In this Chapter a second Exception against the Formation of the Earth,
as propos’d in the Theory, is alledg’d: And ’tis this; The Fluctuation
of the Chaos, or of that first watery Globe, would hinder, he says, any
Concretion of Earth upon its Surface. Not that there were Winds or
Storms then, to agitate those Waters; neither would the Motion of the
Earth, or the Rotation of that Globe, disturb them, as he allows there;
but the Disturbance would have Rise from Tides, _p._ 74. _lin._ 18, 19.
or the Ebbings and Flowings of that great Ocean, which, he says, must
have been then, as well as now; And the Reason he gives, is this;
because the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depend upon the Moon; and the
Moon was then present, as he says, in our Heavens, or in our Vortex: And
therefore, would have the same Effect then, upon that Body of Waters
which lay under it, that it hath now upon the Sea.
That the Moon was in the Heavens, and in our Neighbourhood, when the
Earth was form’d, he proves from the six Days Creation: and spends two
or three Pages in Wit and Scolding upon this Subject, _p._ 77, 78, 79.
But, with his leave, when all is done, his Argument will be of no Force,
unless he can prove, that the _fourth Day’s Creation was before the
third_. I confess, I have heard of a Wager that was lost upon a like
Case, namely, Whether _Henry_ VIII. was before _Henry_ VII? But that was
done by Complot in the Company, to whom it was referr’d to decide the
Question. We have no Plot here, but appeal fairly to that Judge the
Exceptor hath chosen, namely, to Scripture, which tells us, that the
Moon was made the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third.
Therefore, unless the fourth Day was before the third, the Moon could
not hinder the Formation of the Earth.
But I hope, say you, this is a Misrepresentation. The Animadverter sure
would not put the Matter upon this Issue. Yes, he does. For when he had
oppos’d to our Formation of the Earth, the Fluctuation of the Waters,
caus’d, as he phrases it, by the _bulky Presence_ of the Moon, he
concludes with these Words, (_p._ 77. _Parag._ 3.) _But in reference to
this Matter, there is a Doubt made by the Theorist, which must be
consider’d and removed; otherwise most of what hath been said, touching
the Instability and Fluctuation of these Waters, will be vain and
groundless: The Doubt is, Whether the Moon were then in our
Neighbourhood._ You see that Matter is put upon this Issue, Whether the
Moon was in the Neighbourhood of the Earth, at the Time of its
Formation. We say she was not; and prove it by this plain Argument, If
she was not in Being at that Time, she was not in our Neighbourhood: But
unless the _fourth_ Day was before the _third_, she was not in Being.
_Ergo._
But after all, if the Moon had been present then, and there had been
Tides, or any other Fluctuation towards the Poles, we have no Reason to
believe, according to the Experiences we have now, that that would have
hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, upon the Surface of the Chaos. For
why should they have hinder’d that more, than they do the Formation of
Ice upon the Surface of the Sea? We know, in cold Regions, the Seas are
frozen, notwithstanding their Tides; and in the Mouths of Rivers, where
there is both the Current and Stream of the River on one hand, and the
Counter-Current of the Tides on the other; these, together, cannot
hinder the Concretion that is made on the Surface of the Water: And our
Water is a Substance more thin, and easily broken, than that tenacious
Film was, that cover’d the Chaos. WHEREFORE, upon all Suppositions, we
have Reason to conclude, that no Fluctuations of the Chaos could hinder
the Formation of the first Earth.
Lastly, The Observator opposes the Reasons that are given by the
Theorist, _why the Presence of the Moon_ was less needful in the first
World. Namely, _because there were no long Winter Nights; nor the great
Pool of the Sea to move or govern_. As to the second Reason, ’tis only
hypothetical; and if the Hypothesis be true, _That_ there was no open
Sea at that Time, (which must be elsewhere examin’d,) the Consequence is
certainly true. But as to the first Reason, he will not allow the
Consequence, tho’ the Hypothesis be admitted. For he says, _p._ 79. _As
there were no long Winter Nights then, so there were no short Summer
ones neither: So that set but the one against the other, and the
Presence of the Moon may seem to have been as needful then, in regard of
the Length of Nights, as she is now._ This looks like a witty
Observation, but it does not reach the Point. Is there as much need of
the Moon in _Spain_, as in _Lapland_, or the Northern Countries? There
is as much Night in one Place as another, within the Compass of a Year,
but the great Inconvenience is, when the Night falls upon the Hours of
Travel, or the Hours of Work and Business; for if it fall only upon
Hours of Sleep, or of Rest and Retirement, as it does certainly more in
_Spain_, and in those Climates that approach nearer to an Equinox; the
Moon is there less necessary in that Respect: We can sleep without
Moonshine, or without Light, but we cannot travel, or do Business
abroad, without Hazard and great Inconvenience, if there be no Light. So
that the Reason of the Theorist holds good, _viz._ That there would be
more Necessity of Moon-shine in long Winter Nights, than in a perpetual
Equinox.
