REFLECTIONS, _&c._

Sir,

I Receiv’d the Honour of your Letter, with the Book you was pleas’d to

send me, containing an Examination of _the Theory of the Earth:_ And,

according as you desire, I shall give you my Thoughts of it, in as

narrow a Compass as I can. The Author of the _Theory_, you know, hath

set down in three Propositions, the Foundation of the whole Work; and so

long as those Propositions stand firm, the Substance of the _Theory_ is

safe, whatsoever becomes of particular Modes of Explication in some

Parts; which are as Problems, and may be explained several Ways, without

prejudice to the Principles upon which the _Theory_ stands.

The Theorist takes but one single Postulatum, _viz._ That the _Earth

rose from a Chaos:_ This is not call’d into Question; and this being

granted, he lays down three Propositions consecutively. First, _That the

primitive or ante-diluvian Earth was of a different Form and

Construction from the present Earth_. Secondly, _That the Face of that

Earth, as it rose from a Chaos, was smooth, regular and uniform; without

Mountains or Rocks, and without an open Sea_. Thirdly, _That the

Disruption of the Abyss, or Dissolution of that primeval Earth, and its

Fall into the Abyss, was the Cause of the universal Deluge, and of the

Destruction of the old World_: As also of the irregular Form of the

present Earth.

These are the three Fundamental Propositions laid down in the fourth,

fifth and sixth Chapters of the _Theory_. And for a farther Proof and

Confirmation of them, especially of the last, another Proposition is

added (_Chap._ VII.) in these Words, _The present Form and Structure of

the Earth, both as to the Surface, and as to the interior Parts of it,

so far as they are accessible and known to us, do exactly answer to the

foregoing Theory, concerning the Form and Dissolution of the first

Earth, and is not so justly explained to any other Hypothesis yet

known._ This is offer’d as a Proof _à Posteriori_, as they call it, or

from the Effects; to shew the Consent and Agreement of the Parts and

Construction of the present Earth, to that Supposition of its being a

sort of Ruin, or the Effect and Remains of a Disruption or Dissolution.

And to make this good, the Theorist draws a short Scheme of the general

Form of the present Earth, and its Irregularity: Then shews more

particularly the Marks or Signatures of Ruin or Disruption in several

Parts of it; as in Mountains and Rocks, in the great Chanel of the Sea,

and in subterraneous Cavities, and other broken and disfigur’d Parts of

the Earth.

These Conclusions, with their Arguments, are the Sum and principal

Contents of the first Book; but I must also mind you of a Corollary in

the second Book, drawn from these primary Propositions, which concerns

the Situation of the primitive Earth: For the Theorist supposes, that

the Posture of that Earth, or of its Axis, was not oblique to to the

Axis of the Sun, or of the Ecliptick, as it is now, but lay parallel

with the Axis of the Sun, and perpendicular to the Plane of the

Ecliptick; by reason of which Position, there was a perpetual Spring, or

perpetual Equinox, in that primitive Earth. This, tho’ a Consequence

only from the first Propositions, I thought fit to mind you of, as being

one of the peculiar and distinguishing Characters of this _Theory_.

This being the State of the _Theory_, or of those Parts of it that

support the rest, and wherein its Strength consists, he that will attack

it to purpose, must throw down, in the first Place, these leading

Propositions. If the Examiner had taken this Method, and confuted the

Proofs that are brought in Confirmation of each of them, he needed have

done no more; for the Foundation being destroyed, the Superstructure

would fall of its own accord. But if, instead of this, you only pick out

a loose Stone here or there, or strike off a Pinacle, this will not

weaken the Foundation, nor have any considerable Effect upon the whole

Building. Let us therefore consider, in the first Place, what this

Examiner hath said against these fundamental Propositions, and

accordingly you will better judge of the rest of his Work.

His first Chapter is to shew, that the Deluge might be made by a

Miracle: But whoever denied that? No doubt God by his Omnipotency may do

whatsoever he pleases, to the utmost Extent of Possibilities. But he

does not tell us wherein this Miracle consisted? Doth he suppose that

the Deluge could be made without any Increase of Waters upon the Earth?

