The following Tract hath been much enquired after by some curious Persons, but was so scarce, that a Copy could not be procured at the Time of the Printing the former Edition of the Theory. Since that, an intimate Friend of Dr. Burnet’s hath favoured me with a Copy; so that the Reader may be assured, it it genuine, and was wrote by Dr. Burnet; and it is apprehended, it may very well deserve a Place in his Works.

Sir,

I Receiv’d the Honour of your Letter, with the Book you was pleas’d to send me, containing an Examination of the Theory of the Earth: And, according as you desire, I shall give you my Thoughts of it, in as narrow a Compass as I can. The Author of the Theory, you know, hath set down in three Propositions, the Foundation of the whole Work; and so long as those Propositions stand firm, the Substance of the Theory is safe, whatsoever becomes of particular Modes of Explication in some Parts; which are as Problems, and may be explained several Ways, without prejudice to the Principles upon which the Theory stands.

The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum, viz. That the Earth rose from a Chaos: This is not call’d into Question; and this being granted, he lays down three Propositions consecutively. First, That the primitive or ante-diluvian Earth was of a different Form and Construction from the present Earth. Secondly, That the Face of that Earth, as it rose from a Chaos, was smooth, regular and uniform; without Mountains or Rocks, and without an open Sea. Thirdly, That the Disruption of the Abyss, or Dissolution of that primeval Earth, and its Fall into the Abyss, was the Cause of the universal Deluge, and of the Destruction of the old World: As also of the irregular Form of the present Earth.

These are the three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the fourth, fifth and sixth Chapters of the Theory. And for a farther Proof and Confirmation of them, especially of the last, another Proposition is added (Chap. VII.) in these Words, The present Form and Structure of the Earth, both as to the Surface, and as to the interior Parts of it, so far as they are accessible and known to us, do exactly answer to the foregoing Theory, concerning the Form and Dissolution of the first Earth, and is not so justly explained to any other Hypothesis yet known. This is offer’d as a Proof à Posteriori, as they call it, or from the Effects; to shew the Consent and Agreement of the Parts and Construction of the present Earth, to that Supposition of its being a sort of Ruin, or the Effect and Remains of a Disruption or Dissolution. And to make this good, the Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general Form of the present Earth, and its Irregularity: Then shews more particularly the Marks or Signatures of Ruin or Disruption in several Parts of it; as in Mountains and Rocks, in the great Chanel of the Sea, and in subterraneous Cavities, and other broken and disfigur’d Parts of the Earth.

These Conclusions, with their Arguments, are the Sum and principal Contents of the first Book; but I must also mind you of a Corollary in the second Book, drawn from these primary Propositions, which concerns the Situation of the primitive Earth: For the Theorist supposes, that the Posture of that Earth, or of its Axis, was not oblique to to the Axis of the Sun, or of the Ecliptick, as it is now, but lay parallel with the Axis of the Sun, and perpendicular to the Plane of the Ecliptick; by reason of which Position, there was a perpetual Spring, or perpetual Equinox, in that primitive Earth. This, tho’ a Consequence only from the first Propositions, I thought fit to mind you of, as being one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this Theory.

This being the State of the Theory, or of those Parts of it that support the rest, and wherein its Strength consists, he that will attack it to purpose, must throw down, in the first Place, these leading Propositions. If the Examiner had taken this Method, and confuted the Proofs that are brought in Confirmation of each of them, he needed have done no more; for the Foundation being destroyed, the Superstructure would fall of its own accord. But if, instead of this, you only pick out a loose Stone here or there, or strike off a Pinacle, this will not weaken the Foundation, nor have any considerable Effect upon the whole Building. Let us therefore consider, in the first Place, what this Examiner hath said against these fundamental Propositions, and accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work.

His first Chapter is to shew, that the Deluge might be made by a Miracle: But whoever denied that? No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do whatsoever he pleases, to the utmost Extent of Possibilities. But he does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted? Doth he suppose that the Deluge could be made without any Increase of Waters upon the Earth? If there was an Increase of Waters, either they were created a-new, or brought thither from some other Part of the Universe: So far is plain; and if he supposes a new Creation of Waters for this Purpose, and an Annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood, it had been fair to have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis, in the third Chapter of the English Theory. And seeing there is no mention made of any such thing in the sacred History, if he asserts it, he must bring some Proof of his Assertion; for we are not upon such Terms, as to trust upon bare Word. On the other Hand, if he proceed upon such Waters as were already in being, and for his purpose either bring down supercelestial Water, or bring subterraneous, he must tell us what those Waters are, and must answer such Objections as are brought against either sort in the second and third Chapters of the Theory; we must have some fix’d Point, some Mark to aim at, if the Case be argued. Upon the whole, I think this his first Chapter might have been spar’d, as either affirming nothing particularly, or giving no Proof of what is affirm’d.

In his next Chapter about the Chaos, I was in hopes to have found something more considerable, but (besides his long excerpta out of the Theory, both here and elsewhere, which make a good part of his Book) I find nothing but two small Objections against the Formation of the first Earth, as it is describ’d by the Theorist. This Examiner says, p. 37, 38. That the little earthy Particles of the Chaos would not swim upon the Surface of Oil, or any such unctuous Liquor; for how little soever, yet being earthy, and Earth being heavier than Oil, they must descend through it. But he grants that Dust will swim upon Oil; and I willingly allow, if these descending Parts were huge Lumps of solid Matter, such as we shall meet with in his next Chapter, they would easily break through both the Oil and the Water under it; but that little tenuious Particles or small Dust should swim upon Oil, I think is no wonder: And he is so kind as to note an Instance of this himself; and to subjoin his Reasons for it. We see Dust, saith he, p. 38, 39. though specifically heavier than Oil, yet not to sink when cast upon it. And the Reason is, because all terrestrial Bodies, tho’ fluid in their kind yet in some degree resist Separation; and consequently, I add, viscous Liquors which have some sort of Entanglement amongst themselves, resist Separation more than others. Then he remarks farther, that according as Bodies are less, they have more Surface in Proportion to their Bulk, and consequently, that small Bodies, whose Weight or Force to 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 through the Fluid, and therefore must swim upon the Surface of it. Be it so, then the Particles here mentioned by the Theorist, being little, and of large Surfaces in Proportion to their Bulk, would swim upon the Surface of the Fluid, or mix with it, which is all the Theorist affirms or supposes: And as this tender Film grew into a Crust, and that into a solid Arch, the Parts of it would mutually support one another; the Concave Superficies of the Orb overspreading and leaning upon the Waters: And this also shews that his Instance of a solid Globe sinking in a Fluid, is little to the Purpose in this Case.

