THAT the Reader may have a true Notion of Dr. Woodward's History of the Deluge, he may take the following Account, in his own Words.

1. ‘That at the Time of the Deluge,P. 1 [...]4. the Water of the Ocean was first born forth upon the Earth; that it was immedi­ately [Page 2]succeeded by that of the Abyss, which likewise was brought out upon the face of the Globe.P. 109. How this Water was rais'd at the Deluge? by what Issues or Out-lets it came forth? what succeeded into the room of it while absent? the Author says he will tell us in his larger Work.’

2. ‘That the whole Terrestrial Globe was taken all to pieces,Preface. and dissolv'd at the Deluge; the Particles of Stone, Mar­ble, and all other solid Fossils dissever'd; their constituent Corpuscles all disjoin'd; their Cohesion perfectly ceasing;p. 74. that the said Corpuscles of those solid Fossils, to gether with the Corpuscles of those which were not before solid, such as Sand, Earth, and the like; (he means the lesser Solids, for Sand and Earth are not Fluids:) as also all Animal Bodies, and Parts of Ani­mals, Bones, Teeth, Shells, Vegetables, and Parts of Vegetables, Trees, Shrubs, Herbs, and, to be short, all Bodies what­soever that were either upon the Earth, or that constituted the Mass of it; if not quite down to the Abyss, yet at least to the greatest depth we ever dig: (that is, if not to the Depth of two thousand Miles, at least of two hundred Feet) but the rest of the Hypo­thesis, [Page 3]and the former Part of the Paragraph, does not suffer this to be any Doubt: for the whole Terrestrial Globe was dissol­ved:) I say, all these were assum'd up promiscuously into the Water, and su­stained in it in such manner, that the Wa­ter and Bodies in it together made up one common confus'd Mass.p. 107. What was the immediate instrument or means where by the Stone and other solid Matter of the antediluvian Earth was dissolv'd; why the Shells, Teeth, Bones,p. 108. and o­ther parts of Animal Bodies, as also the Trunks, Roots, and other parts of Vege­tables were not dissolv'd as well as the Stones and other mineral Solids of that Earth, the Author has promised a Reason in his larger Work.’

3. ‘That,p. 75. at length all the Mass that was thus born up into the Water was a­gain precipitated, and subsided towards the Bottom; that this Subsidence hap­pen'd generally, and as near as could pos­sibly be expected in so great a Confusion, according to the Laws of Gravity: that Matter, Body or Bodies, which had the greatest quantity or degree of Gravity, subsiding first in order, and falling lowest: that which had the next, or still a lesser [Page 4]degree of Gravity, subsiding next after, and settling upon the precedent; and so on in their several Courses.p. 103. But the Ter­restrial Matter, that first subsided, did not descend down quite to the Centre, and fill up the Cavity of the great Abyss, but stop'd at that distance from it, forming an arch'd Expansum, or rather a Sphere a­round it; which is now the lowest Stra­tum and Boundary of that vast Concepta­cle of Water. Of this likewise the Author will assign a Reason in his larger Work.’

4. ‘That the Strata of Marble,p. 79. of Stone, and of all other solid Matter, attain'd their Solidity, as soon as the Sand, or o­ther Matter whereof they consist, was ar­riv'd at the Bottom, and well settled there: The Reason of this too is reserv'd for the larger Work.’ p. 109.

5. ‘That this very various Miscellany of Bodies being determin'd to Subsidence in this order,p. 30. meerly by their different specifick Gravities, all those which had the same degree of Gravity, subsided at the same time, fell into and compos'd the same Stratum; so that those Shells and o her Bodies that were of the same speci­fick Gravity with Sand, sunk down toge­ther with it, and so became inclos'd in the [Page 5]Strata of Stone, which that Sand form'd or constituted; those which were lighter and but of the same specifick Gravity with Chalk, in such places of the Mass where any Chalk was, fell to the Bot­tom at the same time that the chalky Par­ticles did, and so were entomb'd in the Strata of Chalk; and in like manner all the rest: that accordingly we now find in the Sand-stone of all Countries (the specifick Gravity of the several sorts whereof is very little different, being ge­nerally to Water as 2 ½ or 22/1 [...] to 1.) only those Conchae, Pectines and Cochleae, and other Shells that are nearly of the same Gravity. viz. 2½ or 2 [...]/8 to 1. But these are ordinarily found inclos'd in it, in pro­digious Numbers; whereas of Oyster Shells (which are in Gravity but as about 2 ⅓ to 1.) or the other lighter sort of Shells, scarce one ever appears therein; but on the contrary, in Chalk, which is lighter than Stone, being but as about 2 [...] to 1.) there are only found Echini and other lighter sort of Shells, &c.’

6. ‘That the Strata thus sorm'd, [...] 8 [...]. whe­ther of Stone, of Chalk, of Coal, of Earth, or whatever other Matter they consisted of, lying thus upon each other, [Page 6]were all originally Parallel; that they were plain, even and regular; and the Surface of the Earth likewise even and spherical; that they were continuous, and not interrupted or broken; and that the whole Mass of the Water lay then above them all, and consti­tuted a fluid Sphere environing the whole.’ p. 80.

7. ‘That after some time, the Strata were broken on all sides of the Globe; that they were dislocated, their Situation vary'd, be­ing elevated in some places and depress'd in others; that all the Irregularities and Inequalities of the terrestrial Globe, were caused by this means; that the Agent or Force which effected this dislocation of the Strata, p. 1 [...]9 was seated within the Earth; but what that Agent was, the Author has promised to tell us in his larger Work.’

8. ‘That upon the Disruption, of the Strata, [...] 16 [...]. and the Elevation of some, and Depression of others of them which fol­low'd after that Disruption towards the the latter End of the Deluge, this Mass of Water fell back again into the deprest and lower Parts of the Earth, into Lakes and other Cavities; into the Alveus of the Ocean, and thro' the Fissures whereby this communicates with the Ocean, into the Abyss, which it fill'd till it came to an Equilibrium with the Ocean.’

The Author deduces the Water of Springs from the great Abyss, p. 121 by subterranean Heat, which evaporates and elevates its Water, buoying it up indifferently on e­very side.

Here indeed as the Doctor says,p. 82. We see a mighty Revolution, and that attended with Accidents very strange and amazing; a change so exceeding great and violent, that the very Representation is enough to star­tle and shock a Man: but of the five or six surprising Alterations here describ'd, the Doctor has only given us the Philo­sophy of one; he has baulk'd our Expe­ctation in the most material Points; viz. What brought the Water of the Abyss up­on the Surface of the Globe? What succeed­ed in its room? What dissolv'd the Fossils? and at the same time spared the Animal and Vegetable Substances? What stopt the precipitated Matter in the Descent, so that it did not fill up the Cavity of the great Abyss? by what means the Strata attain'd their Solidity so soon as the Mat­ter whereof they consisted, was arriv'd at the Bottom? What effected the Disrupti­on of the Strata? All these the Doctor has tickt for; putting us off at this time only with the Reason why the Strata ran­ged [Page 8]themselves in their present Order; viz. the different Gravity of the Matter whereof they consist. I wish at the same time he had not told us things of less mo­ment. But whatever his Reasons may be for deferring to explain himself in these Particulars, I will so far contribute to the making the larger Work more perfect, as to give the Doctor an Opportunity of clearing some Difficulties which seem to me to lie in his way. To begin then;

The Alterations of the Earth, here de­scrib'd, appear to be all of them above the Power, and contrary to the Laws of Nature, and consequently exclude the Phi­losophy of Second Causes.