If there was an Increase of Waters, either they were created a-new, or

brought thither from some other Part of the Universe: So far is plain;

and if he supposes a new Creation of Waters for this Purpose, and an

Annihilation of them again at the end of the Flood, it had been fair to

have answered the Arguments that are given against that Hypothesis, in

the third Chapter of the _English Theory_. And seeing there is no

mention made of any such thing in the sacred History, if he asserts it,

he must bring some Proof of his Assertion; for we are not upon such

Terms, as to trust upon bare Word. On the other Hand, if he proceed upon

such Waters as were already in being, and for his purpose either bring

down supercelestial Water, or bring subterraneous, he must tell us what

those Waters are, and must answer such Objections as are brought against

either sort in the second and third Chapters of the _Theory_; we must

have some fix’d Point, some Mark to aim at, if the Case be argued. Upon

the whole, I think this his first Chapter might have been spar’d, as

either affirming nothing particularly, or giving no Proof of what is

affirm’d.

In his next Chapter about the _Chaos_, I was in hopes to have found

something more considerable, but (besides his long _excerpta_ out of the

_Theory_, both here and elsewhere, which make a good part of his Book) I

find nothing but two small Objections against the Formation of the first

Earth, as it is describ’d by the Theorist. This Examiner says, _p. 37,

38._ That the little earthy Particles of the Chaos would not swim upon

the Surface of Oil, or any such unctuous Liquor; for how little soever,

yet being earthy, and Earth being heavier than Oil, they must descend

through it. But he grants that Dust will swim upon Oil; and I willingly

allow, if these descending Parts were _huge Lumps of solid Matter_, such

as we shall meet with in his next Chapter, they would easily break

through both the Oil and the Water under it; but that little tenuious

Particles or small Dust should swim upon Oil, I think is no wonder: And

he is so kind as to note an Instance of this himself; and to subjoin his

Reasons for it. We see Dust, saith he, _p. 38, 39._ though specifically

heavier than Oil, yet not to sink when cast upon it. And the Reason is,

because all terrestrial Bodies, tho’ fluid in their kind yet in some

degree resist Separation; and consequently, I add, viscous Liquors which

have some sort of Entanglement amongst themselves, resist Separation

more than others. Then he remarks farther, that according as Bodies are

less, they have more Surface in Proportion to their Bulk, and

consequently, that _small Bodies, whose Weight or Force to separate the

Parts of the Fluid is but very little, may have a Surface so large, that

they cannot overcome the Resistance of the Fluid: That is, they cannot

make Way for their Descent through the Fluid, and therefore must swim

upon the Surface of it_. Be it so, then the Particles here mentioned by

the Theorist, being little, and of large Surfaces in Proportion to their

Bulk, would swim upon the Surface of the Fluid, or mix with it, which is

all the Theorist affirms or supposes: And as this tender Film grew into

a Crust, and that into a solid Arch, the Parts of it would mutually

support one another; the Concave Superficies of the Orb overspreading

and leaning upon the Waters: And this also shews that his Instance of a

solid Globe sinking in a Fluid, is little to the Purpose in this Case.

But he hath a second objection behind, _p._ 40. or another Consideration

to prove that those little Particles would pierce and pass through this

oily Liquid. This Consideration is, the great Height of the Place from

which they descended; whereby, he thinks, they would acquire such a

Celerity and Force in their Descent, that they must needs break through

this Orb of oily Liquors when they came at it. But this is to suppose

that they descended without Interruption, or without having their Course

stopp’d, and their Force broken in several Parts of their journey. This

is an arbitrary and groundless Supposition: For these floating Particles

did not fall like a Stone, or a ponderous Body, in one continued Line,

but rather like Fleaks of Snow, hovering and playing in the Air, their

Course being often interrupted and diverted, and their force broken

again and again, before they came to the end of their Journey; so that

this Suggestion can be of no Force or Effect in the present Case.

However, if that will gratify him, we can allow that thousands and

millions of these little Particles might slip or creep through this

clammy Liquor, yet there would enough of them entangled there to make

it, first, a gross Liquid, then a sort of Concretion, so as to stop the

succeeding Particles from passing through it.