But he hath a second objection behind, p. 40. or another Consideration to prove that those little Particles would pierce and pass through this oily Liquid. This Consideration is, the great Height of the Place from which they descended; whereby, he thinks, they would acquire such a Celerity and Force in their Descent, that they must needs break through this Orb of oily Liquors when they came at it. But this is to suppose that they descended without Interruption, or without having their Course stopp’d, and their Force broken in several Parts of their journey. This is an arbitrary and groundless Supposition: For these floating Particles did not fall like a Stone, or a ponderous Body, in one continued Line, but rather like Fleaks of Snow, hovering and playing in the Air, their Course being often interrupted and diverted, and their force broken again and again, before they came to the end of their Journey; so that this Suggestion can be of no Force or Effect in the present Case. However, if that will gratify him, we can allow that thousands and millions of these little Particles might slip or creep through this clammy Liquor, yet there would enough of them entangled there to make it, first, a gross Liquid, then a sort of Concretion, so as to stop the succeeding Particles from passing through it.

I have done with all that is argumentative in this Chapter: But this Writer is pleased to go sometimes out of his way of Philosophising, to make Reflections of another kind. Accordingly, here and elsewhere he makes Insinuations and Suggestions, as if the Theorist did not own the Hand of Providence, or of a particular and extraordinary Providence in the Formation of the Earth; or as if all Things in the great Revolutions of the natural World were carried on solely by material and mechanical Causes. This Suggestion ought to be taken Notice of, as being contrary to the Sense of the Theorist, as it is express’d in several Places. In speaking of the Motions of the Chaos, the Theorist makes the steady Hand of Providence which keeps all Things in Weight and Measure, to be the invisible Guide of all its Motions, p. 45. And in concluding his Discourse about the Formation of the Earth (Chap. V. p. 45.) the Theorist says, This Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to be consider’d, as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the Work of Nature; with many other Remarks there to the same purpose. Then as to the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Conduct of the Deluge, ’tis made miraculous also by the Theorist^[22]: And upon that Occasion an Account is given of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, in reference to the Government of Nature; and that not only as to the formation and Dissolution of the Earth, but also as to its Conflagration and Renovation: For the Theorist always puts those great Revolutions under the particular Conduct and Moderation of Providence. Lastly, As to the whole Universe, he is far from making that the Product either of Chance or Necessity, or of any purely material or mechanical Causes; as you may see at large in the two last Chapters of the Theory, Book II. So that what this Author hath said (rudely enough, according to his Way) of Mr. Wotton, Introd. p. 15. that he either understands no Geometry, or else that he never read D.C. his Principles, may with a little Change be apply’d to himself in this Case, that either he never read over, or does not remember, or, which is still worse, does wilfully misrepresent what the Theorist hath wrote upon this Subject. The Sum of all is this, Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in superfluis: God is the God of Nature; and the Laws of Nature are his Laws: These we are to follow so far as they will go, and where they fall short, we must rise to higher Principles; but we ought not to introduce a needless Exercise of the divine Power, for a Cover to our Ignorance.

To conclude this Chapter, I will leave one Advertisement with the Examiner concerning the Chaos. When he speaks of the World’s rising from the Mosaick Chaos, if by World he understand the whole Universe, as he seems to do; not this inferior World only, but the fix’d Stars also, and all the Heavens: If that, I say, be his Meaning and Opinion, he will meet with other Opponents besides the Theorist, that will contest that Point with him.

We come now to the third Chapter, concerning the Mountains of the Earth, which is a subject indeed that deserves Consideration, seeing it reaches to the three fundamental Propositions before mentioned, and the Form of the ante-diluvian Earth; which Form the Examiner would have to be the same with that of the present Earth, to have had Mountains and Rocks, an open Chanel of the Sea, with all the Cavities and Irregularities within or without the Surface of it, as at present. If he can prove this, he needs go no farther; he may spare his Pains for the rest: I’ll undertake that the Theorist shall make no farther Defence of his Theory, if the Examiner can make good Proof of this one Conclusion. But, on the other Hand, the Examiner ought to be so ingenuous as to acknowledge that all that he hath said besides, till this be prov’d, can be of little or no Effect, as to the Substance of the Theory. Let us then consider how he raises Mountains and Rocks, and gives us an Account of all the other Inequalities that we find in the present Form of the Earth, by an immediate Formation or Deduction from the Chaos.

To shew this, he supposes, p. 49, 51. that the Chaos had Mountains and Rocks swimming in it, or, according to his Expression, huge Lumps of solid Matter. These are Things, I confess, which I never heard of before in a Chaos; which hath been always describ’d and suppos’d a Mass of fluid Matter all over. But this Author confidently says, p. 48. We must conclude THEREFORE, that the Chaos was not so fluid a Mass, &c. This therefore refers us to an antecedent Reason, which is this; he says, ibid. to make the Chaos an entirely fluid Mass is hard to be granted, since the greatest Parts of Bodies we have in the Earth, at least so far as we can discern, are hard and solid, and there is not such a Quantity of Water in the Earth, as would be requisite to soften and liquify them all; besides a great part of them, as Stones and Metals, are uncapable of being liquified by Water. Very good, what is this to the Theory? Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos; or that they were liquified by Water? This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own, or to some other Author’s Hypothesis that ran in his Mind: The Theorist owns no such Doctrine or Supposition.

However, let’s consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with the Laws of Nature: What made these huge Lumps of solid Matter, whether Stone or Metal, to swim in the fluid Mass? This is against all Rules of Gravity, and of Staticks, as he seems to acknowledge, and urged it when he thought it to his Purpose. In the precedent Chapter (p. 42.) when he speaks of Stones and Minerals, he says, ’Tis certain that these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the Bottom, if they were left to themselves: And he that will not allow Dust or little earthy Particles, to float upon an oily Liquor, I wonder how he will make, not little Particles, but these huge solid Lumps of Stone, Metals, or Minerals, to float in the Chaos.

He seems to own and be sensible of this Inconvenience, (p. 50) and thereupon finds an Expedient or Evasion which a lesser Wit would not have thought on. He supposes, p. 51 that these huge firm solid Lumps were hollow, like empty Bottles, and that would keep them from sinking. But who told him they were hollow? Is not this precarious? Or, if one would use such Terms as he does, is not this chymerical and ridiculous? What made those solid firm Lumps hollow? When, or where, or how were their inward Parts scrap’d out of them? Nor would this Hollowness, however they came by it, make them swim, unless there was a mere Vacuum in each of them. If they were filled with the liquid Matter of the Chaos, they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid; but they would still be heavier than any equal Bulk of the fluid Chaos, and consequently would sink in it; the Preponderancy that would arise from the Shell or solid Part still remaining.

