Brief remarks upon Mr. Whiston's New theory of the earth and upon an other gentleman's objections against some passages in a discourse of the existence and providence of God, relating to the Copernican hypothesis / by John Edwards ...

OF THE Motion of the Earth. AN Answer to some Objections against some passages in my late Discourse (entituled A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God) relating to the Copernican Hypothesis of the diurnal Revolution of the Earth.

A Learned Gentleman was lately pleas'd to do me the honour to frame some Objections against the Second Chapter of the First Part of my Treatise, wherein I endea∣vour'd

to evince the Being and Providence of God from the Works of the Creation. First, he censures that passage Page 25. The Sun measures about a thousand miles in an hour. He thinks I have not used the right method of calculating the Sun's motion. I must confess to him I was not very Studious about that, being disheartn'd by the great Difference of Computations which I observ'd in the Authors I met with. It is well known how discre∣pant the Calculations of Astronomers are. I have seen in my time a good many Writers on that subject, but I could never light upon any one that satisfies that Point: wherefore I chose rather to pitch upon a Common and Vulgar Computation than to trouble the Reader with the several Opinions of Astro∣nomers, or to offer one that might seem in∣credible. Herein I conceive I have done nothing amiss. And truly if the Objector had been Impartial, i. e. had consulted one part of my Discourse as well as the other, he would not have found any occasion for an Exception against the foresaid passage. If he had been pleas'd to take notice of p. 60. l. 15, &c. these words would have silenc'd his Scruples, As to the motion of them (viz. the Planets) there is a great disagreement among Writers: therefore what hath been said before as to this, must be submitted to those that are able to judge of the different Hypotheses. Here is submission, but it is not regarded: here was a modest acknowledgment of the Author's insufficiency to give a just and accurate Ac∣count of the Motion of those heavenly bo∣dies•• and a Candid and Ingenuous Reader

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

could not but infer that the like was supposed in the Case before us. We are not able to determine in a matter where there are so Va∣rious Sentiments. My design was to repre∣sent to the Reader the All-mighty Power and Infinite Wisdom of the Supreme Being in or∣dering the Course of the Celestial Lumina∣ries, and especially of the Solar Globe: and this design I thought sufficiently accomplish'd by a General Computation of the Suns Moti∣on and not by descending to Nice Calculati∣ons, which would rather amuse and distract than give any Satisfaction.

Next, as to what I had offer'd against the Motion of the Earth, he objects that I have not dealt fairly with the Copernicans, for I have produced their trifling and less weighty Reasons, but have conceal'd the strongest. If this be so, then I must tell him, that Kepler and Galilaeo (Great Names in Astronomy) were Triflers, then Lansbergius, Varenius, Gilbert had no weight in their Arguments; then Copernicus himself was a very easy and mean Arguer, and defended his Post but slightly. I could mention a Learned Writer who is now alive, the Worthy Mr. Ray, one of whose Arguments for the Copernican hy∣pothesis is the vast disproportion in respect of Magnitude that is between the Earth and the Heavens, and the great unlikelyhood that such an infinite number of vast bodies should move about so inconsiderable a spot as the Earth: and this is the Chief Argument he propounds. And this, with others which I produced,

were made use of, and earnestly urged by other Learned Writers of great Note and Re∣pute. Now, who would have thought that the Modern Copernicans would confess that the Arguments which the First Founders of the Opinion made use of, and which the Chiefest Writers produc'd to bring men off from the other perswasion, were so Light and Tri∣fling? Or if they were Strong Reasons at first, how came they now, by my exposing them, to be weak? Or, if the Worthy Per∣sons before mention'd thought fit to insist up∣on them, can any man give any reason why I might not propound them as the Topicks made use of for that Cause? It will be diffi∣cult to return a satisfactory Answer to these Queries. No, saith this Gentleman; for though those foresaid Philosophers found out, or retrieved the Earths Circumrotation, yet we of late found out the True Reason of it. And what is that, I pray? The true Reason of this Hypothesis is this, its suitableness to the laws of Mechanism. This is the Great Arcanum which our late Worthies boast they have had the happiness to bless the world with.

But I desire these two things may be consi∣der'd.