I have done with all that is argumentative in this Chapter: But this

Writer is pleased to go sometimes out of his way of Philosophising, to

make Reflections of another kind. Accordingly, here and elsewhere he

makes Insinuations and Suggestions, as if the Theorist did not own the

Hand of Providence, or of a particular and extraordinary Providence in

the Formation of the Earth; or as if all Things in the great Revolutions

of the natural World were carried on solely by material and mechanical

Causes. This Suggestion ought to be taken Notice of, as being contrary

to the Sense of the Theorist, as it is express’d in several Places. In

speaking of the Motions of the Chaos, the Theorist makes the _steady

Hand of Providence which keeps all Things in Weight and Measure, to be

the invisible Guide of all its Motions_, p. 45. And in concluding his

Discourse about the Formation of the Earth (_Chap._ V. _p._ 45.) the

Theorist says, _This Structure is so marvellous, that it ought rather to

be consider’d, as a particular Effect of the Divine Art, than as the

Work of Nature_; with many other Remarks there to the same purpose. Then

as to the Dissolution of the Earth, and the Conduct of the Deluge, ’tis

made miraculous also by the Theorist[22]: And upon that Occasion an

Account is given of Providence, both ordinary and extraordinary, in

reference to the Government of Nature; and that not only as to the

formation and Dissolution of the Earth, but also as to its Conflagration

and Renovation: For the Theorist always puts those great Revolutions

under the particular Conduct and Moderation of Providence. Lastly, As to

the whole Universe, he is far from making that the Product either of

_Chance_ or _Necessity_, or of any purely material or mechanical Causes;

as you may see at large in the two last Chapters of the _Theory_, _Book_

II. So that what this Author hath said (rudely enough, according to his

Way) of _Mr. Wotton_, _Introd._ _p._ 15. that _he either understands no

Geometry, or else that he never read_ D.C. _his Principles_, may with a

little Change be apply’d to himself in this Case, that either he never

read over, or does not remember, or, which is still worse, does wilfully

misrepresent what the Theorist hath wrote upon this Subject. The Sum of

all is this, _Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in

superfluis_: God is the God of Nature; and the Laws of Nature are his

Laws: These we are to follow so far as they will go, and where they fall

short, we must rise to higher Principles; but we ought not to introduce

a needless Exercise of the divine Power, for a Cover to our Ignorance.

To conclude this Chapter, I will leave one Advertisement with the

Examiner concerning the Chaos. When he speaks of the World’s rising from

the _Mosaick_ Chaos, if by _World_ he understand the whole Universe, as

he seems to do; not this inferior World only, but the fix’d Stars also,

and all the Heavens: If that, I say, be his Meaning and Opinion, he will

meet with other Opponents besides the Theorist, that will contest that

Point with him.

We come now to the third Chapter, concerning the _Mountains_ of the

Earth, which is a subject indeed that deserves Consideration, seeing it

reaches to the three fundamental Propositions before mentioned, and the

Form of the ante-diluvian Earth; which Form the Examiner would have to

be the same with that of the present Earth, to have had Mountains and

Rocks, an open Chanel of the Sea, with all the Cavities and

Irregularities within or without the Surface of it, as at present. If he

can prove this, he needs go no farther; he may spare his Pains for the

rest: I’ll undertake that the Theorist shall make no farther Defence of

his Theory, if the Examiner can make good Proof of this one Conclusion.

But, on the other Hand, the Examiner ought to be so ingenuous as to

acknowledge that all that he hath said besides, till this be prov’d, can

be of little or no Effect, as to the Substance of the Theory. Let us

then consider how he raises Mountains and Rocks, and gives us an Account

of all the other Inequalities that we find in the present Form of the

Earth, by an immediate Formation or Deduction from the Chaos.

To shew this, he supposes, _p._ 49, 51. that the Chaos had Mountains and

Rocks swimming in it, or, according to his Expression, _huge Lumps of

solid Matter_. These are Things, I confess, which I never heard of

before in a Chaos; which hath been always describ’d and suppos’d a Mass

of fluid Matter all over. But this Author confidently says, p. 48. _We

must conclude THEREFORE, that the Chaos was not so fluid a Mass, &c._

This _therefore_ refers us to an antecedent Reason, which is this; he

says, _ibid._ to make the Chaos an entirely fluid Mass is hard to be

granted, _since the greatest Parts of Bodies we have in the Earth, at

least so far as we can discern, are hard and solid, and there is not

such a Quantity of Water in the Earth, as would be requisite to soften

and liquify them all; besides a great part of them, as Stones and

Metals, are uncapable of being liquified by Water_. Very good, what is

this to the _Theory_? Does the Theorist any where affirm or suppose that

there were Stones or Metals in the Chaos; or that they were liquified by

Water? This must refer to some Hypothesis of his own, or to some other

Author’s Hypothesis that ran in his Mind: The Theorist owns no such

Doctrine or Supposition.