Now let’s consider how such Mountains, or long Ridges of Mountains as we have upon the Earth, were formed and settled by these floating Lumps. He says, p. 50, 51. Part of these Lumps or Masses standing out, or being higher than the Fluid, would compose a Mountain, as there are Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas. But are not Mountains of Rock and Stone, such as ours commonly are, heavier than Mountains of Ice, that is specifically lighter than Water? This might have been consider’d by the Examiner in drawing the Parallel: And still I’m at a Loss what Fluid it is he means, when he says, These Lumps or Masses standing out, or being higher than the Fluid. Does he mean by this Fluid the Whole Chaos? Did these Mountains stand at the Top of the Chaos, partly within, and partly above it? Then what drew them down below, if they stood equally pois’d there in their Fluid, and as high as the Moon, if the Chaos reach’d so high. This, one would think, could not be his Meaning, ’tis so extravagant; and yet there was no other Fluid than the general Chaos, till that was divided and distinguish’d into several Masses. Then, indeed, there was an Abyss, or Region of Waters that covered the interior Earth, and was separate from the Air above. Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the Waters or Fluid this Author means, upon which his Mountains stood; then the rest of the Earth, as it came to be form’d, must be continu’d and join’d with these Mountains, and in like Manner laid over the Waters; so as in this Method, you see, we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss. This is a very favourable Stroke for the Theorist, and grants him in Effect his principal Conclusion, viz. That the first ante diluvian Earth was built over the Abyss: This being admitted, there could be no universal Deluge without a Disruption of that Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss, which is a main Point gain’d. And ’tis plain we make no false Logick in collecting this from his Principles and Concessions: For, as we said before, if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss, they must have a Continuity and Conjunction with the rest of the Surface of the Earth, if they were such as our Mountains are now, and so all the habitable Earth must be spread upon the Abyss.

But still he hath another Difficulty to encounter, how the great Chanel of the Sea was made upon this Supposition: Why was not that Part of the Globe fill’d up by the Descent of the earthy Particles of the Chaos as well as the rest? The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos’d to take up half of the Globe, how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill’d, seeing it was encompass’d with the Chaos as well as any other Parts? Was the Motion of the Particles suspended from descending upon that Part of the Globe; or were they fill’d up at first, and afterwards thrown out again to make room for the Sea? This may deserve his Consideration, as well as the Mountains: And how dextrous soever this Author may be in other Things I know not, but, in my Mind, he hath no good Hand in making Mountains; and I’m afraid he would have no better Success in forming the Chanel of the Sea, which he is wisely pleased to take no Notice of.

And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no good Luck in assigning the efficient Causes of Mountains from the Chaos, and therefore he is willing to bear off from that Point, and to lay the whole Stress upon their final Causes, without any regard to their Origin, or how they came first into being. His Words are these, p. 52. But supposing the efficient Causes of Mountains unknown, or impossible to be assign’d, yet still there remain the final Causes to be enquir’d into, which will do as well for our Purpose, with what follows there concerning those Authors that exclude final Causes. If there be such Authors, let them answer for themselves, the Theorist is not concern’d. Grant the first Point, that Mountains could not arise from any known efficient Causes in the first Concretion of the Chaos, or in the first habitable Earth that rose from it, the Theorist readily allows (as appears fully in the two last Chapters of the second Book of the Eng. Theor.) the Use of final Causes in the Contemplation of Nature, as being great Arguments of the Wisdom and Goodness of God. But this ought not to exclude the efficient Causes in a Theory, otherwise it would be no Theory, but a Work of another Nature. Though a Man knew the final Cause of a Watch or Clock, namely, to tell him the Hour of the Day, yet, if he did not know the Construction of its Parts, what was the Spring of Motion, what the Order of the Wheels, and how they mov’d the Hand of the Dial, he could not be said to understand that little Machine; or at least not to understand it so well as he that knew the Construction and Dependence of all its Parts, in virtue whereof that Effect was brought to pass. In many Cases we do not understand the final Causes, and in many we do not understand the efficient; but, notwithstanding, we must endeavour, so far as we are able, to join and understand them both; the End and the Means to it: For by the one, as well as the other, the divine Power and Wisdom are illustrated; and seeing every Effect hath its efficient Cause, if we cannot reach it, we must acknowledge our Speculations to be so far imperfect.

After this Excursion about final Causes, he concludes, p. 54. That it is impossible to subsist or live without Rocks or Mountains; consequently no Earth is habitable without Rocks and Mountains. But how can he tell this? Hath he been all over the Universe to make his Observations? or hath he had a Revelation to tell him that there is no one habitable Planet throughout all the Works of God, but what is of the same Form with our Earth as to Rocks and Mountains. Who hath ever observ’d Mountains and Rocks in Jupiter, or in the Remains of Saturn? I should think such a general Assertion as he makes, a bold and unwarrantable Limitation of the divine Omniscience and Omnipotency. Who dares conclude that the infinite Wisdom and Power of God is confin’d to one single Mode or Fabrick of an habitable World? We know there are many Planets about our Sun besides this Earth, and of different Positions and Constructions: Neither do we know but there may be as many about other Suns, or fix’d Stars: Must we suppose that they are all cast in the same Mold? that they are all formed after the Model of our Earth, with Mountains and Rocks, and Gulphs and Caverns?

This was the Judgment of the Shepherd, who could imagine nothing different, or nothing better than his own Town or Village; those may imitate him that please. ’Tis true, Suum cuique pulchrum, is an usual Saying, but we think that to proceed from Fondness rather, and Self-Conceit, than from a true and impartial Judgment of Things. In contemplating the Works of God, we ought to have Respect to his Almighty and Infinite Wisdom, τῆν πολυπαίκιλον σοφίαν, multiformem sapientiam Dei, rather than to the Measures of our own Experience and Understanding. We may remember how an^[23] Heathen hath upbraided and derided that Narrowness of Spirit, Quæ tantæ sunt animi angustiæ, ut si Seryphi natus esses, nec unquam egrossus ex Insulá, in quâ Lepusculos Vulpeculasque sæpe vidisses, non crederes Leones & Pantheras esse, cúm tibi quales essent diceretur: Si verò de Elephanto quis diceret, etiam rideri te putares. We may as well say, that there can be no Animals of another Form from those we have upon this Earth, as that there can be no Worlds, or habitable Earths of another Form and Structure from the present Earth. An quicquam tam puerile dici potest, says the same Author, quám si ea genera belluarum quæ in Rubro mari, Indiâve gignantur, nulla esse dicamus? Atqui ne curiosissimi quidem homines exquirendo andire tam multa possunt, quam sunt multa quæ Terræ, Mari, Paludibus, Fluminibus existunt; quæ negemus esse quia nunquam vidimus? I mention such Instances to shew, that ’tis Rashness or Folly, to confine the Varieties of Providence and Nature, to the narrow Compass of what we have seen, or of what falls under our Imagination. This is a more strange and assuming Boldness, as he terms it, p. 54 than what he ascribes to the Theorist for saying, We can observe no Order in the Situation of Mountains, nor Regularity in their Form and Shape. If the Examiner knows any, why does he not tell us what it is, and wherein it consists? Is it necessary that Mountains should be exact Pyramids or Cones, or any of the regular Bodies? or rang’d upon the Earth in Rank and File, or in a quincuncial Order, or like pretty Garden-Knots? If they had been design’d for Beauty, this might have done well; but Providence seems on Purpose to have left these Irregularities in their Figure and Site, as Marks and Signatures to us, that they are the Effects of a Ruin.

