anfwer'd as their Theories are made. Which is this. The World they will fay, was never either made or created by God in time, but did exist from all eternity, without any change, or alteration, but fuch as happened from pure Mechanical principles, and causes, and the true reason, why there remain no records; or traditions of facts done in the time beyond four or five thousand years, is because there has happened a Deluge, the memory of which is ftill preferved, and this Deluge being the neceffary confequence of natural caufes, did fweep away all mankind, and with them the memorials of all former ages, only a couple of ignorant country people some way or other, faved themselves from the univerfal Catastrophe, and from their offfpring the earth was again replenished, and arts and sciences invented, which our forefathers before that deluge understood more perfectly than we do now. This they will tell you is their hypothefis, and they will not be beaten eafily from it, fince it may be defended as well, as any other Philofophical Theory which pretends to give an account of the origination of the World, and is as precarious as their own fyftem of principles which they pretend is very poffible, fince feveral Philofophers have fhew'd various ways, how there might have happened fo univerfal a deluge, from MechaC nical nical principles, and the neceffary laws of motion. Thus we see how these flood-makers have given the Atheists an Argument to uphold their cause, which I think can only be truely anfwer'd by proving an univerfal Deluge from Mechanical caufes altogether impoffible. And therefore I defign to fhew that the most ingenious Theories fram'd upon that account, come far fhort of the defign of the Framers, and that the great and wonderful effects, which they endeavour to explain, could never have risen from the caufes they affign. This I intend to do by fhewing that their Theories are neither confonant to the eftablished laws of motion, nor to the acknowledged principles of natural Philosophy, of that Philofophy I mean, which is founded upon obfervations and calculations, both which are undoubtedly the most certain principles, that a Philofopher can build upon. It is in vain to think that a fyftem of Natural Philofophy can be framed without the affistance of both, for without obfervations we can never know the appearances and force of nature, and without Geometry and Arithmetick we can never discover, whether the causes we affign are proportional to the effects we pretend to explain. This the various systems of the Philofophers do evidently fhew, which are by far more diftant from the truth, than than they are from one another. And I hope it will appear yet plainer by the following examination of Dr. Burnet's Theory of the Earth. Which tho' it has been published many years, and has been animadverted upon by feveral, yet it has not been fo fully refuted as it might have been, nor has any one fhew'd the greatest mistakes in it. Nay, Mr. Erafmus Warren, who has wrote the greatest Volum against it, in my opinion has spoken the leaft fenfe about it. He begins his difcourfe with a faying of an old Heathen, that Philofophy is the greateft gift that ever God bestowed on man. Which I will not deny, fince he has been at fo much pains to make a Panegyrick on the ufefulnefs of it. But it is plain to any who will be at the pains to read his Book, that God has thought fit to bestow but very little of that great gift upon him. And that the world may not think that this is faid out of ill nature and without grounds, I will give them a taft of his Philofophy, Geometry, or Geography, (call it which you pleafe.) He defigns to calculate how much colder the Poles would be if the earth were, of an Oval figure, than if it were perfectly Spherical. To do which he fuppofes that a Circle formed into a moderate Oval, will have its Poles at least a fortieth part farther diftant from the equator, than if it were perfectly spheri"Now according to this proportion, C 2 cal. "allowing "allowing the earth to be 7000 miles in "Diameter and adding a fourth part to ren❝der it Oval, viz. 1750 miles thickness; "the earth at each Pole muft bear above "fourteen degrees latitude more than if it "had been round. So that the hypothefis "which removes its Poles fo much farther "from the Sun, muft alfo allow the cold "thereabouts to be proportionably augment"ed. And tho' in the hundred and fourth deઠંડ gree of latitude (as we must call it,) on "each fide of the equator, that is, at the "very Poles, there might have been a perpetual day, &c. * This is the first time I ever heard that there could be more than ninety degrees between the pole and the æquator, but he thinks he has fairly made it out that there can be a hundred and four degrees between them, and therefore, there must be four, hundred and fixteen degrees in the whole circumference, and then, every right angle being only proportional to ninety degrees, there must be more than four right angles about one point, and therefore the Corollary of the 13th of the firft of Euclid must be falfe. Thus has that fubtle Philofopher not only fubverted Dr. Burnet's Theory, but also Euclid's demonftrations, and that by an argument which the dull Mathematicians could never discover. *Warren's Geology page 116. But But I will leave Euclid to his mercy, and anfwer that part of his argument that concerns the Theory: which is eafily done, if he will confider that the difference between the poles of the earth's distance from the Sun, and the equator of the earths diftance from the Sun, even tho' the earth were ten times more Oval than he would have it, is fo very inconfiderable that it does almost bear the fame proportion to the whole that a point does to a line, for the Mathematicians know that the diameter of the earth is but a point, in refpect of its distance from the Sun, and therefore two lines drawn from the Suns centre to any two points of it are very near in a proportion of equality, fo that upon the account of a greater or leffer distance of the parts of the earth from the Sun, there can be no fenfible alteration of heat or cold. But I am afraid this is a little too far beyond Mr. Warren's capacity, however to furprize him a little more, I will tell him, he is fo far out in his account of the cold at the poles, that tho' the North pole be much colder in the Winter than it is in the Summer, yet it is fome hundred thousands of miles nearer to the Sun in Winter than in Summer. If he pleases to confult the Aftronomers, they can demonftrate the truth of this to him. I beg Mr. Warren's pardon for bringing him into this place, I ought to have been favourable to him, he being one of C 3 my Affo ciates |