But the Theorist gives us an account how the Earth came to be formed af­ter the fashion of an oblong Spheroid. 'Tis true sayes he, if the Earth were as fluid a substance as it was in the Crea­tion and stood immovable without turning round its own Axis it would certainly settle it self into a Spherical figure, but because it turned very swift­ly round its Axis, the Fluid by that a­gitation would indeavour to recede from its Centre of motion, and form it self into a figure very nearly Oval, as we see in the Sea, or in any Lake when the waters are driven by the wind up­on [Page 103] the Land the Waves extend them­selves in length, so in our watery Globe which is turned about its own Axis, the whole bulk of water under the equa­tor being much more agitated than that which is towards the Poles (where the fluid in its diurnal motion describes lesser circles) it will indeavour to recede from the Centre of its motion, and be­cause it cannot get quite off and fly a­way, by reason of the Air which eve­ry way presses upon it, and the strait­ness of its Orb in these places, neither could it flow back without a great check and resistance from the same Air, it could not otherwise free it self than by flowing towards the sides, for wa­ters which are hindered in their moti­on will take the easiest course they can have. Now from this detrusion of the waters towards the side, the parts to­wards the Poles must come to be much increased, and those towards the equa­tor discharged of abundance of water, which otherwise would have layen upon them, and by consequence the earth must have been of an Oblong or an Oval figure.

Now supposing all this reasoning true and solid (as indeed it is not) that [Page 104] the earth by its circum-rotation round its Axis, had formed it self into the figure of an Oblong Spheroid. Yet still I cannot conceive how this will help the matter, for even in that case, the waters would not flow from the Pole to the AEquator: Yes they will sayes the Theorist, since all fluids will descend as far as they can, and this is the only way of descent by which they come nearer to the Centre than by any other. 'Tis certainly true indeed that all flu­ids will descend continually till they meet with some obstacle which resists their motion downwards, where they must stop and go no further. And this is the reason why in our present case there could be no motion or flux of the Rivers from the Pole to the AEqua­tor. For the rotation of the earth round its one Axis being still the same, the cause which thrusts the water from the AEquator to the Pole will also con­tinue the same and invariable, and by consequence it will hinder the water from returning again towards the AEqua­tor. And therefore supposing that the Earth were formed into an Oval figure, yet could there not be any course for Rivers; for only so far would the wa­ter [Page 105] ascend towards the Poles, till the force which protruded it that way came to be in an AEquilibrium with its gra­vity, and there it would stop neither ascending any further, nor descending again as long as the same cause conti­nued to act; that is, as long as the Earth turnes round its own Axis in the space of twenty four hours, but if the Earth should cease to move round, then indeed in that case and no other, the water would return to the AEqua­tor. For let the Figure,

PAEPQ represent the Earth P, P the two Poles, and AEQ the AEquator, and B a Body upon the surface of the Earth, I think it is evident that the [Page 106] Body B will so far ascend towards the Poles, till the force which protrudes it that way be in aequilibrium with the force which draws it to the aequator: for if at B one were greater than the other, for example, the force by which it is drawn to the Poles, were greater than its gravity, or its tendency towards AE, then it would still move on towards the Pole, till both forces come to act equally and there it would rest, as long as these two forces continued in AEquilibrium which must be so long as the Earths diurnal motion lasts. Now whatever Bo­dies either solid or fluid, are brought and laid upon the surface of the Earth at B, these being drawn or pusht with the same accelerating force, either to the Pole or the AEquator, that the first fluid had, which was constituted at B, the same causes continuing to act upon both, they will rest there also, and con­sequently will not descend to the AEqua­tor. Thus I think I have made it evi­dent from the Theorists own principles, and his Oval figure of the Earth, that there could be no course of Rivers in the Antediluvian world, if his Theory were true, and therefore seeing there were Rivers then as well as now, for [Page 107] he himself has acknowledged them, and it is plainly asserted by the Scriptures that they were from the beginning, I think it is a certain demonstration that the whole account of his Antediluvian Earth is false and Chimerical.

I come now to examin the Theorists reasons by which he proves the Earth to be of an Oblong Spheroidical figure. He tells us that the fluid under the aequa­tor being much more agitated than that which is towards the Poles which de­scribes in its diurnal motions lesser ar­ches, and because it cannot quite get off and fly away by reason of the Air which every way presses upon it, it could no other wayes free it self than by flowing towards the sides, and consequently form the Earth into an Oval figure.

That the Reader may observe how excellent the Theorist is at drawing conclusions, I will put this reasoning in other words thus. All Bodies by reason of the Earths diurnal rotation, do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion; but by reason of the pressure of the Air, and the straight­ness of the Orb, they cannot recede from the Axis of their motion, there­fore they will move towards the Poles [Page 108] where they will come nearer to the Axis of their motion, as if you would suppose a Body at the AEquator which doth endeavour to recede from the Axis of its motion, but because it cannot quite fly off and get away, therefore it will move towards the Poles, that is, it will come nearer to the Axis of its motion than if it had stayed at the AE­quator. It seemes to me that the The­orist in this part has endeavoured to give us a proof of his great skill in Lo­gicks, for he from a possible supposi­tion, has endeavoured directly to prove its contradictory, that is, because all Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion, therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion. But I will now exa­min his Argument more particularly, and first I will grant to the Theorist, that all Bodies turned round about any Centre do endeavour to recede from it and fly off in the tangent. For this is both evident to reason and experi­ence; but since the Air does alwayes move round the Earth, it is plain that it will also endeavour to recede from the Centre of its motion, and by con­sequence, it will be no hinderance to [Page 109] the water to do the same, neither can it be said, that the straitness of the Orb will hinder the fluid from reced­ing, since there is no reason to assign any such strait limits to our Globe, for our Air is not inclos'd with walls, but beyond our Atmosphere there lyes a free and open space: besides if there were any such straitness, without doubt it would be every where equal and the same, and by consequence, as it hin­dered the fluid from rising at the AEqua­tor, so it would also hinder its rising at the Poles, and then there would not in that case be any Oval figure at all.

I am sure the Theorist can give no reason why he should make the Air resist the motion of the fluid upwards at the AEquator, and yet yield to its motion upwards at the Poles, since 'tis certain that the Air presses as much one way as another: it will by the same force hinder a fluid from rising at the Pole, by which it resisted its rising at the AEquator, and therefore it is plain, that the Earth could not upon any such account be of an Oblong Spheroidical figure, whose surface at the AEquator is nearer its Centre than its Poles are.

[Page 110]So far is the Theorists Opinion distant from truth in this point, that from the same very principle of a Centrifugal force it does evidently follow that the surface of the Earth towards the AEqua­tor is higher or further distant from the Centre than it is at the Poles, which is directly contrary to that figure which he supposes it had in its primitive state. Now to prove this, I wil suppose first, that at the begining of the world the Earth was fluid and spherical, but af­terwards God Almighty having given it a motion round its own Axis, all Bo­dies upon the Earth would describe ei­ther the AEquator, or Circles parallel to the AEquator, and by consequence all would endeavour to recede from the Centre of their motion.

