expanded as that is, would fill a sphere as large as that of Saturn) we must of neceflity think, that the defcending particles would not meet with fo great a refiftance as the Defender imagines. For whatever interruption or diverfion they met with from the Air in their defcent, would be inconfiderable. But the greatest part of it would arife from their falling on other particles which were alfo defcending, tho' not fo faft, by which, tho' the velocity of the fwifteft body would be diminished, yet according to the Laws of motion, the momentum or quantity of motion of both bodies taken together would remain the fame, and by confequence their force upon the oily Orb would be alfo the fame. I know no way the Theorift can take to answer these objections, but by fuppofing that the Creation was neither in Spring, Summer nor Autumn, as is commonly fuppos'd; but that it was in the Winter when both the watry and oily Orbs were frozen, and had confiftence enough to fuftain thefe particles till they were formed into a folid Arch, able to fuftain it felf; and if he will embrace fuch an opinion, I fhall not take the trouble of refuting it, having fo many others of the fame weight upon my hands. The Reader may obferve, that He takes not the leaft notice of the argument I brought against him from Scripture, to prove that there were Metals in the primitive Earth, which he plainly denies.

After

as 'twas neceffary it fhould be, to form it felf into an uniform fmooth body. Befides that, the greatest part of them, fuch as Stones and Metals, are uncapable of being liquify'd by water. The Defender's reply to this is, Very good, what is this to the Theory? Does the Theorist any were affirm that there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos, or that they were liquify'd by Water? The Theorift owns no fuck dotrine or fuppofition. I hope the Defender will not think this any answer to the objection; I am fure none of his Readers can. I thought that it concern'd the Theorist very much, to prove his Chaos to be a fluid Mafs of matter; for otherwise it is not neceffary that it should have its furface smooth, regular and uniform; at least it is fitting that the objections against its fluidity fhould be answer'd. For if the Examiner can prove that the Chaos was not altogether fo fluid as the Theorist imagines, and from thence fhew, that there was no neceffity that the face of the Earth fhould be fmooth and without Mountains, then the Theorists argument must be of little force, and that objection will still very much weaken the truth of the Theory.

I freely own indeed that the World was produced from a Chaos, fuch a one namely as is recorded to us in Scripture; but I am far from granting that the Theorist's notion is any ways agreeable to it, he supposes that all the Elements Air, Water and Earth, with all

the

the principles of Terreftial Bodies were reduc'd into one fluid Mafs, and mingled with one another, fo that the parts of any one fort could not be difcern'd as diftinct from the reft. This I fuppofe is a new fort of Chaos which never exifted any where but in fancy.

It were eafy for me here to affume the Defenders method, and argue against it, by putting him queftions, how, when and where, was this mixing and blending together of all the Materials of Heaven and Earth? By whom, upon what defign, and for what pur pofe was this done? Was it to the end that they might all fettle themselves again in order, and each take its place, according to its fpecifick gravity; but if the great parts of the World were for the moft part fo before, what neceffity was there for disturbing them, only that they might range themselves orderly again. He would do well alfo to tell us, from whence he had this account of the Chaos, from Sacred or Profane Writers, if from the latter, we are to value their authority no further than they are agreeable to the Scriptures, fince it would be no hard task to prove, that it was from the Sacred Hiftory that the Heathen Writers first drew their knowledge of the Chaos, which they afterwards corrupted with their own fancies. In the Holy Scriptures I can find no account of the mixing and reducing of all the Materials

of

After these things this Author comes to quarrel with me for making infinuations and fuggeftions, as if the Theorift did not own the hand of a particular and extraordinary providence in the formation of the Earth. I own I did make fuch infinuations, and I leave the Reader to judge whether I had not Reason to make them. He has openly rejected the Hiftory of the formation of the Earth as deliver'd' by Mofes, and has deduced it purely from natural caufes, and the neceffary Laws of Mechanifm. Now if the matter of the Earth from a Chaotick ftate did of neceffity form and fettle it felf into a habitable Earth, from the fole neceffary principles of Mechanism and Gravitation, as the Theorist has deduced it; I would fain know how this opinion differs from the Epicurean, which the Theorist fo defervedly derides? I know the Theorist talks very much of Providence both ordinary and extraordinary, and makes most excellent Difcourfes against the Epicurcans for denying of it, which I was fo far from not reading or forgetting, or even willfully mifreprefenting, that I tranfcrib'd fome of them in the Examination, as an argument against his own Theory.

It is a common thing with Theorists and Philofophers, who are great Politicians in their way, to difown any opinion which they think will bring upon them the difpleasure of any confiderable part of Mankind, tho' it

follows

follows plainly from their Principles; or if that cannot be done, they hide and colour it the best way they can, that it may not appear too open and plain. Thus the Theorist protefts, that he meant no harm, when he affirm'd the History of the Creation as it was deliver'd by Mofes, to be fabulous, and ridicul'd the Scriptural relation of the Fall; and I have really the charity to believe him; yet hereby he has fet the Atheists and Theifts in a method of attacking our Religion, and given them Schemes by which they think they can defend their own Principles.

After this the Defender paffes to confider what is faid in the third Chapter of the Examination about Mountains; He owns it to be a fubject that deferves confideration, and He fays, that if the Examiner can prove that there were Mountains in the primitive Earth, He will undertake that the Theorift shall make no further defence of his Theory. The Theorifts great argument why the face of the primitive Earth was fmooth and without Mountains, depended on the fuppofition that the Chaos from whence it took its original, was perfectly a fluid Mafs. This I affirm'd to be a precarious Hypothefis without any foundation in nature, fince the greatest part of the bodies we have in the Earth, are hard and folid, and there not being a quantity of Water in Nature, fufficient enough to moisten and liquify them, the Chaos could not be so fluid

as