First, this is a Reason which was never in∣sisted upon by Copernicus, the first Reviver of this Hypothesis, nor so much as mention'd by some of the Greatest Followers and Asserters of his doctrine, as I'm ready to prove out of the Authors themselves, if it be denied. Those things which I alledg'd, and which this Gentleman calls trifling, are the Princi∣pal Arguments which the generality of Coperni∣cans

urge for their Opinion. They did not so much as understand the word Mechanism, they had never heard of such a term. Gassen∣dus, who gives a summary account of all the Reasons produced for this Hypothesis, reck∣ons up those very ones which I gather'd out of the Authors themselves: only he argues in∣deed from the Motion of the Planets, which is uncertain and dubious; but he hath not a syllable about the laws of Mechanism. Tell me then, is it credible that the First Inven∣ters and Establishers of an Hypothesis should not be acquainted with the True Reason why they threw off the receiv'd Opinion, and em∣brac'd another?

Secondly, They that at this day use these Terms know not how to apply them to the present purpose. I deny not the Excellent Use and Advantage of the Mechanick Philo∣sophy (of which I have spoken in another place) for most of the Great and Brave Dis∣coveries of this Age in Physiology, Me∣dicks, &c. are owing to this: but that which I assert at present is, that it is no ways applica∣ble to the matter in hand, viz. the Hypothe∣sis of the Copernicans: for there is not one of them, so far as I can judg, that hath solidly shew'd and prov'd the agreeableness of the Earths Circumgyration to the Laws of Mecha∣nism. There is a late Writer that talks as much of the Mechanical Laws of Motion as any man, but though he asserts the Diurnal Circumvolution of the Earth, yet he holds that in the time of Mans Innocence there was

no such thing, but that it was the effect of Man's Fall, and immediately follow'd upon the Curse on the Earth, and is part of its Curse. Whence it follows that the Earths Motion was not the Primitive state and pro∣perty of it; it was not Natural to it, but pre∣ternatural, inordinate and irregular, and con∣sequently not according to the stated laws of Mechanism. And as for the Other Authors who endeavour to solve the Earths Motion in a Mechanical way, it is evident that they are not able to effect what they have undertaken. And how indeed can we expect they should do it, when we find them disagreeing about the Mechanick Laws? There never was a greater dissen••ion among Natural Pilosophers than there is about this one thing, as appears from comparing the Writings of Des Cartes (who was the First Substantial Author of Mechanism) Dr. More, Dr. Burnet, Mr. Newton, Dr. Woodward, Mr. Whiston, and other Philosophical Men of this age, who have built their respective and different Hypo∣theses and Theories on their different notions of Mechanick Principles and Agents. They all pretend to proceed upon Mechanical Laws: their Solutions are founded on the Na∣tural Tendency of Matter: and yet we see how wide their Notions are from one ano∣ther, and how their Hypotheses are contra∣dictory to each other. Which plainly shews how fallacious an Argument Mechanism is. And if we speak particularly of the matter now before us, who sees not how differently these Principles and Laws are applied? Some Wri∣ters (as this present Objector himself acknow∣ledges)

making out the Copernican Hypothe∣sis by the notion of Vortices, others by that of Mutual Gravitation about a Common Center.

First, some think the Motion of the Earth demonstrable from the Vortices. So the Great Des Cartes, and the famous Dr. More in one of his Epistles; and there are others that es∣pouse this part of the Cartesian Physicks. But it were easie to shew how improbable an Hy∣pothesis this is on several accounts: for it puts a Force upon Nature, because according to Des Cartes's own Principle all bodies moving Circularly endeavour to get free of that mo∣tion, and to alter the Center: so that there is nothing like Natural Motion in the hypothesis of Vortices, but all is Violent, and against the easie known laws of Mechanism. The Vorti∣ces are impetuous Torrents of fluid matter continually emptying and discharging them∣selves: the Poles of every one of them are made forcible Dreiners for the Eclipticks, and there is a constant disgorging and evacuating of such and such a Set of Particles, accompa∣nied always with a violent emission, impulse, and protrusion. So that without Revelation we may tell that there is War in heaven, per∣petual justing and tilting, jarring and fight∣ing. Among the Vortical Orbs, Celestial and Planetary, there are Commotions and Tumults, and the World is in a Continual Hurly-burly, a Pell-mell, a Confusion. That the Vortices keep their Station, and are not swallow'd up of one another is a Miracle. One would think that it is impossible but that they should encroach upon one another, ac∣cording to the nature of that violent and ra∣pid

motion which the Author of them hath described. The truth is, no considerate and thoughtful man can apprehend how the World hath been able to subsist so long as it hath, on the supposition of that make and composition of the Vortices

Moreover, it might be proved that the do∣ctrine of Vortices destroys the common notion of Gravity, i. e. the descent of heavy bodies to the Center, that it must necessarily hinder the Sun and Stars from being seen, that it is utterly inconsistent with the Steadiness of their motions, and the certainty of their Revolu∣tions, that it is irreconcileable with the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, &c. This and much more may be made good concerning the Vor∣tices; which renders Des Cartes's System pre∣carious.