It is to be here observed, that if a Body doth freely revolve in a Circle about a Centre as the Planets do about the Sun, that its centrifugal force, (or that force by which it is drawn to­wards the Centre) is alwayes equal to its centrifugal force by which it doth endeavour to recede from the Centre: for the force which detains a Body in its orbit must be equal to the force, by which it endeavours to recede from [Page 111] its orbit and fly off in the tangent. This may be clear by the example of a Body turned round a Centre by the help of a thread which detains the Body in its orbit; the thread being stretched by the motion of the Body will endeavour to contract it self equally towards both ends by which it will pull the Centre as much towards the Body as it doth the Body towards the Centre.

Now this Centrifugal force is al­wayes proportional to the periphery which each Body describes in its di­urnal motion by the first Theor. of Hugenius De vi Centrifuga: so that un­der the AEquator which is the biggest circle the centrifugal force would be greatest, and still grow less as we ap­proach the Pole where it quite va­nisheth, there being there no diurnal rotation. And without doubt all Bo­dies having this centrifugal force by which they indeavour to recede from the Centre of their motion, would fly off from the Earth if they were not kept in their orbit, by their gravity, or that force by which they are pressed towards the Centre of the Earth, which is much stronger upon our Earth than the cen­trifugal force; and because the gravity [Page 112] upon the surface of the Earth is alwayes the same, but the centrifugal force al­ters and grows less the nearer we come to the Poles; it is plain that the gravi­ty under the aequator having a greater force to oppose it than that which is near the Poles will not act so strongly in the one place as in the other, and consequently bodies will not be so hea­vy under the aequator as at the Poles.

If the Circle ^* AEPQP represent the Earth, AEQ the aequator and P, P the Poles, if C be a Body in the aequator, it is evident that it will be pulled by two contrary forces, namely that of its gra­vity which pulls it towards the Centre, and that of its centrifugal force which pulls it from it. Now if both these for­ces were equall it is evident it would go neither of these wayes; but if one were stronger than the other, it would move where the strongest force pulls it, but only with a velocity which is propor­tional to the differences of these two forces, and therefore it would not de­scend so fast as if there were no cen­trifugal force pulling against it. That is a Body in the aequator does press less towards the Centre than at the [Page 113] Pole where there is no centrifugal force to lessen its gravity. Bodyes therefore of the same density are not so heavy in one place as in the other.

Now in a spherical fluid, all whose parts gravitate towards the Centre, I think it is evident from the principles of Hydrostaticks and fluidity, that all those Bodies which are equally distant from the Centre, must be equally prest with the weight of the incumbent fluid, and if one part come to be more pres­sed than another, that which is most pressed will thrust that out of its place which is least, till all the parts come to an aequilubrium one with another, and this is known by a com­mon

and easy experi­ment, if you take a re­curved tube as in the fi­gure, and fill it with wa­ter or any other fluid, it will rise equally in both Legs of the Tube, so that the surfaces CE and FI are equally pres­sed by the weight of the incumbent columns BCED, GFIH, but if one of the Legs of this Tube should [Page 114] be filled with oil, or some other lighter fluid, and the other with water, the lighter fluid will rise higher than the other, for otherwaies, these surfaces which are equally distant from the Cen­tre could not be equally pressed.

Just so, if the Figure PAEMPS represent a fluid sphere, which we may imagin composed of a great many com­municating Canals or Tubes, the fluid in every one of which presses upon the

Centre, now if the fluid in every one of these Tubes was of equal weight or gravity, it is plain that by that means they would be also of an equal height from the Centre; for by that means only would the Centre be equally pres­sed by the weight of all the Tubes; [Page 115] but if the fluid in the canal AEOM were lighter than the fluid in the ca­nal POS, it is plain that in this case the fluid POS pressing more on the Centre than the fluid in AEOM, the sur­face of the fluid in the canal AEOM will rise to a greater height or distance from the Centre, so that by its greater height which recompenses its lesser gra­vitation it will press equally upon the Centre, with the fluid in the canal POS. After the same manner ^* if the fluid in the canal GOH, were heavier than the fluid in the canal AEOM, but lighter than that which is in POS, than would the canal, GOH be shorter than AEOM but longer than POS, and the Figure composed of all these Tubes would be in the form of a spheroid which is generated by the circumrotation of a semi elipsis round its axis, but as I have already showed that if AEOM represent the se­midiameter of the aequator, that all Bo­dies in it are lighter than in POS, the Axis of the aequator (we take the Di­ameters and Axis here not as pure Ma­thematical lines, but as small Canals or Tubes,) and just so those Bodies which are in the Tube GOH, I have prov­ed [Page 116] to be lighter than those in POS, but heavier than the Bodies which are in AEOM, the centrifugal force in GH, being less than that which is in AEM, and there is no centrifugal force in the Poles, PS. It is plain therefore that the Tube AEOM, will be longer than GOH, and GOH will be longer than POS, that is, the Diameter of the AEquator will be longer than the Axis of the Earth, and consequently the Figure of

the Earth will be after the fashion of a broad speroid which is generated by the rotation of a semi Ellipsis round its lesser Axis. This I hope will be sufficient to convince the Theorist of the falseness of his own assertion, since it is plain demonstration, that an Earth formed from a Chaos must have a ve­ry [Page 117] different Figure from what he sup­poses it had.

But I will now proceed farther and inquire, how much the gravity is di­minished at the aequator, or any other parallel by the centrifugal force, which all bodies acquire by being turned round the Earths Axis, that from thence we may indeavour to determin what pro­portion the Diameter of the Earths aequator has to its Axis, to Calculate which, I will first suppose that the mean semidiameter of the Earth is 19615800 Paris feet according to the late obser­vations of the French Mathematicians, and since the Earth turns round its Axis in the space of 23 hours 56, for in that time the same meridian returns to the same immoveable point of the Heaven again (but the Sun in the mean time seeming to be moved a degree according to the series of the signs is the cause why there is four minutes more required, before the meridian can overtake him) from thence it follows, that a Body under the aequator moves through 142688 feet in the space of one second of time. Now according to the Theorem given us by Mr. Newton in his Philosophiae Naturalis principio Ma­thematica [Page 118] Schol, prop. 4. Lib. 1. The cen­trifugal force of any body, has the same proportion to the force of gravity, that the square of the arch which a body describes in a given time divided by its diameter, has to the space through which a heavy body moves in falling from a place in which it was at rest in the same time, and supposing a heavy bo­dy falls 15 foot in a second of time, by Calculation it will from thence follow, that the force of gravity has the same proportion to the centrifugal force at the aequator, that 289 has to unity; and therefore by this centrifugal force which arises from the Diurnal rotation of the Earth round its axis, any body placed in the aequator loses 1/289 part of its gravity which it would have were the Earth at rest, or which is the same thing, a heavy body placed at either of the Poles (where there is no diur­nal rotation, and consequently no cen­trifugal force,) which weighs 289 pounds if it were brought to the aequator will weigh only 288 pounds.