But to shew farther and more particularly the Necessity of Mountains, the Examiner says, p. 55. and 61. Without them ’tis impossible there should be Rivers, or without Rivers an habitable World. Neither of these Propositions seems to me to be sure; they run still upon Impossibilities, which is a nice Topick, and lies much out of our Reach. I think Vapours may be condens’d other Ways than by Mountains, and an Earth might be so fram’d, as to give a Course to Rivers, though there were no particular Mountains, if the general Figure of it was higher in one Part than another. Then as to the absolute Necessity of Rivers, to make an Earth habitable, that is questionable too. We are told by good Authors, of some Countries or Islands that have no Rivers or Springs, and yet are habitable and fruitful, being water’d by Dews. This may give us an Advertisement, from a Part to the Whole, that an Earth may be made habitable without Rivers. If at first Vapours ascended, and fell down in Dews, so as to water the whole Face of the Earth, Gen. ii. 6. God might, if he had pleas’d, have continued the same Course of Nature. And it is the Opinion of many Interpreters, and seems to have been an antient Tradition, that there was no Rain till the Deluge. If there was no Rainbow in the first Earth, (which I think the Theorist hath undeniably prov’d, Theor. Book II. c. 5.) it will be hard to prove that there were then any watery Clouds in the habitable Parts of the Earth. And our best^[24] Observators will allow no Clouds or Rains in the Moon, (and some of them no Rivers,) yet will not suppose the Moon unhabitable. To conclude, ’tis a great Vanity to say no worse, for short-sighted Creatures, and of narrow Understandings, to prescribe to Providence what is necessary and indispensable to the Frame and Order of an habitable World.

We proceed to his fourth Chapter; which is to shew the Inconveniencies that would fall upon the Inhabitants of the Earth, in case it had such a Posture as the Theorist hath assign’d to the ante-diluvian Earth: Namely, that its Axis was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick, or perpendicular to its Plane, and not oblique as it stands now. But will this Author vouch, that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe, or even about our Sun, that have this Posture which he blames so much? Jupiter is known to have a perpetual Equinox, and his Axis parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick; and Mars hath little or no Obliquity that is observable. And must this be a Reflection upon Providence? Or must we suppose, that these Planets have no Inhabitants, or that their Habitations are very bad and incommodious? Jupiter is the noblest Planet we have in our Heaven, whether you consider its Magnitude, or the Number of its Attendants. If then a Planet of that Order and Dignity, have such a Position and Aspect to the Sun, why might not our Earth have had the same, proper to that State, and agreeable to the Divine Wisdom? Yet he is so bold as to say, or suppose, p. 66. That this cannot well agree with the infinite Wisdom of its Maker; as if he was able to make a Measure or Standard for all the Works of God. ’Tis a crude and injudicious Thing, from a few Particulars, the rest unknown, to make an universal Conclution, which forward Wits are apt to do. Πρὸς ὀλίγα ἐπιθλεψάμενετ.—Ad pauca respiciens, facile pronuncias, was Aristotle’s Observation of old, and it holds in all Ages.

This Examiner, p. 76. censures the Theorist very rudely, for making use of physical Causes, and not arguing from final Causes, which, he says, are the true Principles of natural Philosophy. But, if this be the Use he makes of final Causes, to tell God Almighty what is best to be done, in this or that World, I had rather content myself with physical Causes, to know what God hath done, and conclude it to be the best, and that we should judge it so, if we had the same Extent of Thought and Prospect its Maker had. There are indeed some final Causes that are so manifest, that I should think it Sottishness or Obstinacy for a Man to deny them; but I should also think that Man presumptuous, that should pretend to draw the Scheme and Plan of every World, from his Idea of final Causes. There are some Men that mightily cry out against Reason, yet none more fond of it than they are, when they can get it on their Side: So some Men inveigh against physical Causes, when others make use of them, and yet as gladly as any make use of them themselves, when they can make them serve their Purpose; and when they cannot reach them, then they despise them, and are all for final Causes. This Author says, p. 63. God always chuses such Constitutions and Positions of Things, as bring with them the greatest Good and Utility to the Universe. Very true, to the Universe? but who made him judge what is best to the Universe? Does he look upon this Earth as the Universe, whereof it is but a small Particle, or an Atom in comparison? Must there be no Variety in the numberless Worlds which God hath made? Must they all be one and the same Thing repeated again and again? That I’m sure does not well agree with the infinite Wisdom and Power of God.

But suppose we did confine our Thoughts to this Earth, we may be assur’d that it hath undergone and will undergo, within the Compass of its Duration, very different States, and yet all accommodate to Providence. Those that suppose the Heavens and the Earth never to have had any other Constitution and Construction than what they have now, or that there hath never been any great Change and Revolution in our natural World, follow the very Doctrine which St. Peter opposes and confutes in his second Epistle, Chap. 3. I mean the Doctrine of those Scoffers, as he calls them, who said, All Things, the Heavens and the Earth, have remained in the same State they are in now, from the Beginning, or from the Creation, and are to continue so. In Confutation of this Opinion, St. Peter there minds them of the Change made at the Deluge, and of the different Constitution and Construction of the Heavens and the Earth, before and after the Deluge, whereby they were dispos’d to undergo a different Fate, one by Water, and the other by Fire. And he tells us in the same Place, that after the Conflagration, there will be new Heaven; and a new Earth: So that there is no one fix’d and permanent State even of this Earth, according to the Will and Wisdom of Providence. But enough hath been said by the Theorist upon this Subject (Theor. Lat. l. 1. c. 1 & 2. Review, p. 160. &c. Archæol. l. 2. c. 3, 5, 6.) And if they will not consider the Arguments propos’d there, ’twould be in vain to repeat them here.

These Things premis’d, let’s consider what Inconveniencies are alledged, or what Arguments against that Equality of Seasons, or the grand Cause of them, the Parallelism of the Axis of the Earth, with the Axis of the Sun. He says, upon this Supposition, there is more Heat now in the Climates of the Earth, than could have been then. And what if there be? Whether his Computation (which is aim’d against another Author) be true or false, ’tis little to the Theory: If the Heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates, who would desire the extreme Heats of Summer? But he says, p. 66. That Heat would not be sufficient for the Generation of Vegetables. How does that appear? supposing that Heat constant throughout the whole Year. Does he think there are no Vegetables in Jupiter, which hath still the same Position the Theorist gave to the ante-diluvian Earth. And as to Heat, that Planet is at vastly a greater Distance from the Sun than our Earth, and consequently hath so much less Heat; yet I cannot believe that great Planet to be only a huge Lump of bald and barren Earth. As to our ante-diluvian Earth, ’tis probable that the Constitution of Plants and Animals, was different then from what it is now, as their Longevity was different, to which any Excesses of Heat or Cold are noxious; and the Frequency and Multiplicity of Generations and Corruptions in the present Earth, is Part of that Vanity to which it was subjected. But this Examiner says moreover, If the first Earth had that Position, the greatest Part of it would not be habitable. But how much less habitable would it be than the present Earth? where the open Sea, which was not then, takes up half of its Surface, and makes it unhabitable. ’Tis likely the torrid Zone was unhabitable in that Earth; but ’tis probable the Poles or Polar Parts were more habitable than they are now, seeing they would have the Sun, or rather Half-Sun perpetually in their Horizon: And as to the temperate Climates, as we call them, they would be under such a gentle and constant Warmth, as would be more grateful to the Inhabitants, and more proper and effectual for a continual Verdure and Vegetation, than any Region of the present Earth is now.