First, the Water of the Abyss is brought upon the Surface of the Earth, contrary to its natural Gravity; this I think can only be done two ways; either by Pulsion of Attraction. The first is made use of by the Learned Author of the Theory, who raises the Water by the falling in of the external Crust: but it is plain the Doctor makes use of no such Instrument, since his Dissolution of the Earth happen'd after its being cover'd with the Water.p [...]6 [...]. For the Water was all out upon the Surface of the Earth, before ever the Terrestrial Parts [Page 9]stir'd. The latter, (I mean the Attracti­on of a heavenly Body) is made use of by a late ingenious Writer; but, besides that the Doctor seems to take no notice of it, this will not do the business after his manner.

It must be acknowledg'd that almighty Power can do this and much more; and as Steno says,Prod. transl. p. 103. If the Motion of an Ani­mal can effect that, according to Pleasure, Places that are now overwhelm'd with Water shall be render'd dry; and by and by be drown­ed again by new Waters; why should we not be ready to grant to the first Mover of all things the like Liberty? But then I would no more undertake to explain this, than how the Dead are rais'd.

The second Difficulty is, the making a Body lighter than Water descend into the Cavity of the great Abyss in the place of the Water which had ascended: what Bo­dy this was, is a Secret the Doctor did not think us ripe for as yet; however we may be allow'd to guess. There is a Body somewhere about the Earth, it is neither any part of the Solids, nor the grosser Fluids of the terraqueous Globe; what Body is that? I dare not be positive, but I'll lay an even wager 'tis Air: so far is [Page 10]certain, it must be lighter than Water, and so the Difficulty remains.

The next Miracle is, the Dissolution of all Solids (except Vegetable and Animal Sub­stances) into their constituent Parts; of this the Dr. says he will assign a plain Physical Reason. I must beg his pardon if I think it cannot be very plain. I will not trou­ble my self any more with guessing, but this I know, if any Man besides the Do­ctor should have pretended to such a Se­cret, it would have found the same Credit as the Philosophers Stone, Circular Shot, Perpetuum Mobile, or some such Chimera. But against the Dissolution of Solids. I have these two Objections.

1. If the Cohesion of all Solids perfect­ly ceas'd, and their constituent Corpuscles were disjoin'd, why were not those of Sand, Gravel, and Earth so too? for they are little Solids, and have their consti­tuent Parts as well as the larger; and what dissolves the one will dissolve the o­ther.

2. Had this Earth been so dissolved only as far as the Roots of the greatest Plants reach, we must have lost most of the Species's of Plants which were before the Deluge. The Doctor tells us, That after [Page 11]the Subsidence,p. 78. Trees, and the other more under Vegetables, Shrubs and Herbs would rot and Decay; but the Seeds of all kinds of Vegetables being by this means repos'd, and, as it were, planted near the Surface of the Earth, in a Convenient and Natural Soil, a­mongst Matter proper for the Formation of Vegetables, would germinate, grow up and re­plenish the Earth. But the Seeds of all kinds of Vegetables could not be preser­ved, for some Plants had not as yet seeded at the time of the Deluge, or at least had seeded so long before as to have made some Progress in Vegetation; which I think, be­ing the tenderest Vegetables must have rotted and decayed after the Waters were off. Now, the Deluge happening, accor­ding to the Doctor, in the Month of May, few Plants must have remain'd, but such as were seeded the beginning of that Month, or the latter end of April, which are but a small part of the whole in most places of the Earth. I said, Few must have remain'd, and will not be so cruel as the Doctor to cut All off; for perhaps one Plant of a thousand might be so har­dy, after it had settled upon the Ground, to spring up again; and it is possible to [Page 12]preserve Seeds at a great depth in the Ground: but the Propagation of all Ve­getables could not be trusted to such Ac­cidents. But further, let us consider that those Seeds which were ripe at the De­luge, floated for a considerable time in Water, among dissolv'd Minerals, enough to spoil their Texture, so as to render them for ever unfit for Vegetation. I be­lieve the Barly, after the Waters were off, would have made better Malt than Seed Corn; and Noah might have made merry with Strong Beer rather than staid so ma­ny Years till Vines grew up. The Fishes in my Mind must have fared no better than the Plants. We might have had store of Eels left us, and other Fishes that can live in Mud; but since, according to the Doctor,p. 61. the far greatest part of all kings of Fish suffer'd under the Fury of the Deluge, I cannot see but whole Kinds as well as Individuals, must have perish'd without a new Miracle: but then the same Providence that would make use of extraordinary Means to preserve Fishes a­mongst Mud, could have sav'd the no less innocent Land Animals in Water. Upon the whole, if Matters had been so car­ried on, I cannot see why, amongst other [Page 13]Stowage, Noah ought not to have had a Green-House and Fish-pond.

I come now to the fourth miraculous Change, which is the assuming up, and sustaining the Solids in Water. I am a­ware that a Menstruum will dissolve a small Quantity of Metal hea [...]ier than it self, and sustain it; that Water will dissolve some things heavier, such as Salts and Gums, till it is saturated; and that Sand and Mud thrown into it in small Quan­tities, will sink at leisure; especially if it be agitated with a violent Motion; but that the Water should take up, and su­stain the whole Mass of heavy Solids, down to the Cavity of the great Abyss, most of which exceed it so much in speci­fick Gravity seems to me as miraculous as the swimming of Elisha's Ax; and as little the Subject of Reasoning and Philosophy. Yea, some of them were not only sustain­ed, but carried many hundreds of Miles in a horizontal Line, such as the hea­vier sorts of Shell Fishes, that could not transport themselves thither by their Ani­mal Motion. Yea, these Kinds which are called [...], and, according to the Doctor, are never removed, by the great­est Storms, from the Bottom of the Ocean. N. H. P. 86. [Page 14]This plainly follows from what the Do­ctor says, forp. 253. the Sea was of the same Big­ness and Capacity before the Deluge as now, and of the same Form also; that there was Sea in or near the same Parts of the Globe. But against this Mixture of Solids and Fluids, there lies another scurvy Objecti­on. The Doctor tells us,p. 163. that to put a Stop to the Insults and Detractions of vain Men, [who will not be satisfied there was Water enough to over-top the highest Mountains] in one of the Sections of the Third Part of his larger Work, he enquires what Proportion the Water of the Globe bears to the Earthy Matter of it; but there being so great an Apparatus of things only previous, which must be adjusted before he could come to the Calculation, &c. he could not then de­scend to Particulars, lest he should carry that Discourse beyond all reasonable Bounds. I think this Enquiry ought to have been previous to all others: the Doctor should have calculated the Proportions of his Drugs before he mix'd them. The chief thing to be adjusted here, is, In a Mixture of a Fluid and dry Solids, what Proportion the Fluids ought to bear to the So­lids, so as to make the Compositum attain a cer­tain Degree of Fluidity? I may venture to [Page 15]say that this Aquae Q. S. will be at least tri­ple of the Solid Matter, so as to make it attain any reasonable Degree of Fluidi­ty. At first view I found this would press the Doctor's Hypothesis with a great Difficulty; but I went on, and putting the case in the fairest Extreme, suppos'd, in the Mixture of the Deluge, the Quan­tity of Water equal to that of the Terre­strial Matter, (I mean not in Weight but in Bulk;) then at the timep. 261. when the Wa­ter was upon the Face of the Earth, and be­fore the Terrestrial Parts had stirr'd.