And indeed the Excellent Author himself thought it to be no other: in his Philosophical Principles, part 3. Sect. 45. and in two or three other places of his Writings (as those that are acquainted with them know very well) he confesses it to be but a bare Hypo∣thesis, he lets us know that he took the liberty to feign and invent this. And indeed any man of castigate thoughts can't but perceive that it is a mere Romantick strain that this Earth of ours was once a Sun, and that all the World was Heavens at first. This is Ingeni∣ous and Fine, but not Solid. The World of Whirl-pools is a World of Monsieur Des Cartes's own making. He intended it only for a Philosophical Expedient, which might serve to give an account of the Phaenomena in the Heavens and the Earth: but it is all Sup∣position,

and you can't build a Body of Natural Philosophy upon it, nay you can't evince the Earth's Motion (which is the thing contended for) from this supposal. Hence it is that some Great Philosophers of this Age labour to esta∣blish this doctrine on another Hypothesis: which they would not do if they thought the laws of Mechanism as grounded on the Opini∣on of Vortices, were true and solid. They would acquiesce in this, and not look out for some other way to give a Solution of the Pro∣blem: but we see they are dissatisfied, and fly to some other way of solving this doctrine of theirs.

Secondly then, it Vortices cannot do it, Gra∣vity must. This is another Principle of Me∣chanism that is relied upon. The Chief Per∣son of late that manages this is the Learn∣ed and Profound Mr. Newton, who in his Princip. Philos. Math. tells us that there is Rest in the Common Center of Gravity, and if the Sun be the Center then it rests, and the Earth moves about it. But first, who is there that, weighing the several Systems of the World, (the Ptolemaick, Tychonick, &c.) sees not how difficult it is to determine what part of the Universe is its Center? They Learned Brahe thought the spoke and argued like a Mathema∣tician and Astronomer when he defended the Earths Gentreity. Again, Mr. Newton himself seems not to hold that the Sun is the Center of the Mundane System: nay he owns expresly in his 10th Proposit. the distance of the Solar body from the Center of Gravity, which re∣spects it self, and all the Planetary bodies, with the Earth. Besides, this Mechanical Prin∣ciple

which is stiled Vis Gentripeta, or Gravity, is very obscure and doubtful, and therefore un∣satisfactory, because of the Different (if not contrary) hypotheses it is built upon, accor∣ding to the Various apprehensions of Philoso∣phical heads. From the discrepancy of their notions, and their ways of solving this Phoe∣nomenon we are able to gather only this, that the Problem of Gravitation or Non-gravitation, and the suppositions and solutions about it have puzzled the Wits of the profoundest Vertuo∣so's, and consequently we have no Sure foot∣ing here.

Further, the Laws of Gravity can scarcely be said to be Mechanical: for Gravitation is not a Mechanick Principle, because it flows not from the Nature of Bodies, they being in themselves of a Passive nature, and therefore cannot tend towards other Bodies, or draw them to them. There is no such Activity in mere Corporeal and Material Beings, and con∣sequently the laws of the Universal Tendency or Attraction of Matter, which are supposed, must have another Spring. Dr. More in his Metaphysicks will let you know that they pro∣ceed from an Higher Principle, that they can't be solv'd in a mere Mechanical way, that they are above and beyond all the force of Mecha∣nism, and depend wholly and entirely on the Divine Omnipotent Mover. But then you will say, the Gravity of bodies is a Miracle: for the notion we have of a Miracle is, that it is some Occurrence which is above or contrary to the fix'd course of Nature. To which I an∣swer, tho' it is true the main and chief thing which constitutes a Miracle, is that is surpasses

finite power, and is the result of an Omnipo∣tent Agent, yet there are other Properties which must concur to denominate a Miracle, as Rarity and Wonder; but these two are want∣ing here, for Gravity, and the Effects of it are common and usual, and (as the consequent of that) beget not Admiration and Amazement, and for these reasons we stile them not Mira∣culous. But notwithstanding this, we may hold that they are things that exceed the power of mere Nature, they are not from the efficicien∣cy of Matter, in what manner soever moved, but are immediately from a Divine hand. Gra∣vity, saith a late Learned Writer, is above, besides and contrary to the nature of Matter, and is the effect of a Divine Power and Efficacy which governs the whole world; nay, he sticks not to say, of† a Supernatural and Miraculous Influence. And an‡ other Ingenious Gentleman speaks to the same purpose.