But this Objector does not consider, on the other hand, what an hard Life they would lead in those Days, at least in many Parts of the Earth, if the Seasons of the Year were the same they are now, and they confin’d to Herbs, Fruits, and Water; for that was the Diet of Mankind till the Deluge. Should we not think it an unmerciful Imposition now, to be interdicted the Use of Flesh-Meat all the Year long? Or rather is it possible that the Life of Man could be supported by Herbs and Fruits, and Water in the colder Climates, where the Winters are so long and barren, and the Cold so vehement? But, if you suppose a perpetual Spring throughout the Earth, the Heavens mild, and the Juices of Fruits and Plants more nutritive, that Objection would cease, and their Longevity be more intelligible.

We come now to the Causes of the Change in the Posture of the Earth, where the Theorist hath set down his Conjectures, what he thought the most probable to be the Occasion of it: Namely, either some Inequality in the Libration of the Earth, after it was dissolved and broken; or a Change in the Magnetism of its Body, consequent upon its Dissolution, and the different Situation of its Parts. But this Examiner will neither allow any Change to have been made in the Position of the Earth since the Beginning of the World; nor, if there was a Change, that it could be made from such Causes. The first of these Points you see is Matter of Fact; and so it must be prov’d, partly by History, and partly by Reason. Some Things are noted before, which argue that the ante-diluvian Earth was different from the present, in its Frame and Constitution, as also in reference to the Heavens; and the Places are referred to, where the Matter is treated more largely by the Theorist. If it be granted, that there was a permanent Change made in the State of Nature at the Deluge, or any other Time, but deny’d that it was made by a Change of the Situation of the Earth, and the Consequences of it, then this Writer must assign some other Change made, which would have the same Effects; that is, which will answer and agree with the Phænomena of the first Earth, and also of the present. When this is done, if it be clear and convictive, we must acquiesce in it: But I do not see that it is so much as attempted by this Author.

This suppos’d Change, I say, is Matter of Fact, and therefore we must consult History and Reason for the Proof or Disproof of it. As to History, the Theorist hath cited to this Purpose Leucippus, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, Plato and Diogenes. These were the most renowned Philosophers amongst the Antients; and all these speak of an Inclination of the Earth or the Poles, which hath been made in former Ages. These, one would think, might be allow’d as good Witnesses of a former Tradition concerning a Change in the Situation of the Earth, when nothing is brought against them. And this Change is particularly call’d by Plato ἀναρμοσία or ἀνωμαλία, a Disharmony or Disconcerting of the Motions of the Heavens, which he makes the Source and Origin of the present Evils and Inconveniencies of Nature. Besides, he dates this Change from the Expiration of the Reign of Saturn, or when Jupiter came to take the Government upon him: And this, you know, in the Style of those Times, signifies the End of the Golden Age. Thus far Plato carries the Tradition: Now, the Poets tell us expressly that there was a perpetual Spring, or a perpetual Equinox in the Time of Saturn, and that the Inequality of the Year, or the Diversity of Seasons was first introduc’d by Jupiter. The Authors and Places are known and noted by the Theorist; I need not repeat them here. You see what this Evidence amounts to, both that there hath been a Change, and such a Change, as alter’d the Course of the Year, and brought in a Vicissitude of Seasons; and this according to the Doctrines or Traditions remaining amongst the Heathens. The Jews and Christians say the same Thing, but in another Manner: They do not speak of the Golden Age, nor of the Reign of Saturn or Jupiter, but of the State of Paradise, or Gan-Eden; and concerning that, they say the same Things, which the Heathen Authors say, in different Words. The Jews make a perpetual Equinox in Paradise, the Christians a perpetual Serenity, a perpetual Spring; and this cannot be without a different Situation of the Earth from what it hath now. He may see the Citations if he please, in the Theory, or Archæologia.

It were to be wish’d, that this Examiner would look a little into Antiquity, when he hath Time: It may be, that would awaken him into new Thoughts, and a more favourable Opinion of the Theory as to this Particular. Give me leave to mind him in his own Way, what some antient Astronomers have said relating to this Subject. Baptista Mantuanus, speaking of the Longevity of the Ante-Diluvians, says, Erant illis, ut Astronomia & Experimento constat, Cœli propitiores; volunt namque Astronomi, &c. This he explains by an uniform and concentrical Motion of the Heavens and the Earth, at that Time; to which he imputes the great Virtue of their Herbs and Fruit, and the long Lives of their Animals. Petrus Aponensis, who liv’d above an Age before Mantuan, give us much what the same Account: For making an Answer to this Question, utrum natura humania sit debilitata ab eo quod antiquitus, necne? He says, Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis & immobilis ordinati & directè concurrebant, tunc virtus perfectiori modò à primo principio per medias causastaliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista inferiora, cum causæ tunc sib invicem correspondeant——Propter quod concludendum est, tunc naturam humanam illo tempore, ut sic fortiorem & longæviorem extitisse. I give it in his own Words as they are in his Conciliator. Differ. 9.

Georgius Pictorius, or an Author under his Name, unto the same Question about the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, gives a like Answer from the same Astronomer, in these Words: Petrus Aponensis adsert rationem, & pro vario cursu & dispositione coelorum modo vitam humanam breviari, modo produci seribit. Ex Astronomiá argumentum colligens, cùm ait duos Zodiacos, unum in noná sphærâ, alterum in octava (quam Firmamentum vocani) in initio rerum & temporum, sic à Deo fuisse dispositos, ut Aries Arieti, Taurus Tauro, Geminis Gemini jungerentur: & amborum cocuntibus in unum viribus fortior in Terras fieret fluxus. Unde herbas tunc salubriores & fructus terræ meliores, & longiores vitas animantium fuisse affirmat. Sed dennò illá syderali dissolutá ab invicem per motum societate, totum ait inferiorem mundum ægrotare, atque per decrementum claudicare cæpisse. This, you see, is Astronomy in an old-fashion’d Dress; but you can easily take off the Disguise, and apply it to the true System of the Heavens. The same Author refers you, for a more full Explication of that Matter, to his Lectiones succisivæ, Dial. prim. which Book I have not yet had an Opportunity to see. I believe it is in his Opera Philologica, printed in Octavo at Basil.