However, let’s consider how this new Idea of a Chaos is consistent with

the Laws of Nature: What made these _huge Lumps of solid Matter_,

whether Stone or Metal, to swim in the fluid Mass? This is against all

Rules of Gravity, and of Staticks, as he seems to acknowledge, and urged

it when he thought it to his Purpose. In the precedent Chapter (_p._

42.) when he speaks of Stones and Minerals, he says, _’Tis certain that

these great heavy Bodies must have sunk to the Bottom, if they were left

to themselves_: And he that will not allow Dust or little earthy

Particles, to float upon an oily Liquor, I wonder how he will make, not

little Particles, but these huge solid Lumps of Stone, Metals, or

Minerals, to float in the Chaos.

He seems to own and be sensible of this Inconvenience, (_p._ 50) and

thereupon finds an Expedient or Evasion which a lesser Wit would not

have thought on. He supposes, _p._ 51 that these _huge_ firm solid Lumps

were hollow, like empty Bottles, and that would keep them from sinking.

But who told him they were hollow? Is not this precarious? Or, if one

would use such Terms as he does, is not this _chymerical and

ridiculous_? What made those solid firm Lumps hollow? When, or where, or

how were their inward Parts scrap’d out of them? Nor would this

Hollowness, however they came by it, make them swim, unless there was a

mere Vacuum in each of them. If they were filled with the liquid Matter

of the Chaos, they would indeed be lighter than if wholly solid; but

they would still be heavier than any equal Bulk of the fluid Chaos, and

consequently would sink in it; the Preponderancy that would arise from

the Shell or solid Part still remaining.

Now let’s consider how such Mountains, or long Ridges of Mountains as we

have upon the Earth, were formed and settled by these floating Lumps. He

says, _p._ 50, 51. _Part of these Lumps or Masses standing out, or being

higher than the Fluid, would compose a Mountain_, as there are

_Mountains of Ice that float upon the Northern Seas_. But are not

Mountains of Rock and Stone, such as ours commonly are, heavier than

Mountains of Ice, that is specifically lighter than Water? This might

have been consider’d by the Examiner in drawing the Parallel: And still

I’m at a Loss what _Fluid_ it is he means, when he says, These Lumps or

Masses _standing out, or being higher than the Fluid_. Does he mean by

this Fluid the Whole Chaos? Did these Mountains stand at the Top of the

Chaos, partly within, and partly above it? Then what drew them down

below, if they stood equally pois’d there in their Fluid, and as high as

the Moon, if the Chaos reach’d so high. This, one would think, could not

be his Meaning, ’tis so extravagant; and yet there was no other Fluid

than the general Chaos, till that was divided and distinguish’d into

several Masses. Then, indeed, there was an Abyss, or Region of Waters

that covered the interior Earth, and was separate from the Air above.

Let us then suppose this Abyss to be the Waters or Fluid this Author

means, upon which his Mountains stood; then the rest of the Earth, as it

came to be form’d, must be continu’d and join’d with these Mountains,

and in like Manner laid over the Waters; so as in this Method, you see,

we should have an Orb of Earth built over the Abyss. This is a very

favourable Stroke for the Theorist, and grants him in Effect his

principal Conclusion, _viz._ That the _first ante diluvian Earth was

built over the Abyss_: This being admitted, there could be no universal

Deluge without a Disruption of that Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss,

which is a main Point gain’d. And ’tis plain we make no false Logick in

collecting this from his Principles and Concessions: For, as we said

before, if these Mountains were founded upon the Abyss, they must have a

Continuity and Conjunction with the rest of the Surface of the Earth, if

they were such as our Mountains are now, and so all the habitable Earth

must be spread upon the Abyss.

But still he hath another Difficulty to encounter, how the great Chanel

of the Sea was made upon this Supposition: Why was not that Part of the

Globe fill’d up by the Descent of the earthy Particles of the Chaos as

well as the rest? The Chanel of the Ocean is commonly suppos’d to take

up half of the Globe, how came this gaping Gulph to remain unfill’d,

seeing it was encompass’d with the Chaos as well as any other Parts? Was

the Motion of the Particles suspended from descending upon that Part of

the Globe; or were they fill’d up at first, and afterwards thrown out

again to make room for the Sea? This may deserve his Consideration, as

well as the Mountains: And how dextrous soever this Author may be in

other Things I know not, but, in my Mind, he hath no good Hand in making

Mountains; and I’m afraid he would have no better Success in forming the

Chanel of the Sea, which he is wisely pleased to take no Notice of.