Let the inward Sphere whose Diameter

[Page 16]is CA, represent the Cavity of the great Abyss, now deserted by it, and fill'd with some unknown Matter: the Anulus whose Thickness is AB, the solid Crust: and the Annulus whose Thickness is BD, the Wa­ter above, (I leave the outward Inequali­ties of the Surface of the Earth, and the inward of the Cavity of the Abyss, to compensate one another.) These three by Supposition are equal (bating the small Addition of the Water which was before upon the Surface of the Globe) viz. the Water, the Space where the Water was, and the Solid Matter. Then the Sphere whose Diameter is CA will be 1; that whose Di­ameter is CB will be 2; and that whose Diameter is CD will be 3; consequently CA, CB, and CD, will be as 1, [...]. in round Numbers, as 100, 126, 144. There­fore AB equal to 26, and BD equal to 18, and supposing CD in this case to be equal to 3600 Miles (whereas it will be much more) BD, the height of the Water above the Surface of the Earth will be 450 miles: so that the Doctor needs not be much concern'd to find Water to cover the Earth if he had enough to dissolve it: but, on the other hand, if you suppose the Water to rise only 15 cubits above the [Page 17]Tops of the highest Mountains, it will not make 1/240 of the Solid Matter, which is too little to make the Earth into an Ele­ctuary, nay hardly into a Pill. Here it must be remember'd, that Dr. Woodward asserts, that the Aequilibrium is kept be­tween the Terrestrial Parts and the Water, and that there is no Transmutation of the one into the other.p. 40. But the strangest thing, and, if I may so speak, the Mira­cle of all Miracles is, that the Water and Solid Matter now mixt together, should either float upon a Vacuum, or the Subtil Matter that came in place of the Water of the Abyss; for in the internal Sphere whose Diameter is CA, there is neither Wa­ter nor Solid Matter, but it must be left as it is for the Solid Matter to form the Arched Expansum upon. This is turning Na­ture outside inward; the Bottom of the O­cean is now supported by Water, and the Water by the Air. Well, if the Dr. gives a Reason for this too, adieu Hydrostaticks.

I am now come to the Subsidence of the Matter of the Strata, and the ranging them in the present Order: and this pre­sents us with a most surprising Effect, which the Dr. has promised us the Reason of; viz. Why the Terrestrial Matter that first [Page 18]subsided, did not descend dowm quite to the Centre, and sill up the Cavity of the great Abyss? First here must be Matter exact­ly of the same Specifick Gravity, to make it descend with the same Celerity, and arrive at the same distance from the Cen­tre in the same instant. Next, all these loose Particles, as by a Confederacy, must stop short; then when they had sunk quite down into the Water, the denser Fluid, they halt at the Confines of the subtiler Fluid, now lying about at the Centre; They all harden into a Crust in the same instant, and form an Arch of at least 2500 miles diameter; This Arch is neither broke by its own weight, nor that of the succeed­ing Strata. God forbid I should limit Omnipotency, but as to the Second Cau­ses, I must remain an Infidel till the Do­ctor's larger Work appears. I am sure Steno's Rule of forming the Strata is more conformable to the known Laws of Na­ture. At the time that any Bed was formed, Prod. p. 42. there was another Body under the same Bed, which did hinder the farther Descent of that dusty Matter, and consequently at the same time that the lowest Bed was formed, there was under it either another solid Body; or, if some Fluid was there, it was both of a [Page 19]different nature from the upper Fluid, and heavier than the Solid Sediment of the supe­riour Fluid. But this Notion of the Sub­sidence performed according to the dif­ferent Degrees of Specifick Gravity, be­ing the only piece of Philosophy the Dr. has gratified us with at present, I shall consider it more fully. And

First, I say, Observations of the Specifick Gravity of Bodies in the Circumstances required, and to the Nicety pretended, seem altogether impracticable. For we must remember that the Medium in which the undissolved Substances were floating, was not common Water, but a Medium (by reason of the mixture of Solid Matter) of an unknown Density, perhaps thicker than a Quagmire. This I believe will ap­pear pretty clear from what has been hint­ed above, about the Proportion of the Fluids and Solids.

Next, it is extremely hard to find the Specifick Gravity of Bodies reduced into small Particles, such as Sand and Earth. Now, the Minerals, when dissolved, were reduced either into their Elements or Pow­ders. If the latter, I cannot so well ap­prehend how, by a mixture with Water, they could form Masses of the same Mine­ral [Page 20]again: for I think if Powder, Chalk, Flint, Marble, or any of those things of which the Strata are compos'd, should be mixed with Sea water, they will not be bak'd again into a Mass of the same Na­ture as soon as they arrive at the bottom; but if the Solids were reduced into their Elements, which I think the Dr. means by their constituent Parts, it is hard to tell what Specifick Gravity those would have: it is probable not the same with their Com­posita, which require a Mixture of hete­rogeneous Matter to make them up. Then it is very difficult to find the Specifick Gravity of Shells, and I must crave leave to say, Somebody has imposed upon the Dr. in pretending to distinguish between 2 ¾ and 2 ⅝ (that is, to the Nicety of 5/26) in the Gravity of Conchae, Pectines and Cochleae; and because Oyster-shells are but 1/15 lighter than those, they must not be ad­mitted into Sand-stone: on the contrary, I dare aver, it is impossible to determine the Specifick Gravity of Cochleae, for ex­ample; and let a Man weigh twenty of them, he shall have near as many different Proportions to determine their relative Gravity upon. For let us only consider, that all of them having a Cavity which is [Page 21]never quite full of Water (at least it would never be so upon a casual Subsidence,) unless this Cavity, the Quantity of Mat­ter in the Crust, and the whole Bulk should bear exactly the same Proportion in them all, they must weigh differently in proportion to Water. Then we must con­sider that, when those sunk, the greater part had their Animals in them; which will make a greater Difference than what is here mentioned: yea, the Animals be­ing dead or alive will make some Altera­tion. But