But since the first writing of the Theory, there have been Æthiopick Antiquities produc’d from an Abyssine Philosopher, and transmitted to us by Francisco Patricio in his Dialogues. If that Account he gives of the Æthiopian Archæologia be true and genuine, they exceed all other upon this Subject: for they do not only mention this Particular, of the Unity of Seasons in the primitive Earth, but the other principal Parts of the Theory: As the Concussion and Fraction of the Earth; that the Face of it before was smooth and uniform, and upon that Disruption it came into another Form, with Mountains, Rocks, Sea and Islands. These and other such Characters are mentioned there, whereof the Examiner may see an Account, if he please, in the last Edition of the English Theory, p. 189. The Story indeed is surprizing, which way soever you take it, whether it was the Invention of that Abyssine Philosopher, or a real Tradition deriv’d from the Æthiopian Gymnosophists. However that be, there are otherwise such conspicuous Footsteps in philosophick History, and in what may be call’d Ecclesiastick, amongst the Jews and Christians, of some Revolution in the System of the World, as must give occasion to any thinking Man to suppose, that there hath been a Change made in the Situation of the Earth. This, by some of the forementioned Authors, is ascrib’d expresly to the Earth; and what by others (according to their Hypothesis) is ascrib’d to the higher Heavens, we know upon a just Interpretation belongs to the Earth. Those also that ascribe such Phænomena to Paradise, or the Golden Age, as are not intelligible upon any other Supposition, must also be referr’d to this Change of the Site or Posture of the Earth: So that upon all Accounts (mediately or immediately) the Matter of Fact, that the Earth hath undergone such a Change, is testified by History, Antiquity and Tradition. It deserves also to be observ’d, that there was a general Tradition amongst the Antients, concerning the Inhabitability of the Torrid Zone; which may be an Argument or Confirmation, that there was a State of Nature at one time or other, when this was true, and that such a general Opinion could not arise, and be continued so long without some Foundation.

So much for History to determine Matter of Fact: Now as to Reason (which we mentioned as the other Head, to prove or disprove this Conclusion.) That the Form of the primitive Earth which is assign’d by the Theorist, being suppos’d, namely, that it was regular, uniform, and had an equal Libration, it would naturally take an even and parallel Position with the Axis of its Orbit, or of the Ecliptick, as is set down more at large in the Theory: Nor can any Reason be alledg’d to the contrary. ’Tis true, this Examiner, p. 83. notwithstanding any Uniformity and Equilibration of that Earth, pretends it would be indifferent to any Position, or retain any Position given, as a Sphere will do, put in a Fluid. This might be, if that Sphere or Globe was resting; but if it was turn’d about its Axis, and the Axis of the Fluid (which is the present Case) it would certainly take a Position parallel to the Axis of its Fluid, if there was no other Impediment.

The Matter of Fact being settled with the Cause of it, what the Causes of the Change were, is more problematical. The Philosophers forecited gave their Reason; Aristarchus Samius gives another, and a Comet by some is made the occasion of it: The Theorist thinks that the Dissolution of the Earth was the fundamental Cause, and that the Change came to pass at that time, as many Indications and Arguments shew. And as to the immediate Cause or Causes of it, I know none more probable than what the Theorist hath proposed; Eng. Theor. p. 267. Either the Change of its Center of Gravity, or of its Magnetism; the Line of Direction to those magnetick Particles, and their passing through the Earth being so alter’d, as to turn the Earth into another Posture, and hold it there. As to those Expressions that he seems to quarrel with, of the Inclination of the Earth, or the Pole, towards the Sun, ’tis the Expression of the antient Philosophers, tho’ I think it might more properly be called an Obliquation. Then that the former State is called situs rectus, is another Expression which he finds fault with; though every one sees that a right Situation in such Places, is opposed to an oblique, or inclined Position to the Axis of the Sun or Ecliptick, and had been called parallel in several other Places; and which he himself, p. 71. sometimes, as well as other Authors, call a right Position. This is but trifling about Words: If he grants that the primitive Earth being uniform, and consequently equally pois’d, its Axis would be parallel (which for shortness, is sometimes call’d right) to the Axis of its Orbit, and is now in a different and oblique Posture, this is all the Theorist desires, as to Matter of Fact. I conceive the whole Matter thus: When the Earth was in that even and parallel Posture with the Axis of the Sun, it had a perpetual Equinox and Unity of Seasons, the Equator and Ecliptick being coincident: And as to the Heavens, they with the fix’d Stars mov’d or seem’d to move uniformly and concentrically with the Earth. But when the Earth chang’d its Posture to that which it hath now, the Year became unequal, and the Equator and Ecliptick became distinct Circles, or, if you will, a new Circle arose from the Distinction. The Earth in the mean time continuing its annual Course in the Ecliptick, had the Position of its Axis chang’d to a Parallelism with the Axis of the Equator, which it holds throughout the whole Year. As to the Heavens, they seem’d to turn upon another Axis, or other Poles than they did before, and different from those of the Sun or the Earth: And this fundamental Change in the Site of the Earth, had a farther Chain of Consequences, as is noted by the Theorist, in reference to the State both of the animate and inanimate World, This is, in short, the State of the Case, which is sometimes express’d in different Terms, especially by the Antients, who generally followed another System of the Heavens and the Earth, and were not always accurate in their Expressions.

This Author would square and conform all the Planets to the Model of the present Earth: Whereas there is Diversity of Administrations in the natural World, as well as spiritual, yet the same Providence every where. The Axes of the Planets are not all parallel to that of the Sun, nor all oblique; and those that are so, have not all the same Degrees of Obliquity, yet we have Reason to think them all habitable. In some there are no different Seasons of the Year, and in some they differ in another manner than ours; and the Periods of their Years are very different. In like manner, as to the Days, in some they are longer, in others shorter: In the Moon a Day lasts fourteen or fifteen of our Days, and their Nights are proportionably longer than our Nights. In Jupiter, the Days are but of five Hours, and so the Nights; that Planet being turned in ten Hours about his Axis. In Mercury we know little what the Seasons or Days are, but its Year must be much shorter than ours; as also is that of Venus; and their Heat from the Sun, must be much greater. Jupiter and Saturn are at vast Distances from the Sun, and must proportionably have less Heat; and Saturn must have a greater Difference of Summer and Winter than we have, by reason of his greater Obliquity to the Sun. These and such like Observations, show what Vanity it is to make an universal Standard from the State of our Earth: Or to say, this is best, and to make Things otherwise, would be inconsistent with the infinite Wisdom of their Maker, as this Examiner, p. 66. pretends to do.

But to return to his Objections: This he suggests, ibid. as one, that in case of a perpetual Equinox, the annual Motion of the Earth about the Sun would be to no Purpose. Of this we are no competent Judges, no more than of the other Differences foremention’d in the Conditions of the Planets. Yet, in that Case, a Distinction and Computation of Time might be made, by their Aspect to the different Signs of the Zodiack. There may be, (for any Thing we know,) in the Extent of the Universe, Planets, or great opaque Bodies, that have no Course about their Suns, for Reasons best known to their Maker; and others that have no diurnal Motion about their Axes: Nor ought such States, tho’ very different from ours, to be concluded incongruous. If this Objection of his were of any Force, it would lie against Jupiter as well as against the ante-diluvian Earth. And this minds me of his Objection taken from Saturn and Jupiter, whose Axes, he says, are Inclined to the Axis of the Ecliptick; and yet, according to the Theorist, they have suffer’d no Deluge. This is an unhappy Argument, for I think it hath two Errors in it: But let us set down his Words, that there may be no Mistake or Misrepresentation, p. 76. Another Argument which may be brought to convince the Theorist that the Axis of the Earth was at first inclined to the Plane of the Ecliptick is, that it is certain by Observation, that Saturn and Jupiter (whom the Theorist will allow to have suffered no Deluge as yet) have their Axes not perpendicular, but inclined to the Planets of their Orbits; and the Position is true of all the other Planets, as far as they can be observ’d. And therefore, &c. First, as to Saturn, I’m sure the Theorist never thought that Planet to be now in its original Form, but to be broken, and to have already suffer’d a Dissolution, as you may see in both Theories, English and Latin^[25]. Then as to the Position of Jupiter, I know not whence he has this certain Observation, that its Axis is oblique to the Plane of its Orbit: For^[26] Hugenius tells us just the contrary, and that it hath a perpetual Equinox. Let these Things be examin’d, and hereafter let us be cautious how we take Things upon the Examiner’s Word, if he be found to have committed two Faults in one Objection.