And indeed the Examiner seems to be sensible himself that he hath no

good Luck in assigning the _efficient Causes_ of Mountains from the

Chaos, and therefore he is willing to bear off from that Point, and to

lay the whole Stress upon their _final Causes_, without any regard to

their Origin, or how they came first into being. His Words are these,

_p._ 52. _But supposing the efficient Causes of Mountains unknown, or

impossible to be assign’d, yet still there remain the final Causes to be

enquir’d into, which will do as well for our Purpose_, with what follows

there concerning those Authors that exclude final Causes. If there be

such Authors, let them answer for themselves, the Theorist is not

concern’d. Grant the first Point, that Mountains could not arise from

any known efficient Causes in the first Concretion of the Chaos, or in

the first habitable Earth that rose from it, the Theorist readily allows

(as appears fully in the two last Chapters of the second Book of the

_Eng. Theor._) the Use of final Causes in the Contemplation of Nature,

as being great Arguments of the Wisdom and Goodness of God. But this

ought not to exclude the efficient Causes in a _Theory_, otherwise it

would be no _Theory_, but a Work of another Nature. Though a Man knew

the final Cause of a Watch or Clock, namely, to tell him the Hour of the

Day, yet, if he did not know the Construction of its Parts, what was the

Spring of Motion, what the Order of the Wheels, and how they mov’d the

Hand of the Dial, he could not be said to understand that little

Machine; or at least not to understand it so well as he that knew the

Construction and Dependence of all its Parts, in virtue whereof that

Effect was brought to pass. In many Cases we do not understand the final

Causes, and in many we do not understand the efficient; but,

notwithstanding, we must endeavour, so far as we are able, to join and

understand them both; the End and the Means to it: For by the one, as

well as the other, the divine Power and Wisdom are illustrated; and

seeing every Effect hath its efficient Cause, if we cannot reach it, we

must acknowledge our Speculations to be so far imperfect.

After this Excursion about final Causes, he concludes, _p._ 54. _That it

is impossible to subsist or live without Rocks or Mountains_;

consequently no Earth is habitable without Rocks and Mountains. But how

can he tell this? Hath he been all over the Universe to make his

Observations? or hath he had a Revelation to tell him that there is no

one habitable Planet throughout all the Works of God, but what is of the

same Form with our Earth as to Rocks and Mountains. Who hath ever

observ’d Mountains and Rocks in _Jupiter_, or in the Remains of

_Saturn_? I should think such a general Assertion as he makes, a bold

and unwarrantable Limitation of the divine Omniscience and Omnipotency.

Who dares conclude that the infinite Wisdom and Power of God is confin’d

to one single Mode or Fabrick of an habitable World? We know there are

many Planets about our Sun besides this Earth, and of different

Positions and Constructions: Neither do we know but there may be as many

about other Suns, or fix’d Stars: Must we suppose that they are all cast

in the same Mold? that they are all formed after the Model of our Earth,

with Mountains and Rocks, and Gulphs and Caverns?