Secondly, There is no such Rule for the Subsidence of Solids in Fluids as the Dr. pretends; for all Bodies descend with equal Celerity, abstracting from the Resi­stence of the Medium through which they fall. In Air he may try it, and he will find that a Leaden Bullet, and a Wooden Bullet let fall from the top of the Monument at the same time, will likewise arrive at the Ground both together, only making the Wooden Bullet bigger than the Leaden one: and in Water, where the Resistence of the Medium is very great, the Descent will be regulated as much ac­cording to the absolute as relative Gravi­ty: that is, the greatest and biggest Bo­dies [Page 22]will descend with the greatest Cele­rity; for example, a Stone of an hun­dred weight will fall sooner to the bot­tom, than the Powder of the same Stone: And, generally speaking, of the Solids heavier than the Fluid, those which con­tain a greater Quantity of Matter, in re­spect of their Surface, will descend fastest; as a Globe of Gold sooner than the same Quantity in Leaf: and a Globé of Stone sooner than a less [...]r Globe of Gold, if it contain a greater Quantity of Matter, in respect of its Surface, than the Globe of Gold; and yet the Gold has the same Spe­cifick Gravity in Leaf and in a Globe, and the Stone a less Specifick Gravity than the Gold. The Consequence of this will be, that the Parts of Animals, which were the greater Solids, could never be buried in Matter of the same Specifick Gravity with themselves: Yea, throw an Oyster-shell into Water, and at the same time the con­stituent Parts of the heaviest Metals, the Shell will fall soonest to the bottom; and where the Depth was some hundreds of Miles, as at the general Subsidence, the difference would be considerable. By the same Rule, the larger Grains of Sand would fall lower than the imper­ceptible [Page 23]constituent Parts of other Fos­sils.

Thirdly, Granting the Doctor's Rule to be true, it was not observed; I do not deny but the Strata near the Surface of the Earth look like a Sediment, where some­thing of the Laws of Gravity are observ'd. But they will not answer the Doctor's Theory, so far down as he talks of. There is in Varenius an account of the Strata, as they were found,p. 46. to the Depth of 132 Feet, on the sinking of a Pit at Amsterdam, viz.

Here it is plain, they are not plac'd accor­ding to their different Gravities; for sometimes the heavier lies uppermost; the same Strata (after the interposition of both lighter and heavier ones) are re­peated; and sometimes the Order is retro­grade. I think it is very probable they are the Sediment of a Fluid, but not pre­cipitated at the same time, and determin'd to Subsidence in this Order, merely by their different specifick Gravities; on the contra­ry their Diversity and Order seems ra­ther to persuade that they were compiled by little and little, and at different times; which, considering the Scituation of the Country, is no hard matter to conceive. Something analogous to this I rightly re­member is to be found in Ramazzini's De­scription of the sinking of the Wells of [Page 25] Modena. But supposing those were rang'd, as the Doctor would have them, what is that to a Crust 1000 Miles thick? Here it were endless to enumerate all the Particulars wherein the Doctor's Rule is violated, these following are obvious; 1. The Precipitation of the lighter vegetable terrestrial Matter, Nat. Hist. 90. and burying it among the Strata, leaving only so much near the Sur­face, as might sufficiently supply the Wants of humane Nature. Thus the principal inten­tion of Providence in the Dissolution of the Earth, was brought to pass by a Vio­lation of the Law of specifick Gravity. 2. The heaviest Bodies, we know, are near the Surface of the Earth many hundreds of Miles from the lowest Stratum, which could not have happen'd had the Celerity of their descent kept any manner of proportion with their specifick Gravity. 3. Bodies of diffe­rent specifick Gravities are found buried in the same Stratum; as Shells and Flint in Chalk. And here I must take notice, that it seems hard to bury Plants under ground after the Doctor's manner, who does it by affixing Mineral Matter to them: For up­on the general Dissolution, the Plants would get a-top of the Water, and if any should fall in among Minerals, that would [Page 26]buoy them up so much the more: For example; I cannot imagin how a Plant that was swimming in Water should sink in a Mass of Quicksilver. I shall con­clude with this general Remark; It is strange that the Laws of Gravity, which have been violated in so many particu­lars, in raising the Water of the Abyss, and making a lighter Body, descend in its room; in sustaining Minerals in Wa­ter, and stopping them in their Descent before they reach'd the Centre; in place­ing the heaviest Solids in the upper Stra­ta, &c. I say, it is strange the same Laws of Gravity should place a few Shells with as much Nicety, as the Doctor does in his Collection, not transgressing so far as a fifteenth part.

I come now to the effect of this Sub­sidence, which is the Plainness, Parallelism, and spherical Figure of the Strata; I say none of these could be true; first, They could not be plain; for a spherical Surface cannot be so; however, that is a Mistake of a Word, which should be pardon'd. Secondly, They could not be spherical:pag. 225. The Doctor acknowledges the Earth to be a Spherois prolatus (and there is a great difference between a Sphere and a Spha­roid) [Page 27]and if a Sphaeroid, the Strata could not be parallel. I shall beg leave to add one reason why I think they could not be smooth a-top, and it is this; The terre­strial parts (according to the Doctor) set­tled down in or near the same places from which they were before taken; pag. 261. but to make them smooth, each solid Column, or to speak more properly, each truncated Se­ctor must have been of the same bulk, and the Matter of the same density; of the same bulk, else there would have been outward or inward Inequalities, where there was a difference in Extension; and of the same Density, else the several Co­lumns could not balance themselves exact­ly in the subsidence, but one would have been higher than another; both these would have produc'd Mountains and Val­lies. Now since there were antediluvian Mountains, it would seem that the Co­lumns of the Earth had not been made up of Matter with both the foremention'd Properties. And if from the first Fluid at the Creation, the Matter had settl'd with the inequalities of Mountains and Vallies, I cannot see why it should not have done so from the Fluid at the Deluge. Howe­ver this is only a Conjecture.