Farthermore, he intimates, (p. 94.) that the Theorist hath no Mind to the Notion of Attraction; I believe so too, nor in Philosophy to any other Notion that is unconceivable. He must tell us how this Attraction differs from an occult Quality, whether it is a mechanical Principle or no; and if not, from what Principle it arises. When he hath told us this, we shall be better able to judge of it.

After all, to conclude this Chapter, the one grand Question with the Theorist (whatsoever there may be with other Authors) is this, whether the Earth has chang’d its Situation since the Beginning of the World: And that it has done so, the Theorist does still positively maintain.

Having insisted more largely upon these four first Chapters, as being most fundamental in the Controversy, we shall dispatch more readily this fifth and the seventh, leaving the sixth Chapter to a more particular Disquisition in the last Place.

This fifth Chapter is designed against the Rivers of the primitive Earth, according to that Origin and Derivation that is given them by the Theorist. But it is to be noted in the first Place, that supposing they had any other Origin or Course than what is there assign’d (excepting only an Origin from Mountains,) the Theory continues still in Force. For this Point about the Waters of the first Earth, and the Explication of them, is one of those Explications that admit of Latitude and Variety; and therefore as to the Theory, the Question is only this, Whether an habitable Earth may have Rivers without Mountains. For if any Earth may have them without Mountains, why not the primitive Earth? Now it will be hard for the Examiner, or any other, to prove, that in every World, where there are Waters and Rivers, there are Mountains. We intimated before, that the general Frame of an Earth might be such as would give a Course to Waters without particular Mountains. But we will leave that at present to a farther Consideration, and observe now what his Proofs are, that there could be no Rivers in the primitive Earth.

First he says, p. 87. According to the Theorist’s Own Hypothesis, there could be no Rivers for a long Time after the Formation of the Earth. Where is this said by the Theorist? His Hypothesis supposes, that the soft and moist Earth could not but afford Store of Vapours at first, as this Author in another Place hath noted for the Sense of the Theorist, (p. 86.) and now he says the quite contrary: The Chanels of the Rivers indeed would not be so deep and hollow at first as they are now, their Cavities being wrought by Degrees; but still there would not want Vapours to supply them.

Then he says, p. 88. when that first Moisture of the Earth was lessened, there could be no Supply of Vapours from the Abyss; seeing the Heat of the Sun could not reach so far, nor raise Vapours from it, or at least not in a sufficient Quantity, as he pretends to prove hereafter: But in the mean Time he speaks of great Cracks or Pits, whose Dimensions and Capacities he examines at Pleasure, and by these he makes the Theorist to suppose the Vapours to ascend. Now I do not find that the Theorist makes any Mention of these Pits, nor any Use of those Cracks for that Purpose. The only Question is, whether the Heat of the Sun in that Earth would reach so low as the Abyss, when the Earth was more dried, a»d its Pores enlarg’d: So that this Objection, as he states it, seems to refer to some other Author.

But now supposing the Vapours rais’d, he considers what Course they would take, or which Way they would move in the open Air. But before that be examin’d, we must take Notice how unfairly he deals with the Theorist, when he seems to make him suppose, p. 94, 95. that Mountains make way for the Motion and Dilatation of the Vapours; which he never suppos’d, nor is it possible he should suppose it in the first Earth, where there were no Mountains. Neither does the Theorist suppose, as this Author would insinuate, that Mountains or Cold dilate Vapours, but on the contrary, that they stop and compress them, as the Words are cited, even by the Examiner a little before, p. 86.

Then as to the Course of the Vapours, when they are rais’d, the Theorist supposes that would be towards the Poles and the coldest Climates. But this Author says, p. 97. they would all move Westward, or from East to West; there being a continual Wind blowing from the East to West, according to the Motion of the Sun. Whether that Wind come from the Motion of the Sun, or of the Earth, (which is contrary,) is another Question; but however, let them move at first to the West, the Question here is, Where they would be condens’d, or where they would fall. And there is little Probability that their Condensation would be under the Equator, where they are most agitated, but rather by an Impulse of new Vapours, they would soon divert towards the Poles, and losing their Agitation there, would fall in Dews or Rains. Which Condensation being made, and a Passage open’d that Way for new ones to supply their Places, there would be a continual Draught of Vapours, from the hotter to the colder Parts of the Earth.

We proceed now to the seventh Chapter, which is in a good Measure upon the same or a like Subject with this, namely, concerning the Penetration of the Heat of the Sun into the Body of the Earth. This, he says, p. 148. cannot be to any considerable Depth; nor could it pass the exterior Orb of the first Earth, and affect the Abyss, or raise Vapours from it. To prove this, he supposes that exterior Earth divided into so many Surfaces as he pleases, then supposing the Heat diminished in every Surface, he concludes it could not possibly pass through so many. Thus you may divide an Inch into an hundred or a thousand Surfaces, and prove from thence, that no Heat of the Sun could pierce through an Inch of Earth. We must rather consider Pores than Surfaces in this Case; and whether those Pores were straight or oblique, the Motion would pass however, though not the Light: And the Heat of the Sun might have its Effect, by a direct or indirect Motion, to a great Depth within the Earth, notwithstanding the Multitude of Surfaces that he imagines. Those that think a Comet, upon its nearer Approach to the Sun, would be pierc’d with its Heat through and through; and to such a Degree, as to become much hotter than red hot Iron, will not think it strange, that at our Distance from the Sun, its Heat should have some proportionable Effect upon the inward Parts of the Earth. And all those imaginary solid Surfaces do not hinder, you see, the magnetick Particles from running through the Body of the Earth, and making the Globe one great Magnet.

But let those Considerations have what Effect they can, this Supposition however is nothing peculiar to the Theorist. I know some learned Men think the Heat of the Sun does penetrate deep into the Bowels of the Earth; others think it does not, and either of them have their Arguments. These alledge the equal Temper of Vaults and Mines at different Seasons of the Year: The other say, ’tis true, subterraneous Places keep their Equality of Temper much better than the external Air, and those Differences that appear to us, are in a great Measure by comparison with the Temper of our Bodies. Then for their own Opinion, they take an Argument from the Generation of Metals and Minerals in the Bowels of the Earth, and other subterraneous Fossiles. These, we see, are ripen’d by degrees in several Ages, and cannot, as they think, be brought to Maturity, and raised into the exterior Earth, without the Heat and Influence of the Sun: Of the same Sun that actuates all the vegetable World, that quickens Seeds, and raises Juices into the Roots of our deepest, and Tops of our highest Oaks and Cedars.