Having thus determined the propor­tion of the centrifugal force at the aequa­tor to the force of gravity, it will be easy from thence to shew their propor­tions [Page 119] in any parallel, for it is com­pounded of the proportion of 1 to 289, and of the co-sine of the Latitude to the Radius; for if two bodies de­scribe different peripheries in the same time their centrifugal forces are pro­portional to their peripheries or to the semi-diameters of these Peripheries, as is determined by Mons. Hugens in his Theoremata de vi centrifuga & motu cir­culari: but the Periphery which a bo­dy in the aequator describes has its semi diameter equal to the radius or semi diameter of the Earth, and in any other place the parallels in which Bodies move have the co-sines of their Latitude for their semidiameters, and therefore it will follow that the force of gravity is to the centrifugal force in a propor­tion compounded of the radius to the co-sine of the Latitude and of 289 to 1. and therefore at the Latitude of 51 degrees, 46. minutes (for example) it will be as 466 to 1.

But we must observe that it does not from thence follow, that a body in that Latitude loses 1/466 part of its absolute gravity which it would have were the Earth at rest; for that could not be, unless the centrifugal force acted di­rectly [Page 120] contrary to the force of gravity, which it doth no where but at the aequator, for in the Figure let the cir­cle QPE represent the Earth QE, the diameter of the aequator O its Cen­tre,

and let B represent a Body which we suppose to hang by the thread AB, and is placed any where between the Pole P and the aequator Q, and let BD [Page 121] be drawn perpendicular to the axis. It is plain that if the Earth had no di­urnal rotation, the Body B would draw the thread AB into the position AC, since by that means it descends as near as it can to the Centre, and there it would stretch the thread with all the force of its gravity; or if we will sup­pose that the centrifugal force acted ac­cording to the same direction AC, it would than directly oppose the force of gravity, and the thread would remain in the same position, but it would be stretched with a force proportional to the differences of these two forces.

But because the Body B turns round the Centre D, it will endeavour to re­cede from it according to the line CB, in which direction the centrifugal force acting, it will not directly oppose the force of gravity, but it will draw the thread from the position AC into the position AB, let BG be drawn per­pendicular to AC. If BC represent the centrifugal force acting according to the direction BC, it is equivalent, as is commonly known, to two forces one of which is as GC, and acts accord­ing to the direction GC, which is con­trary to that by which it descends to O, [Page 122] the other is as GB, and acts accord­ing to the direction GB, which is no way contrary to the force of gravity, If therefore BC represent the total

centrifugal force of the Body B, that part of it which directly opposes the force of gravity will be as GC: from whence it follows, that the decrease of gravity in going from the Pole to the [Page 123] AEquator is always as the square of the co-sine of the Latitude: for draw BH parallel to the Axis PP, and because the triangles HCB, CDO are aequiangu­lar, therefore HC is to CB as CO is to CD, or as QO is to CD, but QO is to CD as the decrease of gravity at Q is to the centrifugal force at C, and therefore HC is to CB as the decrease of gravity at Q is to the centrifugal force at C. But if CB represent the centrifugal force at C, GC will repre­sent that part of it which acts directly against the force of gravity, and con­sequently the decrease of gravity at the aequator is to the decrease of gravity at C as HC is to GC: now HC is to GC in duplicate proportion of HC to CB, or of CO, or OQ to CD, by the 8th of the 6th of Euclid; and there­fore the decrease of gravity at Q is to the decrease of gravity at C, as the square of CO is to the square of CD which was to be demonstrated.

From whence it is plain that if HC represent the decrease of gravity at the aequator, and GC its decrease at C, then will GH represent the difference of these two diminutions, or the dif­ference between the gravity at Q and [Page 124] the gravity at C, but HC is to HG in duplicate proportion of HC to HB, or of OC to DO, that is the decrease of gravity at the aequator is to its in­crease at C, as the square of the radi­us

is to the square of the sine of the Latitude.

By this also it will appear that the direction of heavy Bodies is not to the Centre of the Earth, as has been al­wayes [Page 125] supposed, For if we take a hea­vy Body and hang it by a thread, the thread produced will not pass through the Centre any where but at the Poles and the AEquator, for in the Figure the thread is carryed by the centrifugal force of the Body B from the position AC, into the position AB where it will rest.

Now to determine the angle CAB which the line of direction of the Bo­dy makes with the line AC, let AN be drawn parallel to BC, and pro­duce OB till it meet mith it in N, and let us consider the Body B as drawn by three powers according to three different directions BO, BL and AB the power which pulls it accord­ing to BO is its gravity, that which draws it according to the direction BL is its centrifugal force, and that which acts according to AB is the strength of the thread, by which the Body is hindered to move according to either of the other two directions, and there­fore it is an aequilibrium with the other two powers, but by a Theorem which is demonstrated by several of the writ­ers of Mechanics, but particularly by Mons Hugens in his small Treatise De [Page 126] potentiis per fila trahentibus. If a Body be pulled by three different powers which are in aequilibrio with one ano­ther, according to three different di­rections AB, BK, and BO, these three

powers will be as the three sides of the Triangle ABN, viz. as AB, AN, and BN respectively; or as AB, BC and AC: BN being very near parallel, and consequently equal to AC, since they [Page 127] do not meet but at a great distance. From hence it follows that the force of gravity is to centrifugal force as, AC is to BC: but a method has been al­ready shown how the proportion of the force of gravity to the centrifu­gal force may be determined, and there­fore the proportion of AC to BC, may be also determined, which at the Latitude of 51°, 46″, is as 446 to 1. Therefore in the Triangle ABC, the proportion of AC to BC is known and the angle ACB being equal to the angle COQ which is subtended by the arch CQ the Latitude of the place, from thence by the Tables of Sines and Tangents the angle BAC may be known, which in the above mentioned Latitude is about five mi­nutes.

From hence also it will appear that it is not the line AC, which being pro­duced passes through the Centre, but the line AB that is perpendicular to the curve PQ, for all the particles of the fluid will settle themselves in such a position that their lines of direction downwards must be perpendicular to the surface of the Body which they compose, for otherwise the parts of the [Page 128] fluid would not be in an AEquilibrium one with another, and therefore altho the lines of direction of heavy Bodies do not pass through the Centre of the Earth, yet are they still perpendicular to their Horizons, and upon this ac­count there could arise no error in le­velling of lines, and in finding the risings and fallings of the ground.