I have done with Four parts of the Operation; there are infund. Misc. dissolv. praecipit. And now comes the Fifth, sub­limetur; I mean, the Dislocation of the Strata. Here I shall remark, First, That it must have been a prodigious force that could dislocate a Crust 1000 Miles thick at least (as will follow from my former Reasoning, concerning the Proportion of the Cavity of the great Abyss to the so­lid Annulus). Secondly, It seems won­derful that the Shell of the Bomb should be only crackt and not shatter'd to pieces. Thirdly. It is next to Impossible, that an Agent seated within the Cavity of the great Abyss, at the depth of 1000 Miles, should have been the cause of so many minute Alterations upon the Surface: Many of the Ruins that appear to us, seem to point at Agents far less remote. Fourthly, It is more miraculous still, that this Globe should be crack'd into the same Figure it had before the Deluge, into equal Cavities and Eminencies, and alike scituated with those it had then. I grant that the steady Hand of the Al­mighty Creator could do this, and much more; but where was the necessity of such a Miracle. The Doctor indeed wants it, [Page]else it is impossible to solve the Identity of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian Geo­graphy which Moses supposes.Gen. c. 2. There mu [...] be Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates watering the same Countries, as well af­ter the Deluge as before; and yet this will not agree with the Doctor's Hypo­thesis; for this post-diluvian Gihon is not numerically the same as Moses asserts,Gen. 2.13. but a River sprung up near the same place. I wish the Compilers of Theories would have more regard to Moses's Relation, which surpasses all the accounts of Philo­sophers as much in Wisdom, as it doth in Authority. The Doctor is not singu­lar in this, it is but too common a Fault now a-days. Now, I believe it will be hard to reconcile the Doctor's History of the Deluge with that of Moses, for these Reasons; First, Moses describes the great­est height of the Water above the Sur­face of the Earth, to have been after the Inundation, by telling us it was 15 Cu­bits above the highest Mountains. Accor­ding to the Doctor, its greatest height was, after the Subsidence and Disruption of the Strata when the whole Mass of Water lay above them, constituting a fluid Sphere, and then to be sure it was higher by all [Page 30]the height of the Mountains: But by what has been said before, it will be found to exceed 450 Miles. Secondly, Moses seems to attribute a great part of the Inundation to Rain-Water, which was not worthy to be nam'd in respect of the whole Mass of Fluids, enough to dissolve the terrestrial Globe. Thirdly, Moses and the Doctor differ, as to the manner of the decreasing of the Waters;Gen. c 8.1, 2. for Moses tells us, That God made a Wind to pass over the Earth, and the Waters asswaged; and that the Fountains of the deep were stop'd; the Doctor ought to read open'd. Moses says the Fountains of the Abyss were stopt, that there should no more Water come upon the face of the Earth; and the Doctor says that they were opened by the Disruption of the Strata, to let that which was already upon the face of the Earth, fall back again. Moses tells us the Waters asswaged by a Wind, and the Doctor by their retiring into the Ca­vity of the great Abyss. Fourthly, Ac­cording to Moses, the ante-diluvian Plants were standing rooted in the ground after the Deluge; at least, one Olive-Tree was so. This is so inconsistent with the Dis­solution of the very uppermost Strata, [Page 31]which tore up all. Plants by the roots; that there was an Olive standing, is plain, else a Leaf pluckt off from it by the Pi­geon, could be no sign to Noah of the abatement of the Waters; for it was im­possible to tell by the Leaf whether it was floating or not. I might here add, that it seems strange, that of five great Alterations Dr. Woodward describes, Moses should men­tion only the first; and, after such a parti­cular Account of the Creation of the Earth, should not take any notice of its no less mira­culous second Creation. That there should not be so much as a word of the wonderful Changes that were transacted under Water: How the Mountains had been taken away, and at the end of 150 days restored again. Nay, quite the contrary, Moses seems to find the Mountains just where he lest them. They never stir'd out of their Place, from the time that they were overflow'd with the Water 15 cubits, till the Ark rest­ed upon them.

I have one Difficulty remaining concer­ning the Doctor's Original of Fountains produced by Subterranean Heat, which e­vaporates and elevates the Matter of the A­byss, buoying it up indifferently on every side, p 121. and towards all parts of the Surface of the [Page 32]Globe. It seems hard to make Vapour pervade a Crust 1000 miles thick. To this the Dr. answers, That it is perforated, and the Water of the Abyss fills up all these Fissures as far as the Level of the Ocean, with which it communicates. But this throws us into a greater Inconveniency; for there being Fountains in every place, to say the solid Crust is so perforated, is little better than to say it is so thin; or, which is worse, there would be an Arch of 1000 miles thick in some places, and hardly three in others: I am afraid such a one would soon tumble. The Dr. must consider that this Cupola of his has a prodigious Diameter, and ought to have a proportionable Thick­ness and Solidity. When it has so, the Attraction of the Matter above will be considerable.

Another thing to be observed is, that the Water of the Abyss being in one Ves­sel, the Heat will diffuse it self uniformly through it all. And a swinging Quantity of Heat it must be, that will set such a Ket­tle a boyling. But then the Consequence is, that the Water of the Sea will be heat­ed to, since that is one with the Water of the Abyss: For, according to the Doctor, the Channel of the Ocean, the Cavity of [Page 33]the great Abyss, and the Fissures by which they communicate, make but one Vessel, like a Bottle with a long Neck, and a Funnel join'd to the top of it; and I be­lieve it would be difficult to heat one part of the Water in such a Vessel without the rest.

It may be a just prejudice against the Solidity of the foregoing Objections, that Steno a famous Mathematician and Philo­sopher is commonly reckon'd the Author of this Hypothesis; to take off which, I shall prove that in those parts that are most exceptionable, the Doctor's Philosophy is different from Steno's. This I cannot do better than by comparing both their Per­formances, they being the most remarka­ble Philosophers that have appear'd upon this Subject.

First, Steno's dissertation was a Prodro­mus to a greater Work as well as the Do­ctor's; and he tells you, ‘That it was a succinct,Prod. p. 109. not to say a tumultuary Re­lation of the chief things which in the Dissertation it self he intended to explain more distinctly and more largely; toge­ther with a Description of the Places where he had observed every particular.’ But that the Reader may the better per­ceive [Page 34]in what they differ, and in what they agree, I thought sit to put those few Pas­sages, which I had leisure at present to pick out of both their Writings, in two different Characters, Steno's in Roman, the Doctor's in Italick.

SINCE you have at last been prevail­ed upon to oblige the Publick with your Thoughts upon one of those Questions which have so long and so warmly exercised the Philosophical part of Mankind amongst us; you will not be [Page 66]surprized to see an account of an inciden­tal Controversie, which I have been una­wares engaged in, and which was first oc­casioned by that Book which you have un­dertaken to examine.

You may remember, Sir, that about two Years ago, there was an Abstract of an Italian Book written by Agostine Scilla, printed in the Philosophical Transactions. It is usual for those Papers which are prin­ted in the Transactions, to be first read before the Royal Society; according to which Custom that Account of Scilla's Book was read before them, and they did me the honour so far to approve of it, as to order its Publication. This I suppose they did the more willingly, because the Controversie which Scilla undertakes to decide was at that time the Subject of most of the Philosophical Conversations of the Virtuosi about the Town. For Dr. Woodward, a Member of the Royal Society, had not long before printed An Essay to­wards the Natural History of the Earth, as a Specimen of a larger Work; wherein, amongst other things, he undertakes to demonstrate that all those Shells, which are found in the Bowels of the Earth, are Exuviae of once-living Animals. The [Page 67]proving of which Proposition being like­wise the Design of Scilla's Treatise, a Book then very little known in England, I thought a large Account of it would not be unacceptable to the Society, and there­in, to my great Satisfaction, I was not deceived, which I gladly take this occa­sion to acknowledge with Thankfulness.