Lastly, as to Mechanism it self, the laws and rules of it are very disputable, and therefore we can't solidly argue from it. The Renown∣ed Cartesians (that Great and Mighty Genius of Mechanism, whom all the Learned World admires and applauds) proceeds upon and proves all by Mechanick Principles in his Theo∣ry of the Celestial and Terrestrial Bodies, but yet we find that several of his Principles and Maxims have been rejected since by very Wise heads, and great Judges in Mathematicks. Let One speak for all, Des Cartes's Rules, saith he, concerning the transferring of motion from one body

in motion to another in motion or in rest, are the most of them by Experience found to be false, as they affirm who have made Trial of them. Here then is no Certainty, there is no proceeding on Mechanical Laws in the present Controver∣sy: which was the thing to be proved.

This is what I had briefly to suggest con∣cerning the Two Mechanick Principles which the Learned Objector founds the Motion of the Earth upon▪ And now I appeal to himself whether he can alledg these as a grand and weighty reason (as he expresses it) of the Phaenomenon he defends, seeing they are so Uncertain and fickle, seeing Naturalists so widely differ about them, and can't agree in assigning the Mechanism. Any rational man will infer hence that we can not rely upon this doctrine in the present Case. This I think is very clear and plain, and therefore let not the grand and weighty reason of Me∣canism be brought to prove the Circular motion of the Earth, till there be an agreement about the Nature of it. Though Dr. More and Mr. Newton (who are the worthy persons our Objector cites) make the Motion of the Earth the necessary effects of Mechanism, yet they do it upon different grounds, they proceed on Mechanick laws of Motion which are diverse from one an other, and depend on different Hypotheses; therefore a third person cannot build upon either of them. How can a man found the Earths Circulation on Vortices or Gravity, when the Authors and Founders themselves prove it not from the same Mechanical Principles, but such as contradict each other? for such are Gravity

or the subsiding of bodies, and the Whirling them round. If we had a mind to make use of these Hypotheses of those Great Men, we can't (if we would) adhere to both of them, because they so vastly differ; therefore One of them only can be pitch'd upon, but which of them is hard to determine, and this Gentleman himself doth not assign which of them he intends to own as the True Prin∣ciple.

If you stick to the Vortices, you will be liable to the Witty Atheist you mention, for the Vortices are look'd upon by the Judicious as only an Ingenuous Invention. If you rely upon the Principles of that other Worthy Gentleman you quote, he will fail you as to any thing that looks like Demonstration, for he is oblig'd first to prove and demon∣strate his supposed notion of Gravity, and the Cause of it (wherein he differs from very Great Philosphers and Vertuoso's) before he can maintain that Point. And I need not tell you that if his Principles be question∣able, then your Inferences from them (which are the Main of your Argument) must be so too. You proceed upon some Suppositions which that Excellent Person hath espoused, he be∣taking himself to a Particular way of Philo∣sophizing which most pleases him: but unless you can absolutely prove that what he sup∣poses concerning the nature of Gravity is certainly True, in my opinion you effect no∣thing, I mean nothing that is certain and in∣dubitable: for otherwise I grant that you have most elaborately established the New∣tonian Hypothesis, and the Earths Motion on

that foot: but if that foot be infirm, as I conceive it is, then all your Arguing is of that nature also and you still want a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to move this Globe. The short of all is, if you strike in with Cartes and More, you must re∣nounce the Lucasian Professor: if you make choice of this last, you must cashier the other two.