Upon this account also it will appear that the surface of the Earth is not spherical, for if it were, than would all lines drawn from the Centre be perpen­dicular to the surface of the Earth, since it is the known property of a sphere that they must be so, but I have already shewed that it is not so in the Earth, and therefore it is plain that the Earth is not a Sphere. That there­fore I may enquire more particularly into the Figure of the Earth, I will resume my former hypothesis, that the Earth is composed of an infinite num­ber of Canals which communicate with one another at the Centre and are all equiponderant, of which we will consi­der two as OQ and OC, and let OQ be =r, OD=x and DC=y, let the absolute gravity be called p, and the centrifugal force at the aequator n, OC [Page 129] is equal to [...], the weight of the Canal OQ is equal to the absolute gravity of the whole canal, minus the centrifugal force of each particle con­tained in it, and because the centrifu­gal

force of each particle is as its di­stance from the Centre, and therefore it increases in an Arithmetical progres­sion, the greatest of which is n, con­sequently the summ of all the centri­fugal [Page 130] force is =½nr, but upon the hy­pothesis, that gravity is the same at all distances from the Centre, the abso­lute gravity of the canal OQ is pr, and therefore its real weight upon the Centre OQ is pr−½nr. After the same manner the absolute gravity of the canal OC is [...] but the summ of the centrifugal forces of all the flu­id in the canal OC is equal to the centrifugal force of the fluid in CD (as may be easily proved from the con­sideration of inclined Planes) But the centrifugal force at C being to the cen­trifugal force at Q as CD is to OQ (that is, as y is to r) the centrifugal force at C will be equal to ny / r and because the centrifugal force of each Particle is as its distance from the point D which is the Centre of the Circle, that the fluid in the canal CD describes, and there­fore the centrifugal forces in counting from the point D must increase in an Arithmetical progression, the greatest of which is ny / r and therefore the summ of all the centrifugal forces in CD must be equal to nyy / 2r therefore the [Page 131] weight of the canal OC is [...] −½nyy / r=pr−½nr which equation ex­presses the nature of the curve that is made by the section of the earth with

a plane through its poles, and by this, the proportion of the axis of the earth to the diameter of the equator may be easily determined; for when CO coin­cides [Page 132] with OP, then CD or y becomes equal to nothing, and the equation is [...]=pr−½nr or px=pr−½nr, and therefore by the 16th of the 6th p has the same proportion to p−½n that r has to x or OQ to OD, but p is to p−½n as 289 is to 288½ or as 578 to 577 which therefore is the proportion of the greatest diameter of the Earth to its least; but this is upon supposition that gravity is the same at all distances from the Centre, but if we will sup­pose that the gravity of bodies with­out the Earth is in a proportion reci­procal to the squares of their distances from the Centre, the gravity of those bodies which are within the Earth will be directly as their distance, both which do best agree with the observ'd Phaeno­mena of nature; then will the gravity at the Equator be to the gravity at the Poles as 689 to 692, which numbers in this Hypothesis do also express the pro­portion of the Diameter of the Earth drawn through its Poles to its Diame­ter drawn in the plane of the Equator.

It is upon the account of this di­minution of gravity, according as we approach the Equator, that pendulums of the same length in different Lati­tudes, [Page 133] take different times, to perform their vibrations; for because the acce­lerating force of gravity is less at the E­quator than under any parallel, and un­der any parallel it is still less than un­der another which is nearer the Poles, it do's plainly from thence follow that a body plac'd in the Equator, or in any parallel will take a longer time to de­scend through an arch of a given cir­cle, than it would do at the Poles, and the farther a body is removed from the Poles, the longer time it will take to descend through any given space.

From hence it follows that the length of pendulums which perform their vi­brations in equal times in different La­titudes are directly as the accelerating forces of their gravities. For the time a Body takes to descend through an Arch of a Cycloid, is to the time it will take to fall through the Axis of the Cycloid always in a given proportion, viz. as the Semiperiphery of a circle is to its Diameter by the 25th Prop. of Hugens Horologium Oscillatorium; and therefore when the times in which a bo­dy descends through the Axes of two different Cycloids are equal, the times of the descent through the Cycloids will be [Page 134] also equal, but when the times of the descent through the Axes are equal these Axes, and consequently the lengths of the pendulum which vibrates in these Cycloids are proportional to the acce­lerating forces of their gravities.

By this, if we know the length of a pendulum which performs its vibrations in a given time, in any one part of the Earth it is easy to determine the length of a pendulum which performs its vibra­tions in the same time, in any other part of the Earth as for example: the length of a pendulum which vibrates seconds at Paris is three foot eight lines and a half, let it be required to find the length of a pendulum which vibrates seconds at the Equator. Because the gravity at the Pole is to the gravity at the Equator as 692 is to 689, therefore the decrease of gravity at the Equator is 3/692 parts of the whole gravity: but as I have before demonstrated the decrease of gravity at the Equator is to its increase in any other Latitude, as the square of the ra­dius is to the square of the sine of the Latitude; now the Latitude of Paris being 48 [...] 45 its sine is 75. 183, and therefore the square of the Radius is to the square of the sine of the Latitude [Page 135] as 1000000 to 565248, but as 1000000 is to 565248, so is 3.000 the number which represents the decrease of gravity at the Equator to 1. 695, the number which represents its increase at Paris which added to 689 the gravity at the Equa­tor makes 690.695 the number which will represent the gravity at Paris. But I have already shewed, that as the gra­vity at Paris is to the gravity at the E­quator, so is the length of a pendulum which vibrates seconds at Paris to the length of a pendulum which vibrates se­conds at the Equator that is as 690,695 to 689, so is 36,708 the length of a pen­dulum at Paris which performs its vi­bration in a second to 36,616, which therefore is the length of a pendulum which performs its vibrations in a se­cond at the Equator: so that the diffe­rence btween these two pendulums is 92/1000 parts of an inch which comes pret­ty near the observations of Mons. Ri­cher, who at the island of Cayen, whose Latitude is 5 degrees, found that a pen­dulum which vibrates seconds there, was a tenth part of an inch shorter than a pendulum which vibrates seconds at Paris.

Thus we see that the principles and [Page 136] hypothesis and withal their consequen­ces upon which the broad Spheroidi­cal Figure of the Earth is founded do exactly agree with observations, and therefore there is no doubt to be made but that the Earth is really of such a Figure, and that the hypothesis upon which this Figure is grounded (viz. the diurnal rotation of the Earth and by consequence the centrifugal force of all Bodies upon it) must be admitted for a true one; since the different vi­brations of Pendulums of the same length in different Latitudes can de­pend upon no other cause: for the change of Air is not able to produce any such effect, for if the Air made really any alterations in the vibrations of a Pendulum it would produce a quite contrary effect, than what is observed; for Pendulums near the AEquator would move faster than they would do in places of greater Latitude; the Air in the one place being more rarified is much thinner and siner than it is in the other, and therefore gives less resistance to Bodies which move in it.

In this reasoning we have supposed the Earth to have been at first fluid as the Theorist has done before us, [Page 137] but if we will put the case that the Earth was at first partly fluid and partly dry as it is at present, yet because we find that the land is very near of the same Figure with the Sea (only raised a little higher that it might not be overflowed) composing with it the same solid, and I have already shewed that the Surface of the Ocean is sphe­roidical and not spherical, there is no doubt to be made but that the Land was formed into the same Figure by its wise Creator, at the beginning of the World, for if it were otherwise, then would the Land towards the AE­quator have been overflowed with wa­ter, which as I have already proved, must have been higher at the AEquator than at the Poles; and therefore the Sea would rise there and spread it self like an inundation upon all the Land.