Now it so happened, as it always does when Men start new Notions much out of the common Road, that not long after Dr. Woodward's Book appeared, several Persons, some one way, some another, con­tradicted his Hypothesis. Among other things, some objected to him that he stole from several Writers who had appeared already upon the same Subject, and from Scilla amongst the rest. To obviate there­fore the Prejudices which these Men's Writings might raise against Dr. Woodward's Hypothesis, Mr. Harris, a Member of the Royal Society likewise, has lately printed Remarks on some late Papers relating to the Universal Deluge, and to the Natural Histo­ry of the Earth. Herein he falls upon Mr. Robinson's Additional Remarks to his Obser­vations on the Natural History of this World of Matter, and this World of Life, because he does there accuse Dr. Woodward of [Page 68]stealing from Scilla, and begs pardon of the World for referring several Hypotheses and Observations to Dr. Woodward, whereas it seems he had taken them from others, a­mongst whom Scilla is there reckoned up for oneAdditie­nal Re­marks p. 1.. Mr. Harris's Words are these,Remarks p. 160. Then, for the Philosophical Transactions that you cite here, in it is given indeed a sort of an Abstract (such a one as it is) of Scilla's Book, but would any judicious Per­son charge a Gentleman with being a Plagiary from Scilla, by seeing only an Abstract of his Book, and an Abstract too, liable to so many just Exceptions, as I can prove that is?

This Charge of Mr. Harris's put me, Sir, upon the necessity of reviewing what I had formerly published concerning Scilla's Book▪ and of comparing it once more with the Original. I know the Respect which [...]ow to the Royal Society too well to im­pose upon them, and as in the Preamble of my Abstract I had said nothing of Dr. Woodward or his Performance, but what was respectful, so I could not see how he or any of his Friends could have any pretence to be disturbed at it. Whether therefore I have presented the Royal Socie­ty with such a fallacious Abstract, I shall now enquire, and then, Sir, leave it to your determination.

I need not tell you, Sir, I am sure, who are so throughly versed in all parts, of useful Learning, when an Abstract of a Book that treats of Philosophical Subjects is faulty, and when 'tis not. You know, Sir, that an Abstracter ought to lay his Au­thor's chief Design fully and clearly before his Reader; if his Author digresses, to take notice of it, if his Digressions be new and curious, to dwell longer upon them than if they are mean and trivial, in a word so to follow him, as that he may be represented by his Abstracter in as fair and full a view as he possibly can. This (if the Abridger writes not in his Author's Language) he may do in his own Words, without confining himself to a Verbal Translation: if his Author be obscure, verbose, or immethodical, he may give his Abstract with Perspicuity and Method, still remembring that his Author's Notions not his Words are the things to which he ought strictly to confine himself. The Philosophical Transactions, and the Leipzick Acta Eruditorum, will afford numerous In­stances of such Abstracts as these which I have here described.

Since therefore Scilla's Design was to prove the Shells of all sorts, found in the Bowels of the Earth, to be only Exuviae of living Animals, I thought it was enough for me to set down the principal Argu­ments by which he proved it, with a short Account of the Motives which led him to make this Enquiry, and herein to be sometimes longer sometimes shorter, as the Matter required it. His long-winded Civilities, were only to be hinted at, and that Prolixity which made his Book tedi­ous to me was carefully to be avoided, lest my Account might have proved te­dious to those who might ever have thought it worth their while to look in­to it.

For that Reason I omitted Scilla's Cita­tions out of Strabo, p. 16, 17. who had observed Shells, and pieces of Ships found near the Temple of Jupiter Hammon, as also his long Disputes with Crollius and Guillandi­nus, together with those Postulata which every Body is agreed about, and are of course presupposed in all sorts of Philoso­phical Disputes; such as these. That we ought to stand to our Senses, Not to give our selves to Hypotheses, Not to pre­scribe to Nature, and the like.

In one place indeedPhisos. Trans. no. 219. p. 184 I mention the Calabrian for the Catanian Coast, but that I suppose will be allow'd of both sides to be a small Oversight, not worth taking notice of.

Neither have I set down every Proof which Scilla produces for his Opinion, and yet at the same time I dare appeal to Mr. Harris, wherein I have omitted any one Argument of moment, upon which Scilla himself lays any stress.

Thus, for instance, I omit what he says of the difference of the shape of the Glos­sopetrae, which had been urged as an Ar­gument why they could not be real Teeth, since, if they had been real Teeth, they would have been more alike; because what I had said of the different morticing of the Shark's Teeth into one another, so that a Man might be able to tell, at first sight, which Tooth belonged to which Side or Jaw, as also That he had observed every one of these things in his Glossopetrae, ibid. p 190. which punctually answer in every part to the several Ranks of the Teeth of Living Sharks, had sufficiently taken in the Argument so far as I was obliged by my Design to take notice of it. And his Argument drawn from the different Teeth of a Pesee V [...]c [...] [Page 72][a Fish, before undescribed by Naturalists, of the Dog-kind] was throughly exempli­fied in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th Figures in that Transaction, which I got copy'd from Scilla's Draughts, that I might shew how wonderfully different the Teeth of the same Fish may be, as Age and Posi­tion may alter them.

Scilla's Hesitancy about the Objection, of Shells being found in the Heart, Renes Su [...]turiali, and Bladder in human Bo­dies, was not proper to be observ'd: What an Author does not well know how to explain, can be no proper Subject for an Abridger to dwell upon; especially when it had so little influence upon his main Design. But if I have done Scilla an Injustice, in omitting this part of his Book, I fear Mr Harris has done him a greater, in misrepresenting it: Scilla was bashful, and had too great an imbecillitas frontis, positively to deny what so many grave Authors had asserted, and therefore is willing to recur to some inexplicable Plastick Power of Nature in Animal Bo­dies, tho' when he had said all he could upon the Subject, 'tis plain he disbeliev'd the Matter of Fact, otherwise he would never have said at last, That he could not [Page 73]bring himself to believe, that the Figure of those Shells which are found in Animals, does exactly correspond with that of the Tur­bens and Conchae of the Sea. Non pos­so da [...] ­mi a e [...] ­dere nelle dette [...] ­machine quella es­sati [...]ima, e corres­pondente l [...]ttura, che nel Guscio d'un Tur­binetto, o­vero Lu­machina di Mare godiamo, p. 76. This was an easie way of denying the positive As­sertion of his Antagonist: So that I can­not see how Scilla can upon this account be reasonably charged with being a Per­son whose Easiness and Credulity put him up­on the Solution of that which in all likelihood was intended only to banter and abuse him Harris's Remarks, p. 226. For it is plain by the words just now ci­ted, that it was not Scilla's Easiness and Credulity which put him upon the Solution of a Sham-Phoenomenon, but his good Breed­ing, of which he is never sparing, and which is peculiar to the Gentlemen of that Countrey, which would not suffer him flatly to deny what his Adversary had directly affirmed.