We proceed now to the rest of this Chapter, which is made up of some
secondary Charges against this Part of the Theory, concerning the Chaos
and the Formation of the first Earth. As, First, That it is, _p._ 80,
81. _Precarious:_ Secondly, _p._ 83. _Unphilosophical_: And, Thirdly,
_Antiscriptural_; which we shall answer in order. He seems to offer at
three or four Instances of _Precariousness_, as to the Ingredients of
the Chaos, their Proportions and Separations; but his Quarrel is chiefly
with the oily Particles: These he will scarce allow at all; nor that
they could separate themselves in due Time to receive the terrestrial,
at least in due Proportions.
First, He would have no oily Particles in the Chaos. But why so, I pray?
What Proof or just Exception is there against them? Why may not there be
original oily Particles, as well as original salt Particles? Such as
your great Master _Des Cartes_ supposes, _Prin. ph._ _l._ 4. §. 84.
_Meteor._ _c._ 1. §. 8. He who considers that vast Quantity of
oleaginous Matter that is dispers’d every where, in Vegetables, in
Animals, and in many sorts of Earths, and that this must have been from
the Beginning, or as soon as the Earth had any Furniture; will see
Reason to believe that such Particles must be thought original and
primeval; not forg’d below the Abyss, and extracted from the inferior
Regions of the Earth: For that would require a Process of many Ages;
whereas, these being the Principles of Fertility, it is reasonable to
suppose, that a new World abounds with them more than an old one.
Lastly, If we suppose oily Particles to be tenuious and branchy, as your
Philosopher does, too gross to be Air, and too light for Water; why
should we imagine that in that vast Mass and Variety of Particles,
whereof the Chaos consisted, there should not be any of this Figure, as
well as of others? Or, what Reason is there to suppose, that there are
none of that Figure, but what are brought from the inferior Regions of
the Earth? For, of all others, these seem to be the most unlikely, if
not incapable, of being extracted from thence. And if there be only a
gradual Difference, in Magnitude and Mobility, betwixt the Particles of
Air and Oil, as that Philosopher seems to suppose, _Prin. phil._ _l._ 4.
§. 76. why must we exclude these Degrees, and yet admit the higher and
lower?
The second Thing which he charges with _Precariousness_, is the
Separation of this oily Matter, in due time, so as to make a Mixture and
Concretion with the terrestrial Particles that fell from above. This
Objection was both made and answered by the Theorist; _Eng. Theor._ _p._
79. which the Observator might have vouchsaf’d to have taken notice of;
and either confuted the Answer, or spar’d himself the Pains of repeating
the Objection.
The third _Precariousness_ is, concerning the Quantity and Proportion of
these Particles: And the fourth, concerning the Quantity and Proportion
of the Water. The Exceptor, it seems, would have had the Theorist to
have gauged these Liquors, and told him the just Measure and Proportion
of each; but, in what Theory or Hypothesis is that done? Has his great
Philosopher, in his Hypothesis of _Three Elements_, (which the Exceptor
makes use of, _p._ 52.) or in his several Regions of the unform’d Earth,
the _Fourth Book of his Principles_, defin’d the Quantity and Dimensions
of each? Or in the mineral Particles and Juices, which he draws from the
lower Regions, does he determine the Quantity of them? And yet these, by
their Excess, or Defect, might be of great Inconvenience to the World:
Neither do I censure him for these Things, as _precarious_. For, when
the Nature of a Thing admits a Latitude, the original Quantity of it is
left to be determin’d by the Effects; and the Hypothesis stands good, if
neither any Thing antecedent, nor any present _Phænomena_, can be
alledged against it.