But let this remain a Problem; I will instance in another remarkable Phænomenon, which is most for the present Purpose, I mean Earthquakes. Let us consider the Causes of them, and the Depths of them: I think all agree, that Earthquakes arise from the Rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations, and that this Rarefaction must be made by some Heat; and no other is yet proved to us by this Author than that of the Sun. Then as to the Depth of Earthquakes, we find they are deeper than the Bottom of the Sea: For, besides that they communicate with different Countries divided by the Sea, they are found sometimes to arise within the Sea, and from the Bottom of it, at great Depths. This seems to prove, that there may be a strong Rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations far within the Bowels of the Earth; and the Theorist desires no more. If in the present Constitution of the Earth, there may be such Concussions and Subversions for a great Extent, we have no Reason to believe, but there might be (at a Time appointed by Providence) an universal Disruption, as that Earth was constituted. Finally, whatsoever the Causes of this Disruption and Dissolution were, ’tis certain there was a Disruption of the Abyss, and that Disruption universal as the Deluge was; which answers sufficiently the Design of the Theory. However, if he have a mind to see, how this agrees with History, both sacred and prophane, he may consult, if he pleases, what the Theorist hath noted upon that Argument, Archæol. l. 2. c. 4. besides other Places.

But this Author says farther, That supposing such a Disruption of the Abyss, and Dissolution of the exterior Earth, no universal Deluge however could follow upon it; because there could not be Water enough left in the Abyss to make or occasion such a Deluge: For the Rivers of the Earth being then supply’d from the Abyss, by such a Time, or before the Time of the Deluge, he says, there would be no Water left in it. Thus he goes from one Extreme to another: Before he said, the Power of the Sun could not reach or affect the Abyss to draw out any Vapours from it; now he would make the Evaporation so excessive, that it would have emptied the great Abyss before the Deluge. This is a great Undertaking, and to make it good he takes a great Compass: He pretends to shew us, what Quantity of Water all the Rivers of the Earth throw into the Sea every Day; and beginning with the River Po, and taking his Measure from that, he supposes there are such a certain Number of equivalent Rivers upon the Face of the whole Earth; and if the Po casts so much Water into the Sea, the rest will cast so much more, and in Conclusion so much as would empty the Abyss.

You will easily believe, Sir, there must be great Uncertainties in this Computation: But, if that was certain, as it is far from it, still he goes upon Suppositions that are not allow’d by the Theorist. For, first, he supposes the Waters of the present Sea to be equal to the Waters of the great Abyss: Whereas, supposing them of the same Depth, there would be near twice as much Water in the great Deep, as is now in the Ocean; seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth, and the Sea reaches but to half of it. Secondly, He should prove that the Rivers of the ante-diluvian Earth were as many, and as great, as we have now. The Torrid Zone then had none, and much less would serve the temperate Climates than is requisite now for the Earth. Besides, the Rivers of that Earth were not supplied by Vapours only from the Abyss, but also from all the Earth, and all the Waters upon the Earth: And when the Rivers were partly lost and spent in the Torrid Zone, they were in a great Measure exhal’d there, and drawn into the Air by the Heat of the Sun, and would fall again in another Place, to make new Rains and a new Supply to the Rivers. So, in like manner, when he supposes, p. 158. the Rivers that were upon the Earth, at the Time of the Disruption or the great Deep, to have thrown themselves off the Land, as if they were lost; and makes a Computation how much Water all the Rivers of the Earth amount to: This, I say, is a needless Computation as to the present Purpose. For whatsoever Mass of Waters they amounted to, it would not be lost: If they fell down and joined with the Abyss, they would increase its Store, and be thrown up again by the Fall of the Fragments, making so much a greater Mass to overflow the Earth; So that nothing is gain’d by this Supposition. The Effect would be the same as to the Deluge: Whether the Waters above the Earth, and those under the Earth met together sooner or later, when their Forces were joined, they would still have the same Effect, as we said before of the Vapours. And to conclude that Point, the whole Sum of Waters, or Vapours convertible into Waters, that were from the Beginning, or at any Time, would still be preserv’d above Ground, or under Ground: And that would turn to the same Account, as to the Flood.

These Waters and Vapours all collected, the Theorist supposes sufficient, upon a Dissolution of the Earth, to make the Deluge: Not indeed in the Nature of a Standing Pool, as it is usually conceiv’d; a quiet Pool, I say, overtopping and standing calm over the Heads of the highest Mountains; but as a rushing Sea, overflowing and sweeping them with its raging Waves and impetuous Fluctuations, when it was violently forc’d out of all its Chanels, and the Vapours condensed into Rain. Such an Inundation as this, would be sufficient to destroy both Man and Beast, and other Creatures, those few excepted, that were miraculously preserv’d in the Ark. This is the Theorist’s Explication of the Deluge, and I see nothing in this Argument, that will destroy or weaken it.

Now, this being the State of the Deluge, according to the Theorist, what this Author says in the next Paragraph (p. 167.) is either a Misrepresentation, or an Equivocation. For the eight Oceans requir’d by the Theorist, is the Quantity of Water necessary for a Deluge in the Way of a Standing Pool: Whereas this Author represents it, as if the Theorist required so much Water to make a Deluge upon his Hypothesis. This, I suppose, upon Reflection, the Author cannot but see to be a Mistake, or a wilful Misrepresentation.

This is the Sum of his seventh Chapter: There are besides some Suggestions made, which it may be were intended for Objections by the Author: As when he says, (p. 151.) that the Heat of the Sun would be intolerable upon the Surface of the Earth, if it could pierce and operate upon the Abyss. We allow, that its Heat was intolerable in the Torrid Zone, which thereby became unhabitable; and there only the Sun was in its full Strength, and had its greatest Effect upon the Abyss. But in the other Climates, the Heat would be moderate enough; nay, so moderate, that this Author says in another Place, p. 66, 69, &c. it would not be sufficient to ripen Fruits, and in the Whole, of less Force than it is now in the present Constitution of the Earth. So apt is Contention to carry one out of one Extreme into another.

His last Objection is about the Duration of the Flood, that it could not last in its Force a hundred and fifty Days, if it had been made by a Dissolution of the Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss. But as this is affirm’d by him without Proof, so the contrary is sufficiently explain’d and made out, both in the Latin and English Theory, p. 52, 56.

I had forgot to tell him, that he ought not to suppose, as he seems to do, when he is emptying the Abyss, (p. 165.) that after the Torrid Zone was soak’d with Waters by the Issues of the Rivers, no more Waters or Vapours were drawn from it then, than were before, or consequently no less from the Abyss. For when the middle Parts of the Earth had drunk in those Waters, the Force of the Sun would be less upon the Abyss through those Parts, and the Vapours would be more and greater from them, than before when they were drier, and in the same Proportion they needed less Supplies from the Abyss.