Where then is this Demonstration of the Co∣pernican hypothesis from Mechanical Principles which is talk'd of? I grant what this Gentle∣man saith, that upon supposition of Vortices the motion of the Earth is proved as fully agreeable to Mechanism as a Boats swiming down the stream, if left at liberty: but then it must be prov'd that there is this Stream in the make of the Earth and of the Heavenly Bodies too, which he attempts not to prove. And as for Gravitation, as it is represented by that Celebrated Mathematician he quotes, and the laws of Mechanism consequent upon that, which he infers from the dimensions of the Planetary System, I need not inform him (he being so well acquainted with it) that there hath been, and is at this day a great a disagreement among the Learnedest Astro∣nomers about the distance of the Planets from the Earth, and from one an other; there have been profess'd Disputes and Quarels about this, and accordingly there must be a dissention about the Dimensions of those bodies: and consequently if their Calculations be various, there is no Arguing from thence; we can't judg of the Mecha∣nism of the Plannets because we are strangers

to their just Dimensions, and the laws of their Motion depending thereupon.

When I consider'd these things, when I observed how obscure, uncertain and pre∣carious the Principles are on which the Earths Motion is grounded, I thought it best (in my Discourse of the Existence and Providence of God) to lay aside this New Hypothesis. Because I was not well satisfied with the Account which the Moderns give of it, I chose rather to retain the Tychonick System, as being least incumber'd with Objections and Difficulties. Of which an Intelligent Phi∣losopher of this Age (whom I mention'd be∣fore) was sensible, and therefore declares him∣self no Stickler for the Copernican Hypothesis, but very fairly and ingenuously professes that he doth not positively assert it, but only pro∣poses it as an Hypothesis not altogether improba∣ble. But as to what I have offer'd, the A∣theist (be he as Witty as this Gentleman can make him) hath no advantage by it, (what∣ever he seems to suggest:) nay rather, it would have made for him if I had founded the Providence of the Almighty on so totter∣ing a basis as the laws of Mechanism. The Cause would have receiv'd a great prejudice from the using of an Argument so weak and dubious. Then it would have been disputed, whether the Penman of the Book of Genesis or Monsieur Cartes, or whether he or Mr. Newton were the better Author: or rather it would have been plainly seen that there is a greater deference given by some men to the latter then to the

former, and that the Philosophical Principles of the one are prefer'd to the Inspired Writings of the other.

But the Truth of the matter is this, the Merits of that Cause I undertook, viz. the Proof of the Divine Providence, were not concern'd in this Controversy, For whether one or the other hypothesis (viz. the Rest or the Motion of the Earth) be true is not materi∣al as to the Main Business: and so much I in∣timated in that Discourse, p. 57. l. 7. &c. After all, if the Copernican hypothesis should be true, that is, if the Earth rolls about on its Center, and so turns it self to the Sun in its various positions, yet still there are the same Effects of this that there were of the other Revolution, viz. that of the Sun; the good and benefit of mankind are promoted, and the Power and Goodness of the Great Benefactor are declared. And I had said before, p. 49. The motion of the Earth is a precarious Opinion, so far as I have hitherto discerned. By which words I shut not out future Convictions, and I let the World see that I am not Peremptory in my determination, but that I believe the Power and Wisdom of God may be evidenc'd from both hypotheses. Yet it was and is my per∣swasion that the doctrine of the Earths Rest is more probable and accountable then that of its Moving: there is more to be said for its standing Still then for its taking a Turn about the Sun. At least I shall continue in this Opinion till the Writers who are of the other side agree upon a better way of ex∣plaining and proving what they assert. Ar∣chimedes was modest who demanded a Place

to set his foot on, an to plant his Engines, and then he would undertake to move the Earth: but some of the Gentlemen of the Copernican way pretend to do this without any solid Footing, and without any Machins but those of their own Ingenious Brains, which it must be confessed are very strong and powerful, but not powerful enough to effect this Business they Undertake. I hope then I may without of••ence retain my Perswasion, till I see it confuted by Solid Arguments, and such as as are founded upon unshaken Prin∣ciples. Seeing this Learned Objector, who is of so deep a Comprehension, is not pleas'd to produce such, I am apt to think that none else can.

I only observe in the last place, that he is for a Neutrality, and would have me treat both hypotheses with indifferency: but he sets me a Task which he is not willing to perform himself, for he hath shew'd himself in what he writes to be a great favourer of the Copernicans, in direct Opposition to the other side. We can prescribe that to o∣thers which we take no care to observe our selves.

Notes

• The Wisdom of God in the Creation, p. 180.
• Mr. Whiston's New Theory, Book 1 and 2.
• Mr. Whiston's New Theory, book 1. p. 6.
• †

  Book 4. chap. 1.
• ‡

  Dr. Bentley, Serm. 7.
• Mr. Ray's Wisdom of God in the Creation, p. 34.
• Mr. Rays Wisdom of the Creation, p. 183.