But for a further confirmation of the spheroidical Figure of the Earth, let us consider some of the other Pla­nets especially Iupiter who turns round his own Axis in the space of ten hours: It may easily be observed that his Axis is considerably shorter than the Dia­meter of his AEquator, and that in the proportion of seven to eight, is the [Page 138] observations of Mr. Flamstead and Mons. Casini do testify; and therefore 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.

But the Theorist in his Latin Edi­tion of the Theory, as also in his An­swer to Mr Warren, seems to insinu­ate, that the only way to find the true Figure of the Earth is by measuring of it, and by that means to find what proportion the degrees of the Meridi­an in different Latitudes have to one another; for if they were exactly equal one to another, and also equal to the degrees of Longitude counted upon the AEquator, then without doubt the Figure of the Earth would be Spheri­cal, but if otherwise Spheroidical.

Now tho I have already determin­ed the Earths Figure from other Prin­ciples; Yet to comply with the Theo­rist in this point, I will give him an account of a Book whose extract I have seen in the Acta Eruditorum Lipsiae publicata for the year 1691. written by one Ioh. Casp Eisenschmidt a German who calls himself Doctor of Philosophy and Physick. The Title of the Book is, Diatrihe de Figura Telluris Elliprico-Sphae­roide. [Page 139] And it is Printed at Strasburg in the Year 1691. The Learned and deep-thinking Author of this Book af­ter he has Answered, at least has en­deavoured to Answer the Arguments of Archimedes and others, by which the Figure of the Earth was proved to be Spherical, doth embrace the Opinion of the Theorist, and asserts that its Poles are higher or further distant from the Centre than its AEquator: To prove this, he sets down an account of the different magnitudes of degrees of the Meridian according to the observations made of them in different Latitudes, and com­paring them one with another, he found that they continually decreased as the Latitudes increased, and indeed, as he sayes in the same proportion, as appears by the following Table, which I have in­serted from the above named Extract.

[Page 140]From this he concludes that a plane cutting the Earth along its Axis would not be a Circle but an Ellipsis, whose longer Axis would pass through the Poles and coincide with the Axis of the Earth; but its lesser Axis would be the common Section of the AEquator with the Ellipsis, and from thence he infers, that the Earth is not of a Sphe­rical, but an oblong Spheroidical Fi­gure. After that he disputes against Mr. Newtons Hypothesis, which makes the Earth of a direct contrary Figure, and thinks that the accurate Observations by him related, are by far to be pre­ferred to the Hypothesis upon which Mr. Newtons Calculus is grounded.

None but a man of prodigious stu­pidity and carelesness could reason at this rate! If he had asserted that the Earth was of an Oval Figure because Grass grows or Houses stand upon it, it had been something excusable; for that Argument tho it did not infer the conclusion, yet it could never have proved the contradictory to be true. But to bring an Argument which does evidently prove that the Earth has a Figure directly contrary to that which he would prove it has, is an intolera­ble [Page 141] and an unpardonable blunder; for if he had but protracted the Figure, and drawn equal Angles from the Centre, he might have easily perceived, that the Angle whose Crura were longest, would have the greatest Subtense. Thus

if the Angles DAE and BAC were equal, but AD were longer than AB, it is evident that the subtense DE would be longer than the Subtense BC, for if you take AM and AN equal to AB and AC and draw the Line MN, the Angles being small, BC and DE will differ very little from streight Lines, but BC is equal to MN, which is plainly less than DE, and therefore it is evident that BC is less than DE, that is, where the Subtenses or the de­grees [Page 142] are greatest, there also is the greatest Diameter: but it is plain by the Observations which Mr. Eisenschmidt relates, that the degrees are biggest at the AEquator, therefore the greatest Di­ameter of the Spheroid must be that of the AEquator, and not the Axis of the Earth.

So far is this Argument drawn from Observations from destroying Mr. New­tons Hypothesis, that it would most evi­dently confirm it, if the Observations were exact enough, which I believe they are not.

I cannot but wonder at the strange Logicks of our Modern Philosophers who are able to draw any conclusion they have a mind for, from any Prin­ciples that can be given them. No man that looks narrowly into their Books can want Instances in this matter, But in case this is not so well observed, I have furnished the Reader with two examples of this sort. The one is the Theorists way by which he proves the Earth to be of an Oblong or Oval Fi­gure from the Principles of a Centri­fugal force which all Bodies have that are on it. Now I think I have plain­ly shown that the true Conclusion he [Page 143] ought to have inferred from this Hy­pothesis is, that the Earth had a quite contrary Figure from what he fancyed it had. But Mr. Eisenchmidt has given us a yet plainer proof of this thing, for because he found that the Degrees of Latitude near the aequator were big­ger than those which were near the Pole, he very innocently concludes that the Earth had its Axis longer than the Diameter of its Equator; but if he had understood the first six Elements of Euclid, or indeed those of common sense he might easily have demonstrated the contrary: it is strange that when there is but one Right and one Wrong Opi­nion in this Point, that he should be so unlucky as to hit upon the false one to maintain it.

CHAP. VII. Of the Dissolution of the Primitive Earth.

HITHERTO I have refuted the Theorists for Motion, Posi­tion, and Figure, of the Primitive Earth. I am now to consider his method of Dissolving the Fabrick he has raised, and to Examin how and by what cau­ses, the first Earth which had all the Beauty of Youth and Blooming Nature, Fresh and Fruitful, and not a Wrinkle or Scar on all its Body, came to be dissolved; how the Fabrick was broke, and the Frame of the whole torn in pieces, how it came to be a shattered and confused heap of Bodies, as we now see it, placed in no order one to another, nor with any correspondency or regularity of parts, as the Theorist represents it to be.

He tells us that one would soon ima­gin that such a structure as that of the first Earth was, would not be perpetual nor last many thousands of years, if [Page 145] one consider the effect, the heat of the Sun would have upon it, and the Wa­ters under it, drying and parching the one, and rarifying the other into va­pours: For according to him, the course of the Sun was such at that time, that there was no diversity or alteration of Seasons in the year, as there is now; by reason of which alteration of Sea­sons, our Earth is kept in an equality of temper, the contrary Seasons bal­lancing one another; so that what moi­sture the heat of the Summer sucks out of the Earth, is repaired again in Rains the next Winter, and what chaps are made in it are filled up, and the Earth is reduced to its former constitution. But if we should imagin a continual Summer the Earth would proceed in dryness still more and more, and the cracks would be wider and pierce deep­er into the substance of it. The heat of the Sun therefore according to the Theorist, acting continually upon the Earth, would have reduced it in the space of some hundreds of years to a considerable degree of dryness, in cer­tain parts, and would also have much rarifyed and exhaled the water under it; so that considering the structure of [Page 146] that Globe, the exterior Crust, and the Water under it he thinks it may be fitly compared to an AEolipile or an hol­low Sphere, with Water in it, which the heat of the fire rarifies and turns into Vapour or Wind; the Sun here is the Fire, and the exterior Earth the shell of the AEolipile, and the Abyss the water within it; as soon then as the heat of the Sun had reached the wa­ters in the Abyss it began to rarify them, and raise them into Vapours, by which rarifaction they required more room, than they did before, and find­ing themselves pent in by the exte­rior earth they pressed with violence against that Arch to make it yield and give way to their dilatation: and by this means the Earth was broken, and the frame of it torn in pieces as by an Earth-quake, and those great porti­ons or fragments into which it was divided, fell down into the Abyss, some in one posture and some in another, and was the cause of a general Deluge. I shall now examin these causes which the Theorist has given for the Disso­lution of the Earth, and in this Chap­ter I will first enquire whither the heat of the Sun can reach so far as [Page 147] the great Abyss to rarify the waters thereof.