_Urbem, quam dicunt Romam, Melibœe, putavi

Stultus ego, huic nostræ similem._

This was the Judgment of the Shepherd, who could imagine nothing

different, or nothing better than his own Town or Village; those may

imitate him that please. ’Tis true, _Suum cuique pulchrum_, is an usual

Saying, but we think that to proceed from Fondness rather, and

Self-Conceit, than from a true and impartial Judgment of Things. In

contemplating the Works of God, we ought to have Respect to his Almighty

and Infinite Wisdom, τῆν πολυπαίκιλον σοφίαν, _multiformem sapientiam

Dei_, rather than to the Measures of our own Experience and

Understanding. We may remember how an[23] Heathen hath upbraided and

derided that Narrowness of Spirit, _Quæ tantæ sunt animi angustiæ, ut si

Seryphi natus esses, nec unquam egrossus ex Insulá, in quâ Lepusculos

Vulpeculasque sæpe vidisses, non crederes Leones & Pantheras esse, cúm

tibi quales essent diceretur: Si verò de Elephanto quis diceret, etiam

rideri te putares._ We may as well say, that there can be no Animals of

another Form from those we have upon this Earth, as that there can be no

Worlds, or habitable Earths of another Form and Structure from the

present Earth. _An quicquam tam puerile dici potest_, says the same

Author, _quám si ea genera belluarum quæ in Rubro mari, Indiâve

gignantur, nulla esse dicamus? Atqui ne curiosissimi quidem homines

exquirendo andire tam multa possunt, quam sunt multa quæ Terræ, Mari,

Paludibus, Fluminibus existunt; quæ negemus esse quia nunquam vidimus?_

I mention such Instances to shew, that ’tis Rashness or Folly, to

confine the Varieties of Providence and Nature, to the narrow Compass of

what we have seen, or of what falls under our Imagination. This is a

more _strange and assuming Boldness_, as he terms it, _p._ 54 than what

he ascribes to the Theorist for saying, We can observe no Order in the

Situation of Mountains, nor Regularity in their Form and Shape. If the

Examiner knows any, why does he not tell us what it is, and wherein it

consists? Is it necessary that Mountains should be exact Pyramids or

Cones, or any of the regular Bodies? or rang’d upon the Earth in Rank

and File, or in a quincuncial Order, or like pretty Garden-Knots? If

they had been design’d for Beauty, this might have done well; but

Providence seems on Purpose to have left these Irregularities in their

Figure and Site, as Marks and Signatures to us, that they are the

Effects of a Ruin.

But to shew farther and more particularly the Necessity of Mountains,

the Examiner says, _p._ 55. and 61. Without them ’tis impossible there

should be Rivers, or without Rivers an habitable World. Neither of these

Propositions seems to me to be sure; they run still upon

Impossibilities, which is a nice Topick, and lies much out of our Reach.

I think Vapours may be condens’d other Ways than by Mountains, and an

Earth might be so fram’d, as to give a Course to Rivers, though there

were no particular Mountains, if the general Figure of it was higher in

one Part than another. Then as to the absolute Necessity of Rivers, to

make an Earth habitable, that is questionable too. We are told by good

Authors, of some Countries or Islands that have no Rivers or Springs,

and yet are habitable and fruitful, being water’d by Dews. This may give

us an Advertisement, from a Part to the Whole, that an Earth may be made

habitable without Rivers. If at first Vapours ascended, and fell down in

Dews, so as to _water the whole Face of the Earth_, _Gen._ ii. 6. God

might, if he had pleas’d, have continued the same Course of Nature. And

it is the Opinion of many Interpreters, and seems to have been an

antient Tradition, that there was no Rain till the Deluge. If there was

no Rainbow in the first Earth, (which I think the Theorist hath

undeniably prov’d, _Theor._ _Book_ II. _c._ 5.) it will be hard to prove

that there were then any watery Clouds in the habitable Parts of the

Earth. And our best[24] Observators will allow no Clouds or Rains in the

Moon, (and some of them no Rivers,) yet will not suppose the Moon

unhabitable. To conclude, ’tis a great Vanity to say no worse, for

short-sighted Creatures, and of narrow Understandings, to prescribe to

Providence what is necessary and indispensable to the Frame and Order of

an habitable World.

We proceed to his fourth Chapter; which is to shew the Inconveniencies

that would fall upon the Inhabitants of the Earth, in case it had such a

Posture as the Theorist hath assign’d to the ante-diluvian Earth:

Namely, that its Axis was parallel to the Axis of the Ecliptick, or

perpendicular to its Plane, and not oblique as it stands now. But will

this Author vouch, that there are no habitable Planets in the Universe,

or even about our Sun, that have this Posture which he blames so much?

_Jupiter_ is known to have a perpetual Equinox, and his Axis parallel to

the Axis of the Ecliptick; and _Mars_ hath little or no Obliquity that

is observable. And must this be a Reflection upon Providence? Or must we

suppose, that these Planets have no Inhabitants, or that their

Habitations are very bad and incommodious? _Jupiter_ is the noblest

Planet we have in our Heaven, whether you consider its Magnitude, or the

Number of its Attendants. If then a Planet of that Order and Dignity,

have such a Position and Aspect to the Sun, why might not our Earth have

had the same, proper to that State, and agreeable to the Divine Wisdom?

Yet he is so bold as to say, or suppose, _p._ 66. That _this cannot well

agree with the infinite Wisdom of its Maker_; as if he was able to make

a Measure or Standard for all the Works of God. ’Tis a crude and

injudicious Thing, from a few Particulars, the rest unknown, to make an

universal Conclution, which forward Wits are apt to do. Πρὸς ὀλίγα

ἐπιθλεψάμενετ.—_Ad pauca respiciens, facile pronuncias_, was

_Aristotle_’s Observation of old, and it holds in all Ages.