Perhaps Mr. Harris may object, that I use the Expression The Deluge, when I en­quire into the Reason why Shells of one sort are, generally speaking, mostly sound together; which I pretend that Scilla solves by the Motion into which the Waters were put during the Deluge Pl [...]l. Tran [...]. n. 21 [...]. p. 18 [...]. whereby he may pretend, that I would insinuate, that Scilla refers every thing to Noah's Flood, which [Page 74]says Mr. Harri, the Author never dream'd of Harris's Remarks, p. 228. Now besides that it is plain that I cannot be so understood, since I call it on­ly a Deluge in another place, where I say from my Author in the same Page, that the repeated flowings and ebbings of the Water happened during some one very great Inunda­tion, the Time whereof, or its Cause he does not determine Phil. Trans. n. 219. p. 191.. I say, besides this, which sufficiently vindicates my use of the word Deluge, which is no Term of Art appro­priated to Noah's Flood, but signifies any great Inundation, unless the Sense or some limiting Epithet determines it so to be un­derstood; Mr. Harris seems inconsistent with himself, when in one Page he says, 'Tis plain that Scilla never dream'd of the universal Deluge, and in the very next Page introduces Scilla saying, That he does not know whether these Shells were reposited in the Earth in the universal Deluge, or in some other particular Inundations Harris's Rem. pag. 229..

This brings me to the mighty Charge, to that Exception, (just or unjust) which Mr. Harris takes at my Abstract of A­gostino Scilla; and that is, my using the Expression Specifick Gravity, which our Au­thor no where uses, nor the thing design'd by it ib. p. 236., (if we may believe Mr. Harris) in [Page 75]all his Book. And here, Sir, I do willing­ly acknowledg, that Scilla never applys the Term Specifick to Gravity; nay, I am not sure whether he knew the difference be­tween Absolute and Specifick Gravity; which last is an Epithet which has not been long of frequent use, and was (as I believe) first brought into fashion upon the intro­ducing Hydrostaticks into Natural Philo­sophy, which necessarily obliged Men to consider not barely the absolute or simple Weight of Bodies, when tryed in a pair of Scales, but their relative Weight, which they have when compared with one ano­ther. Scilla seems to have been unac­quainted with the new Authors and Dis­coveries in Physicks, and so 'tis no won­der if he uses not their Terms. But since this is so common a Term, and so well understood, I could not imagin how I should do either Scilla, or any body else, any wrong, if I used it in my Abstract, provided the Thing designed by it were al­so designed by my Author.

You know very well, Sir, that Specifick, when apply'd to Gravity, is an improper word, not signifying what at first sight it seems to import: For thereby the compara­tive and relative Gravity of Bodies is usually [Page 76]understood. Water being a Body very manageable, and easily to be come at is the usual Standard by which the relative or specifick Gravity of other Bodies is tryed; and the difference of a Body's weight in Air and Water being equal to the weight of a quantity of Water equal in bulk to the Body weighed; the proportion of the weight of this Body to that of Water is hereby determined; if the Proportion which the weight of Water bears to that of Gold, be as 1 to 19, and the Propor­tion of the weight of Water to that of Silver be as 1 to 10, 5; then by the Pro­portion which Gold and Silver bear to Water, we know the Proportion they bear to one another; by which Proportion we know their Specifick Gravity; Tho in ma­thematical strictness this Term is egregi­ously mis-applyed; for Species being only a Logical Term, and every individual, having its peculiar Texture as well as its peculiar Subsistence, it may be question'd, whether there be two Lumps of any spe­cies of Metal or Mineral drawn from dif­ferent Mines or Quarries, which have exactly the same Specifick Gravity. Mr. Collins has given us the Comparative Gra­vity of eight pieces of Gold, and three [Page 77]pieces of Brass, which he weighed him­self, all which differed very considerably from one anotherPhil. T. n. 199. p. 694. Had these eleven pieces all of a bulk been put together into a Mass of fluid Mud, and there jumbled with a confused violent Motion, this Mass upon the ceasing of the motion, which kept it in its fluid state, would have let fall all those heterogenous Bodies which were heavier than it self; and then these metalline Lumps would have subsided in order, according to their different Gra­vities, if the Figure of every piece would have allow'd it.

Tho, Sir I do own, that what Scilla says is not inconsistent with the Laws of Absolute Gravity; since it is certain, that if two Bodies be alike specifically heavy, but of a different Absolute Gravity, the ab­solutely heaviest Body supposing their Fi­gures to be similar, will descend with the greatest Celerity: But yet this does not at all exclude that difference in Subsidence, which Specifick Gravity would also cause; for of Bodies of the same bulk and figure, and of, different Specifick Gravities, that Body which has the greatest Specifick Gravity, will also descend the fastest: So that Scilla's [Page 78]Account will strictly include Specifick Gra­vity, and consequently I did him no wrong so to express his Description of the Messinese Hills, as would in common speech be best understood.

Mr. Harris ought not to have excepted to what I had said▪ since Dr. Woodward says the very same thing that I have done, [Essay p. 75.] This Subsidence, says he, happen'd generally, and as near as possibly could be expected in so great a Confusion, according to the Laws of Gravity: That Mat­ter, Body or Bodies, which had the greatest quantity or degree of Gravity [i. e. the hea­viest] subsiding first in order, and falling lowest: [i corpi di maggior peso sotto] that which had the next, or a still lesser de­gree of Gravity, subsiding next after, and settling upon the precedent: [i meno gravi sopra] that which had the least Gravity sinking not down till last of all, settling at the surface of the Sediment, and covering all the rest. [sopra di questi i piu leggieri] It's true, the Doctor restrains this Subsi­dence afterwards merely to Specifick Gra­vity, wherein he is mistaken; but had he kept to Scilla's general Expression (which fully includes it) it had been more Phi­losophical.

Since therefore I explained what had been alike expressed both by Scilla and Dr. Woodward, after Dr. Woodward's man­ner, (only not directly excluding the Laws of Absolute Gravity, which Scilla takes in joyntly with those of Specifick) the Do­ctor's Defender has no reason to find fault with my Account: At least, if it may in strictness be thought defective, it cannot be said to be erroneous.

It is plain therefore, that when Scilla talks of Bodies subsiding in a Fluid, accor­ding to their weight, he may by this weight be probably supposed to mean Specifick Gravity, as 'tis commonly called in oppo­sition to Absolute; for if they were of the same Specifick Gravity with Water, they would lie in any part, top, middle, or bottom where they were placed at first; and the reason why one thing immers'd in Water sinks sooner than another, is, because being not only heavier than Wa­ter specifically but absolutely at least, if not specifically heavier than that other Body that swims along with it, it proporti­onably gravitates more, and is less hindred in its descent by the Resistance of the ambient Water, than that other Body is. If therefore Scilla says that the heaviest [Page 80]Bodies lay lowest, it implies that Bodies of a different Gravity, absolute or specifick, once swam together in the Water, and tho he may not understand the several Acceptation of the Terms Absolute and Specifick, when applyed to Gravity, yet he means the same thing with those that do, and would have expressed himself in the same manner had it been the fashion.