First then I have proved in the third Chapter of this examination, that there were Hills and Mountains in the pri­mitive Earth as there are now in ours. I have also shown that the Axis of the earth was then enclined the same way to the Plane of the Ecliptick as it is at present; from thence it plainly fol­lows that there was then, the same va­riety of Seasons and Alternations of Heat and Cold in the primitive earth, that there are now in our earth, and by consequence, all the Arguments drawn from the great heat and strong action of the Sun upon the Antediluvian earth must fall to the ground, there being then no greater heat of the Sun on the earth than there is at present.

But 2dly, there are places in the earth, as the Island of Barbadoes and some other Islands near the AEquator, where there is little or no variety of Seasons or alteration of the Suns heat, but it continues to shine very strongly upon them throughout the whole year, and yet in none of them is there any of these great Chaps and Cracks which the Theorist sayes were made in the [Page 148] primitive earth by the strong action of the Sun; tho it has shon above thrice as long upon these Islands as it did up­on the Antediluvian World:

3dly, It is certain that if we judge according to experience that the heat of the Sun doth not reach far into the Earth, and that its beams can go but a very little way into the Crust; for in Vaults and Caves there is no sensible alteration of heat in Summer and Win­ter, even tho they have a communica­tion with the open Air, And in the deep pits of the Royal Observatorie at Paris it has been found by experience, that a Thermometer placed there, in the coldest day of Winter does not sensibly vary from what it was in the greatest heat in Summer; and they who work in Mines can tell how little dif­ference they observe of heat in the Summer, more than in the Winter, in places underground. But if the heat of the Sun could penetrate for any con­siderable depth the Crust of the Earth, it is plain, that when its heat is strong­est and most intense upon the Surface, it would also be most intense within the Crust; but the forementioned ex­periments do prove that within the [Page 149] bowels of the Earth there is no sensible difference between the heat of the Sun when its action is strongest from what it is when its action is weakest. Since then the heat of the Sun does not pe­netrate the Earth so as to be sensible even for the small space that we are able to dig thorough, how can we ima­gin it possible that it should ever reach the Abyss through the whole exterior Crust of the Earth so as to be able to heat the water and raise it into Vapour?

But that I may bring this point to a Calculation as near as I can, I will suppose that the heat caused by the di­rect influence of the Sun upon any Surface is alwayes (all other things be­ing the same) as the quantity of Rayes of heat which falls upon that Surface; which I believe the Theorist will al­low: I will also suppose that fewer Rayes of heat passed thorough the solid Orb than if it had been composed of several concentrical Surfaces placed at some distance from one another, every one of which transmitted only the one half of the Rayes of heat which fell upon it: this I think may be also easily allowed; for it is plain, that the Surface of the Earth does not transmit the half, [Page 150] nay not the hundredth part of the Suns beams which fall upon it. These things being supposed, it is plain that but one half of the Rayes which fall upon the first Surface would fall upon the se­cond, but one fourth of them upon the third, one eighth part of them upon the fourth, and one sixteenth part up­on the fifth, &c. so that they would still decrease in a Geometrical proportion of 2 to 1; and if there were but one hundred of these Surfaces, the num­ber of Rayes which fell upon the first would be to the number of Rayes which passed thorough to the last as 2⁹⁹ to 1, or as the ninty ninth power of 2 is to 1. How great a disproporti­on then would there be between the number of those Rayes which fell up­on the first surface and those which fell upon the last? for the ninty ninth power of 2 is a number which if written at length would consist of a hundred Figures: but if we should imagin all the spaces between the Surfaces fil­led up with solid and not diaphanous matter as it really is so in the Crust of the Earth, the heat upon the surface must be much less than what it would be by the former proportion.

[Page 151]From thence we may conclude that if the heat of the Sun upon the Sur­face of the Antediluvian Earth was not much greater than it is now, it could never reach so far into the Crust as to be able to raise Vapours from the Abyss: or if it was so great as to be able to raise Vapours from thence, that is, if it was then as great upon the Sur­face of the Abyss as it is generally upon the Surface of the present Earth, it must have been almost infinitely greater upon the Surface of the Antediluvian World. Certainly there could be no ne­cessity for a Deluge in that case, except it were to cool the Earth again after such an excessive heat, which must have destroyed all the Animals, Plants, and Trees which were upon the earth, and have turned them into Glass.

But perhaps it may be urged that the heat of the Sun does generate and prepare Metals which ly hid in its bowels; To which I answer, that I have already brought a sufficient demonstration that the heat of the Sun does pass but a very little way within the earth, and therefore the Opinion that Metals are generated by the Suns influence must be false; [Page 152] for they generally lye far hid with­in the bowels of the earth, and there­fore without the reach of the Suns in­fluence.

But the Theorist affirms further, that there was a continual Summer in the Antediluvian earth, and therefore if the heat of the Sun made a crack in the earth in one year, there being no Winter or Rains to repair the chaps that were made in the earth, this crack would continually grow deeper, till at last it would reach to the Surface of the Abyss. Let us now bring this ge­neral way of speaking to a Calculati­on, and try if the heat of the Sun could this way reach the Abyss. To determin which, I will suppose that through length of time, the Sun has made a crack in the earth of a Miles depth and one hundred foot in length extended from East to West, and let it be proposed to Calculate what propor­tion the heat upon any point of the Surface bears to the heat upon the bottom of the crack. In the Figure let PSAQ represent the AEquator in which the Sun moves, PRT the Earth, PQ the sensible Horizon, and PnmR the Pit made by the heat of the Sun

in the Crust of the Earth: it is plain that the Sun shines on the point R on the Surface of the Earth all the time it is moving through the Arch PQ, but it shines only on the point m in the bottom of the Crack while it de­scribes by its motion the Arch SA. Now the Action of the Sun upon any point is alwayes more or less strong in proportion to the sine of the Angle of incidence of its Rayes, that is, if the Sun be at S, and afterwards come to A, the action of the Sun upon the point R when it is at S, is to its action when it comes to A, as the sine of the angle SRP is to the sine of the Angle ARP. From whence it follows, that [Page 154] the action of the Sun upon the point R is to its action upon the point m, as the summ of all the sines of the Suns Altitude while it shines upon R is to the summ of all the sines of the Suns Altitude while it shines upon the point m, that is if the times it shines upon R and m be taken for Basis's or the Arches PQ and SA which are proportional to them, be extended in­to streight lines HSAO, and SA, and all the sines be erected on them perpendicularly, AE being the Sine of the Arch AH and SD the sine of the Arch SH, and the Curve line HDEO be drawn thorough the extremity of the sines, the heat upon the point R is to the heat upon the point m, as the space HDEO is to the space SDEA, But the Periphery PSAQ being a se­mi-circle (for the Diameter of the Earth is but a point in respect of the Suns distance from us) It is plain that the space HDEO is two figures of sines, which the Mathematicians have demonstrated to be equal to two squares of the Radius; and it is also by them demonstrated that the space SDEA is equal to a rectangle contained by the Radius and the sine of the Arch SA;