This Examiner, _p._ 76. censures the Theorist very rudely, for making

use of _physical Causes_, and not arguing from _final Causes_, which, he

says, _are the true Principles of natural Philosophy_. But, if this be

the Use he makes of final Causes, to tell God Almighty what is best to

be done, in this or that World, I had rather content myself with

_physical Causes_, to know what God hath done, and conclude it to be the

best, and that we should judge it so, if we had the same Extent of

Thought and Prospect its Maker had. There are indeed some _final Causes_

that are so manifest, that I should think it Sottishness or Obstinacy

for a Man to deny them; but I should also think that Man presumptuous,

that should pretend to draw the Scheme and Plan of every World, from his

Idea of _final Causes_. There are some Men that mightily cry out against

_Reason_, yet none more fond of it than they are, when they can get it

on their Side: So some Men inveigh against _physical Causes_, when

others make use of them, and yet as gladly as any make use of them

themselves, when they can make them serve their Purpose; and when they

cannot reach them, then they despise them, and are all for _final

Causes_. This Author says, _p._ 63. God always _chuses such

Constitutions and Positions of Things, as bring with them the greatest

Good and Utility to the Universe_. Very true, to the _Universe_? but who

made him judge what is best to the Universe? Does he look upon this

Earth as the Universe, whereof it is but a small Particle, or an Atom in

comparison? Must there be no Variety in the numberless Worlds which God

hath made? Must they all be one and the same Thing repeated again and

again? That I’m sure does not _well agree with the infinite Wisdom and

Power of God_.

But suppose we did confine our Thoughts to this Earth, we may be assur’d

that it hath undergone and will undergo, within the Compass of its

Duration, very different States, and yet all accommodate to Providence.

Those that suppose the Heavens and the Earth never to have had any other

Constitution and Construction than what they have now, or that there

hath never been any great Change and Revolution in our natural World,

follow the very Doctrine which St. _Peter_ opposes and confutes in his

_second Epistle_, Chap. 3. I mean the Doctrine of those _Scoffers_, as

he calls them, who said, _All Things_, the Heavens and the Earth, _have

remained in the same State they are in now, from the Beginning_, or from

the Creation, and are to continue so. In Confutation of this Opinion,

St. _Peter_ there minds them of the Change made at the Deluge, and of

the different Constitution and Construction of the Heavens and the

Earth, before and after the Deluge, whereby they were dispos’d to

undergo a different Fate, one by Water, and the other by Fire. And he

tells us in the same Place, that after the Conflagration, there will be

_new Heaven_; and a _new Earth_: So that there is no one fix’d and

permanent State even of this Earth, according to the Will and Wisdom of

Providence. But enough hath been said by the Theorist upon this Subject

(_Theor. Lat._ _l._ 1. _c._ 1 & 2. _Review_, p. 160. _&c._ _Archæol._

_l._ 2. _c._ 3, 5, 6.) And if they will not consider the Arguments

propos’d there, ’twould be in vain to repeat them here.

These Things premis’d, let’s consider what Inconveniencies are alledged,

or what Arguments against that Equality of Seasons, or the grand Cause

of them, the Parallelism of the Axis of the Earth, with the Axis of the

Sun. He says, upon this Supposition, there is more Heat now in the

Climates of the Earth, than could have been then. And what if there be?

Whether his Computation (which is aim’d against another Author) be true

or false, ’tis little to the _Theory_: If the Heat was equal and

moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates, who would desire the

extreme Heats of Summer? But he says, _p._ 66. That Heat would not be

sufficient for the Generation of Vegetables. How does that appear?

supposing that Heat constant throughout the whole Year. Does he think

there are no Vegetables in _Jupiter_, which hath still the same Position

the Theorist gave to the ante-diluvian Earth. And as to Heat, that

Planet is at vastly a greater Distance from the Sun than our Earth, and

consequently hath so much less Heat; yet I cannot believe that great

Planet to be only a huge Lump of bald and barren Earth. As to our

ante-diluvian Earth, ’tis probable that the Constitution of Plants and

Animals, was different then from what it is now, as their Longevity was

different, to which any Excesses of Heat or Cold are noxious; and the

Frequency and Multiplicity of Generations and Corruptions in the present

Earth, is Part of that Vanity to which it was subjected. But this

Examiner says moreover, If the first Earth had that Position, the

greatest Part of it would not be habitable. But how much less habitable

would it be than the present Earth? where the open Sea, which was not

then, takes up half of its Surface, and makes it unhabitable. ’Tis

likely the torrid Zone was unhabitable in that Earth; but ’tis probable

the Poles or Polar Parts were more habitable than they are now, seeing

they would have the Sun, or rather Half-Sun perpetually in their

Horizon: And as to the temperate Climates, as we call them, they would

be under such a gentle and constant Warmth, as would be more grateful to

the Inhabitants, and more proper and effectual for a continual Verdure

and Vegetation, than any Region of the present Earth is now.