Wherefore when Scilla positively di­stinguishes from his own Observation be­tween the Ranges of the Strata of the Gravel and Sand in the Hills about Messina, and when he directly says that the Hea­viest fell lowermost, he is thus to be under­stoodScilla, (p. 166) gives this Descrip­tion of the Hills near Messina: Sono eglino per lo più questi nostri monti di Ghiaie, rene Mezzane, e minutissime, rialzatè a tale segno, che sovrastano modestamente alla Città, che vagamente coronano: [...]'Ordine della loro Composizione è questo, cioè un suolo di Ghiaie, à cui s'aggiugne l'altro di Rene ordinarie, e sopra di questo il Terzo di minutissime rene; e cio con ordinanza continuata, perciocche di nuovo sopra la sottile Rena scorgesi rassetrata la Ghiaia, e Susseguentemente sino alla Sommità —Quel che oss [...]rvo con istupore, si [...]è, il vedere replicato più e più volte [...]'Ordine delle Rene grosse, mezzane, e minute: Ed e forza conchindere, che con piu cappate di Materia forestiera fossero [...] alla Grandezza, che li Veggiamo, Which Description I [...]dged thus; (Transact. p. 191.) The Mountains near Messi­na consist of Strata, which ly in this order, first Gravel, then midling Sand, then very fine Sand. — That after three Layers of Sand and Gravel of different finenesses, come three other Layers in the same order with the former; first Gravel, then coa [...]ler, then finer Sand again, and so on several times one after another. The manner how they came to be thus formed, Scilla describes thus, (p. 127.) Eglino [i torrenti] secondo la Piena dell' Acqae, portano con esso loro quel, che incontrano; in luoghi però ove possono dilatarsi, perdendo la ferocia del Corso loio le acque, po­sano e discaricano i corpi involti in quel fluido, e strascinati dal [...] Impeto, ma con un'Ordine necessario, cioè, i corpi di magg [...]or peso sotto, i meno gravi sopra, e sopra di questi i piu leggieri; il qual Ordine sarà replicato dalla cagione medesima più, e più volte, secondo le pioggie, che con intervailo mancano, e ricominciano. Or, da cio Jo cavo la ragione di determinare la materia, sore­stiera che le nostre Montagne compone; e certamente elle pion­tate furono nel sito in cui le scorgiamo, da una qualche gran­dissima inundazione, la quale secondo la Piena, ed il Reposo, a­vesse portato, e rilasciato il Peso più, e più volte ondeggiando. This I gave in short in English thus, (p. 191.) This he sup­poses to have proceeded from repeated Tides; from whence he concludes, that the Water coming with great violence, sustained whatsoever came in its way; but upon its going off, the force abating, it let fall the terrestrial Matter that subsided according to its specifick Gravity; and that these repeated Flowings and Ebbings of the Water happen'd during some one very great In­undation, &c. What Scilla says, was▪ done by a necessary Order, that is to lay, The weightest Body lowermost, the less weighty above them, and the lightest uppermost, I render was done by Specifick Gravity, which, to any Man that knows what Specifick Gravity means includes the self-same thing. Only I must own, that what I call Repeated Tides, should have been rendred Re­peated Floods.: That these Particles of Sand and Gravel subsided at all, was due to their being specifically heavier than the Water [Page 81]wherein they were rolled, but that they should observe a determinate Order in their Subsidence, which Order, Scilla him­self observes, was probably due to their being some specifically heavier than others; [Page 82]and had the middling and very fine Sand been absolutely aequiponderant with the Gravel, they would have been casually interspers'd.

Mr. Harris is so very sensible of the Truth of this Reasoning, that after he had positively declared that Scilla has not the thing designed by specifick Gravity once in all his Book; p. 236. he says in the same page that Scilla's Notion of the largest and most ponde­rous Bodies settling lowest is so gross'd Mis­take, that 'tis strange he could ever fall into it. First he says Scilla never intended to assert, That the Subsidence in the Inundations he speaks of was according to specifick Gravi­ty, and then he wonders how Scilla could ever assert that it was, the thing it self being so gross a Mistake. This, Sir, needs not to be enlarged upon

And with this I shall conclude what I had to say in defence of the Abstract of Scilla's Book, which was never designed for a just Translation. I dare appeal to you, Sir, whether Scilla did not resolve the Subsidence of the Strata, by that which you and I, Sir, know does not ex­clude the specifick Gravity of those seve­rall Bodies that composed them. Yea, tho the Grav [...]l, middling Sand, and fine Sand, are here in England, as far as Mr. Harris has [Page 83]tryed them, alike specifically heavy, which I will not dispute; yet it proves nothing against what Scilla has asserted. Mr. Har­ris knows every thing is an Individual in Nature; unless he had weighed the Messi­nese Sand, he could not be positive: and tho Scilla be no Philosopher, yet he is a Painter, and such Men usually have pretty quick Eyes, and can tell whether fine Sand or Gravel lies uppermost, when they view the broken Cliff of a Hill.

The other Dispute which Mr. Harris is engaged in is nothing to my purpose: whether Dr. Woodward has taken from Scilla or no concerns not me, who never said he did. Perhaps he never saw the Book till after he had seen the Abstract. Those that have read his Essay and Scilla, even in this Abstract, will be able to judge how useful Scilla might have been to him had he consulted him. Our Italian clear­ly proves that the various Echini, Glosso­petrae, Bastoncini di San Paolo, Oyster-shells, Cockles, Turbens, Scallops, &c. which were found in the Hills of Sicily and Calabria, and in Malta, were actually Exuviae and Spoils of those Marine Bodies which they resembled: and this he shews by compa­ring them with their Originals with great Niceness. To a Man who lives in Eng­land, [Page 84]where many of those Animals are rarely if ever seen, such Hints are of great use. And tho an Author is doubtful and reserved in his Solutions of these perplex'd Phoenomena; yet when he is sure of his Conclusions, and gives good and substan­tial Reasons why he is so, his Observati­ons will be valuable to all those who write upon that Argument, let their own Stock of Observations be never so great. If Dr. Woodward received his first notice of Scilla from my Abstract, (as I had then rea­son to believe, since he never quoted nor named him in his Essay) I shall think I did him a Kindness; and tho Mr. Harris seems to insinuate the contrary, yet I shall suppose that Dr. Woodward himself thinks I have obliged him, because he will be sen­sible that he is not singular, and it is a Pleasure to every inquisitive Man to find that other Men, by the same Assistances of Nature and Observation, have made the same Conclusions with himself. I am