but as I have already shewed the heat of the Sun upon the point R is to its heat upon the point m as the space [Page 156] HDEO is to the space DSAE. It is plain from thence, that the heat or acti­on of the Sun upon the point R is to its action upon the point m as two squares of the Radius is to a rectangle contained by the Radius and the sine of the Arch SA, that is, as twice the Radius is to the sine of the Arch SA, by the first of the 6th of Euclid: But because Pn is to PR as 5000 is to an 100, or as 50 to 1, therefore by a tri­gonometrical Calculation the sine of the Angle SmA, or of the Arch SA is 19594 supposing the Radius a 100000, the heat therefore upon the point R is to the heat of the Sun upon the point m, as 200000 is to 19594, and consequent­ly the one is more than decuple of the other. If therefore the heat upon the bottom of the Crack was so great as to reach further into the Crust, it must have been at least ten times greater upon the surface of the Earth; and if the heat of the Sun upon the bottom of the Crack was as great as is neces­sary for to raise the waters in the Abyss into Vapours, or as great as our Sum­mers heat is, the heat upon the surface of the Earth must have exceeded the heat of red hot Iron, which is only [Page 157] seven times greater than the ordinary heat of the Sun in Summer.

But notwithstanding all this, should I grant to the Theorist that the heat of the Sun had reached the Abyss, and had raised the Vapours so that the crust of the Earth fell down and was broken in pieces, yet I cannot see how from thence there could follow any univer­sal Deluge, or indeed any Deluge at all, tho the Theorist does endeavour to ex­plain it thus.

When the Earth sayes he, was brok­en and fell into the Abyss, a good part of it was covered with water by the mere depth of the Abyss it fell into; and those parts of it that were higher than the Abyss was deep, and conse­quently would stand above it in a calm water, were notwithstanding reached and overtopp'd by the waters during the agitation and violent commotion of the Abyss; for it is not imaginable sayes he, what the commotion of the Abyss would be upon this dissolution of the Earth, nor to what height its waves would be thrown when these prodigious fragments were tumbled down into it. If you would suppose a stone of ten thou­sand weight taken up into the Air, a [Page 158] Mile or two, and then let fall into the middle of the Ocean, it is Credible that the dashing of the water upon that impression would rise as high as a Mountain; but if you will suppose a mighty Rock, or a heap of Rocks to fall from that height, or a great Island or Continent, these would expel the waters out of their places with such a force and violence as would fling them above the highest Clouds.

This is in short, the method the The­orist has found out for making an uni­versal Deluge. But if I can prove from his own Principles, that long before the Deluge happened, all the Waters in the Abyss were drawn up by the heat of the Sun to supply the Rivers that were necessary to water the Earth, I would fain know what would become of his Deluge, or how he can make in that case the fall of the Crust to be the cause of an Universal Flood: for by all the conception that I can have of it, the water which was upon the surface of the Earth, by the fall would rush into the Abyss; and it would be so far from making any Flood, that it would leave the surface of the Earth and make dry Land appear where formerly there [Page 159] was none. To prove this I must first enquire what proportion the quantity of waters which the Sea receives from the Rivers of the Earth in any time bears to the quantity of water in the Ocean; and by consequence I will Cal­culate the time the Rivers would take to fill the Ocean if it were empty, and they ran as they do now, or which is the same thing, I will find what time the Sea would take to empty it self into the Rivers supposing that it was not re­cruited again by the continual course of fresh waters, which run into it, that is, if the Abyss did formerly supply all the Rivers with water, before the flood, and none of them ran into it again, as the Theorist supposes they did not, I am to find what time it would take to empty it self, on the surface of the Earth. And if I can prove that it would quite empty it self on the sur­face, long before the Deluge happened, I think from thence it would necessa­rily follow that there would be no De­luge at all, by the fall of the Crust.

To begin therefore, I will suppose as the Theorist has done, in his second Chap. Book first, that one half of the surface of the Terraqueous Globe is Sea, [Page 160] and the other Land, and that if we take the Sea one place with another, it is a quarter of a mile deep. Now the surface of the whole Earth being 170981012 Italian miles, the surface of the Sea is 85490506 square miles, which being multiplyed by ¼th (the Sea be­ing ¼th of a mile deep) the product is 21372626½ Cubical miles, which is the quantity of water contained in the whole Ocean.

Now to Calculate the water the Oce­an receives from the Rivers, we must consider some great river whose breadth depth and swiftness are best known, such is the Po which passes through Lombardy and waters a large Country of 380 miles in Length: Ricciolus in his Geographia Reformata tells us, that its breadth before its division into a great many Channels, by which it falls into the Sea, is a hundred Bononian Perches, or a thousand feet, and its depth is one Perch or ten Feet, and therefore its per­pendicular Section, from one side to the other is a hundred square Pearches, or 40000 square Feet: Its swiftness al­so is so great, that the course of the water is about four Italian miles in an hour, or which is the same thing 2000 [Page 161] Italian Perches, for there are 500 Perches in a mile; The Po therefore carries in­to the Adriatick 200000 Cubical Per­ches of water, in the space of an hour, and therefore the quantity of water it brings into the Sea in a day is 4800000 Cubical Perches or 380000000 Cubical Feet of water; but one Cubical mile contains 125000000 Cubical Perches, and therefore if the Po takes one day, to bring into the Adriatick 4800000 Cubical Perches of water, it will re­quire twenty six dayes, to carry into the Sea 125000000 Cubical Perches, or one Cubical mile, or which comes to the same thing, twenty six Rivers every one of which is of the same swiftness with the Po will pour into the Sea one Cubical mile of water in a day.

I must in the next place determin what proportion all the Rivers in the Earth bear to the Po, which to deter­min exactly would be a task, not easily to be performed; but I think we may determin it near enough for our present purpose, by supposing that the quantity of water received into the Sea, by the great Rivers in any Coun­try, is very near proportional to the [Page 162] extent and surface of that Country; And consequently the Country which is watered by the Po, and the Rivers which run into it, bears the same pro­portion to the surface of the whole dry Land, that the Po doth to all the Ri­vers in the Earth: But I have observ­ed from the exactest Maps I could see, that the Po from its Origin in the Alps, to its end where it runs into the Sea, is in length three hundred and eighty miles, and that the Rivers which fall into it from each side, come from Springs of about sixty miles distance from the Po; consequently the Po and the Rivers which run into it, water a Country which is 380 miles long, and 120 broad, all which makes 45600 square miles; but the surface of all the Land being equal to half the Terraqueous Globe is 85490506 square miles, and therefore according to the proportion formerly mentioned, the water which is carri­ed into the Sea by all the Rivers, is 1874 times greater than what the Po carries into the Sea.