But if these Examples, from his great Philosopher be not sufficient, I
will give him one from an Author beyond all Exceptions; And that is from
himself. Does the Animadverter, in his new Hypothesis concerning the
Deluge, _Ch._ 15. give us the just Proportions of his Rock-Water, and
the just Proportions of his Rain-Water, that concurred to make the
Deluge? I find no Calculations there, but general Expressions, that the
one was far greater than the other; and that may be easily presumed,
concerning the oily Substance, and the watery Chaos: What Scruples
therefore, _p._ 80, 81. he raises, in reference to the Chaos, against
the Theorist, for not having demonstrated the Proportions of the Liquors
of the Abyss, fall upon his own Hypothesis; for the same or greater
Reasons. And you know what the old Verse says,
_Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redurguit ipsum._
But, however, he will have such Exceptions, _p._ 81. to stand good
against the Theorist, though they are not good against other Persons;
because the Theorist stands upon Terms[14] of Certainty, and in one
Place of his Book, has this Sentence, _Ego quidem_, &c. These Words, I
think, are very exceptionable, if they be taken with the Context: For
this Evidence and Certainty, which the Theorist speaks of, is brought in
there in Opposition to such uncertain Arguments, as are taken from the
Interpretation of _Fables_ and _Symbols_; or from _Etymologies_ and
_Grammatical Criticisms_, which are expresly mention’d in the preceding
Discourse: And yet this Sentence, because it might be taken in too great
an Extent, is left out in the second Edition of the Theory, and
therefore, none had Reason to insist upon it. But I see the Exceptor
puts himself into a State of War, and thinks there is no foul Play
against an Enemy.
So much for his Charge of _Precariousness_. We now come to the second,
which is call’d _Unphilosophicalness_. And, why is the Theorist, in this
Case, unphilosophical? Because, says the Exceptor, he supposes
terrestrial Particles to be dispers’d through the whole Sphere of the
Chaos, as high as the Moon: And why not, pray, if it be a mere Chaos?
Where, antecedently to Separations, all Things are mix’d and blended
without Distinction of Gravity or Levity; otherwise it is not a mere
Chaos: And when Separations begin to be made, and Distinction of Parts
and Regions, so far it is ceasing to be a mere Chaos. But then, says the
Observator, why did not the Moon come down, as well as these terrestrial
Particles? I answer by another Question, Why does not the Moon come down
now? Seeing she is still in our Vortex, and at the same Distance; and so
the same Reason which keeps her up now, kept her up then: Which Reason
he will not be at a loss to understand, if he understand the Principles
of his great Philosopher.
We come now to the last Charge: That the Theory, in this Part of it, is
_antiscriptural_. And why so? Because it supposes the Chaos _dark_,
whereas the Scripture says, there was Light the first Day. Well, but
does the Scripture say, that the Chaos was throughly illuminated the
first Day? The Exceptor, _p._ 52. as I remember, makes the primigenial
Light to have been the Rudiment of a Sun; and calls it there, _lin._ 17.
a _faint Light_, and a _feeble Light_; and in this Place, _lin._ 27. a
_faint Glimmering_. If then the Sun, in all its Strength and Glory,
cannot sometimes dispel a Mist out of the Air, what could this _faint,
feeble Glimmering_ do, towards the Dissipation of such a gross
caliginous Opacity, as that was? This Light might be sufficient to make
some Distinction of Day and Night in the Skies; and we do not find any
other Mark of its Strength in Scripture, nor any other Use made of it.
So we have done with this Chapter. Give me leave only, without Offence,
to observe the Style of the Exceptor, in reference to Scripture, and the
Theory. He is apt to call every Thing _antiscriptural_, that suits not
his Sense; neither is that enough, but he must also call it, _p._ 78. a
_bold Affront_ to Scripture. He confesses, he hath made, _p._ 299.
_pen._ a _little bold_ with Scripture himself, in his new Hypothesis;
how much that _little_ will prove, we shall see hereafter. But however,
as to that hard Word, _Affront_, a discreet Man, as he is not apt to
give an Affront, so neither is he forward to call every cross Word, an
Affront: Both those Humours are Extreams, and breed Quarrels. Suppose a
Man should say boldly, God Almighty _hath no Right Hand_. Oh, might the
Animadverter cry, _That’s a bold Affront to Scripture_: For I can shew
you many and plain Texts of Scripture, both in the _Old Testament_, and
in the _New Testament_, where express Mention is made of God’s _Right
Hand_. And will you offer to oppose _Reason_ and _Philosophy_ to express
Words of Scripture, often repeated, and in both Testaments? _O Tempora,
O Mores!_ So far as my Observation reaches, weak Reasons commonly
produce strong Passions. When a Man hath clear Reasons, they satisfy and
quiet the Mind; and he is not much concern’d, whether others receive his
Notions, or no: But when we have a strong Aversion to an Opinion, from
other Motives and Considerations, and find our Reasons doubtful or
insufficient; then, according to the Course of human Nature, the
Passions rise for a farther Assistance; and what is wanting, in point of
Argument, is made up by Invectives and Aggravations.
Footnote 14:
_Eg: quidem i et sum sententis, so in barum resum de quibus agnt
regnitienem, a alarum qunque, quo mements snt, sum s Des aut Natur ut
pat estes perviniendi, ratio i ce est, aliq claris invi: Non
eujecturatis, v, Quetras nimpe i, que opesmi sui, qui meimi sicavent
ab, quam amcteren._