A N

EXAMINATION

OF THE

REFLECTIONS

ON

The Theory of the Earth.

T

HE Defence of the Theory which has been lately Publifh'd in Answer to my Examination of it is ftyl'd Reflections on the Theory of the Earth; But if its Author had obferv'd the Title, and inade more Reflections on the Theory, tho' fewer on the Examiner, he had acted more like a true Philofopher, and perhaps might have faved himself the labour of Publishing any thing more than an ingenious acknowledg ment of its errors, and me the trouble of a Reply. But fince the Reflecter has been

N 2

pleas'd

pleafed to follow another courfe, I must take his work, and confider it in the method it lyes.

He first fets down three propofitions which He calls the foundation of the whole work, "viz. That the Primitive or Antediluvian "Earth was of a different form from the "prefent. 2dly. That the face of the Earth "as it rofe from a Chaos, was fmooth, "regular, and uniform, without Mountains "and Rocks, and without an open Sea. 3dly. "That the difruption of the Abyss or the ""diffolution of the Primeval Earth was the "caufe of the Universal Deluge. To thefe " he adds a Corollary drawn from the pri"mary propofitions concerning the pofition "of the Earth; in which he fays, that the "posture of the Antediluvian Earth or its "Axis, was not oblique To THE AXIS OF "THE SUN or of the Ecliptick as it is cc now; BUT LAY PARALLEL TO THE AXIS "OF THE SUN, and perpendicular to the "plane of the Ecliptick." These he makes the only fundamental propofitions of the Theory, (tho' the Theorift in his ninth Chapter Book II. makes one more concerning the oval figure of the Earth) and tells us, "That he who will attack it to the purpose, "must throw down in the first place thefe "leading propofitions, and that if the Exa"miner had taken this method, and confuted "the proofs that are brought in confirmation

"of

"of each of them, he needed have done no "more; but if inftead of this, a loofe ftone "be only picked out here and there, or a "Pinnacle ftruck off, it will not weaken the "foundation.

I cannot imagine how this Author can affert that I have not followed this method in refuting the Theory; for if these he has mentioned be the the fubftantial and vital parts, I have examined every one of them, as will plainly appear to any one, who will read the Examination; fo that what he has faid of me in another cafe, may be very well apply'd to himfelf, That either he never read over, or does not remember, or which is ftill worse, does willfully mifreprefent what I have written on this fubject.

The defign of the first Chapter of the Examination is not as this Defender imagines: to prove that the Deluge might have been made by a miracle, but to answer the general Argument which the Theorift with a boldnefs little becoming a Divine, brought for the truth of his Theory, viz. that it could be * English made no other way, and therefore his me- Theory Ch. thod being the only way poffible, was the real 7. Book I. one. To this I anfwered, that I thought it poffible the Deluge might come by a miracle, and that God Almighty was the immediate cause thereof, the Scriptures having given us fuch an account of it in these emphatical terms,

N 3

terms, (Gen. 6. 17.) Behold faith God, I even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the Earth.

But the Defender is difpleafed because I did not tell him wherein this miracle confifted. The truth is, I never thought it my business. to explain miracles; and I wifh no Theorifts or Philofophers had fet up for it. I fhould be well contented to find in their writings a Mechanical and eafy account of the common and ordinary Phænomena of nature. But it feems this Author will not be fatisfy'd unless I tell him how the increase of waters at the time of the Deluge was made on the Earth. I answer, that according to the Scripture, fome of the water was raised from the great deep, and fuftain'd on the surface of the Earth by the hand of Omnipotence, a great part of it defcended by forty days continual rain; the waters which occafion'd this rain being either newly created, or rifen from other matter turned into that Element, or brought from fome other place best known to the Divine Omniscience: which of all these three methods was used, I will not take upon me to determine; but I think it might have been done by any of them, notwithstanding the reafons alledg'd in the fecond and third Chapters of the Theory, which this Author thinks me oblig'd to answer. It seems he thinks them very strong and convincing, tho' when I wrote the Examination, I thought

them

them fo weak and precarious that it would not be worth while to take notice of them.

* The arguments against a Creation of waters * English are founded on a notorioufly falfe notion of Theory Ch. the Cartefian Philofophy, viz. That matter 3. Book I. and space are the fame: according to which principle 'tis not eafy to understand, how either Creation or Annihilation can be poffible. Nor do I think the arguments against Tranfmutation of Air or other bodies into water, of greater force than the former: For if all bodies be only different in their modifications, motions and figures, I can fee no reason why any body may not be changed, and put on the form of another; and therefore, if according to the Theorists principle there is no vacuity in Nature, not only the Air may be changed into Water, but also all the fubtil matter which fills its Pores; and according to this principle of a Plenum, that fubtil matter will make as much Water as if the fame bulk of abfolutely folid matter were transformed.

The Defender alledges, that if I proceed upon fuch Waters as were already in being, and make them either Supercoeleftial or Subterraneous, I must tell him WHAT THESE WATERS ARE, and must answer fuch objections as are brought against either fort in the fecond and third Chapters of the Theory; if he means that I fhould tell him the nature of this Water, and of what fort it was, I anfwer,

N 4