It is true, there are in the Earth some barren places which have no great quantity of water or Rivers in them, but they being but small will not much [Page 163] alter our account, and for an Equiva­lent, we can easily prove, that tho there are some Countries not so well stored with Rivers as Lombardy, yet there are several others which are much better furnished with them, particularly the South part of America, where there are Rivers, which according to credible re­lations are above fourscore miles in breadth, and therefore by allowing a proportional depth, they will be sever­al hundreds of times bigger than the Po.

Now I have already Calculated, that twenty six Po's will pour into the Sea one Cubical mile of water in a day; and consequently in 365 dayes, or in the space of a year they will pour into the Sea 365 Cubical miles of water: hence it follows, that if 26 Rivers as big as the Po, pour into the Sea 365 miles of water, in the space of a year, from 1874 Rivers as big as the Po, there will be brought into the Sea in the same time 26308 Cubical miles of wa­ter; and therefore by the rule of pro­portionals, in the space of 812 year, the Rivers will bring into the Sea 21372626 Cubical miles of water, which is a quantity of water as great as the [Page 164] Ocean: and therefore in that time they would fill the great Channel of the Oce­an if it were empty, and their course the same, both for quantity of water, and swiftness that it is now: And since the Sea furnishes the Rivers with all the water that runs through them, it is plain that the Sea would empty it self in the space of 812 years if none of the Rivers ran into it again.

Since therefore according to the The­orist, the Abyss was the store-house which furnished the Rivers of the An­tediluvian Earth with water, and none of them, according to him, ran into it again, and because all the waters which were antiently in the Abyss, are now in the Ocean, it must needs follow, that in the space of 812 years it would be quite empty, upon supposition that there were as many Rivers in the primitive Earth as there are now in ours; but because there was then twice as much Land to be furnished with Rivers (there being then no Seas as the Theorist sayes) we must in proportion allow twice as ma­ny Rivers to water the double quan­tity of dry Land, and therefore by such a double quantity of Rivers, the Abyss would be emptied in half that time.

[Page 165]Perhaps the Theorist will say, that the Rivers were not altogether fur­nished by Vapours drawn from the A­byss, but by those also that were ex­haled from the surface of the Earth, and that after the water in the Rivers had run towards the AEquator and mid­dle parts of the Earth, the water was again raised into Vapours by the great heat of the Sun, and carried back to­wards the Poles in order to supply the Rivers again. But this is no ob­jection to our present Argument, for tho the Vapours drawn from the surface of the Earth, would no doubt encrease the quantity of water, in the Rivers, yet still there would be drawn from the Abyss, the same quantity of Vapour as was before; 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 do the same, and in the same quantity; and therefore it signifies no­thing against the former Calculation, how much Vapour was drawn from the surface of the Earth, or how much the Rivers were encreased by it.

Since then I have sufficiently proved [Page 166] on the supposition of his Principles, that all the water, in the Abyss was long before the time of the Deluge, drawn out of the Abyss, and placed on the surface of the Earth; I would fain know how in that case the Theorist can ex­plain an Universal Deluge by the fall of the outward Crust of the Earth up­on the Abyss: for in my Opinion, this fall would have been so far from be­ing the cause of a Deluge, that it would have proved the true way to deliver the Earth from a Deluge of waters which was then on it. For all the water which was in the Abyss, being drawn up on the surface of the Land, and the Earth being of a Spheroidical and Oval shape, without Hills and Mountains, upper and lower Grounds, but exactly of the same Figure which its gravity and centrifugal force form­ed it into, when it was fluid; the great Mass of water which was then upon the Earth must have settled it self also in the same Figure, it having no banks to retain it within its Channel, or Moun­tains to keep it within bounds; and the true effect of the fall of the Crust, must have been to have discovered the Land, and the waters would have run [Page 167] from the surface of the Earth into the Abyss, and there would have form­ed a Sea, and made that Land appear which before was covered with wa­ters.

Notwithstanding what I have alrea­dy proved, I will now suppose, that all the water which is now in the Ocean, was in the Abyss at the time of the De­luge, and that the Crust of the Earth was broken and crackt, and fell down on the surface of the Abyss; yet still I cannot understand how this fall could produce an Universal Deluge, and make the waters swell above the tops of the highest Mountains. For the Theorist has Calculated, that it would at least require eight Oceans of water to cover the face of the whole Earth, and raise the waters to a height that would be requisite for drowning of the world. Now there being but one Ocean of water in the Abyss, how is it possible that any however violent agitation and force by which the waters were driven upwards, should multiply this one Oce­an of waters into eight Oceans? this I am sure is a thing as impossible for him to explain as it is for me to believe: it is plain indeed that the fall of the [Page 168] Crust especially if there were any con­siderable distance between the Abyss and it, would raise the waters to the tops of the highest Mountains, and would in some places produce a partial Deluge; but it is evident, that it is im­possible in nature, let the motion be never so violent, that one Ocean should be sufficient to cover the whole Earth, and that above the tops of the highest Mountains, when eight Oceans are the least that can be required to perform such an effect. The waters indeed at different times, might have covered the whole Earth successively; first by mak­ing a Deluge in one place and then in another, but this could never have been brought to pass by the fall of the Crust at once. Besides the Scriptures inform us that the whole Earth was un­der water at the same time, & that all the high Hills, that were under the whole Hea­ven, were covered: now it is as impossible that one Ocean should suffice to drown the whole Earth, and cover the tops of the highest Hills, tho for the space of one moment, as it is to make one pint of pure water fill a vessel which holds a Gallon. This Argument which I have now used is the Theorists own, which [Page 169] he has alledged in his 2d and 3d Chap­ters against all other wayes of destroy­ing the Earth by a Deluge; but he did not then observe, that it concluded as strongly against his own Theory, as it did against any other which pretends to explain the Deluge without the sup­position of more water than what was Lodged in the Ocean or the Clouds.

But tho I should suppose that there was sufficient water in the Abyss to cover the face of the whole Earth at once, yet I cannot conceive how such a flood of waters that was raised by the fall of the Crust, could last for so long a time, as the Scriptures in­form us Noah's flood did, which was an hundred and fifty dayes without a­bating on the face of the Earth. We know that water driven with great vi­olence upwards falls down again in a very short space of time; and can we Imagin that the water which was raised by the fall of the Crust, could last many dayes, or indeed many hours, without descending again to its ancient Channel? But the Scriptures assure us that the water in Noah's Flood continually en­creased, and prevailed on the Earth for the space of one hundred and fifty [Page 170] dayes; it is plain therefore, that for this very reason the Flood of Noah could never be produced by the fall of this outward Crust of the Earth.