But this Objector does not consider, on the other hand, what an hard

Life they would lead in those Days, at least in many Parts of the Earth,

if the Seasons of the Year were the same they are now, and they confin’d

to Herbs, Fruits, and Water; for that was the Diet of Mankind till the

Deluge. Should we not think it an unmerciful Imposition now, to be

interdicted the Use of Flesh-Meat all the Year long? Or rather is it

possible that the Life of Man could be supported by Herbs and Fruits,

and Water in the colder Climates, where the Winters are so long and

barren, and the Cold so vehement? But, if you suppose a perpetual Spring

throughout the Earth, the Heavens mild, and the Juices of Fruits and

Plants more nutritive, that Objection would cease, and their Longevity

be more intelligible.

We come now to the Causes of the Change in the Posture of the Earth,

where the Theorist hath set down his Conjectures, what he thought the

most probable to be the Occasion of it: Namely, either some Inequality

in the Libration of the Earth, after it was dissolved and broken; or a

Change in the Magnetism of its Body, consequent upon its Dissolution,

and the different Situation of its Parts. But this Examiner will neither

allow any Change to have been made in the Position of the Earth since

the Beginning of the World; nor, if there was a Change, that it could be

made from such Causes. The first of these Points you see is Matter of

Fact; and so it must be prov’d, partly by History, and partly by Reason.

Some Things are noted before, which argue that the ante-diluvian Earth

was different from the present, in its Frame and Constitution, as also

in reference to the Heavens; and the Places are referred to, where the

Matter is treated more largely by the Theorist. If it be granted, that

there was a permanent Change made in the State of Nature at the Deluge,

or any other Time, but deny’d that it was made by a Change of the

Situation of the Earth, and the Consequences of it, then this Writer

must assign some other Change made, which would have the same Effects;

that is, which will answer and agree with the Phænomena of the first

Earth, and also of the present. When this is done, if it be clear and

convictive, we must acquiesce in it: But I do not see that it is so much

as attempted by this Author.

This suppos’d Change, I say, is Matter of Fact, and therefore we must

consult History and Reason for the Proof or Disproof of it. As to

History, the Theorist hath cited to this Purpose _Leucippus_,

_Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, _Empedocles_, _Plato_ and _Diogenes_. These

were the most renowned Philosophers amongst the Antients; and all these

speak of an Inclination of the Earth or the Poles, which hath been made

in former Ages. These, one would think, might be allow’d as good

Witnesses of a former Tradition concerning a Change in the Situation of

the Earth, when nothing is brought against them. And this Change is

particularly call’d by _Plato_ ἀναρμοσία or ἀνωμαλία, a Disharmony or

Disconcerting of the Motions of the Heavens, which he makes the Source

and Origin of the present Evils and Inconveniencies of Nature. Besides,

he dates this Change from the Expiration of the Reign of _Saturn_, or

when _Jupiter_ came to take the Government upon him: And this, you know,

in the Style of those Times, signifies the End of the Golden Age. Thus

far _Plato_ carries the Tradition: Now, the Poets tell us expressly that

there was a _perpetual Spring_, or a perpetual Equinox in the Time of

_Saturn_, and that the Inequality of the Year, or the Diversity of

Seasons was first introduc’d by _Jupiter_. The Authors and Places are

known and noted by the Theorist; I need not repeat them here. You see

what this Evidence amounts to, both that there hath been a Change, and

such a Change, as alter’d the Course of the Year, and brought in a

Vicissitude of Seasons; and this according to the Doctrines or

Traditions remaining amongst the Heathens. The _Jews_ and _Christians_

say the same Thing, but in another Manner: They do not speak of the

Golden Age, nor of the Reign of _Saturn_ or _Jupiter_, but of the State

of Paradise, or _Gan-Eden_; and concerning that, they say the same

Things, which the Heathen Authors say, in different Words. The _Jews_

make a perpetual Equinox in Paradise, the _Christians_ a perpetual

Serenity, a perpetual Spring; and this cannot be without a different

Situation of the Earth from what it hath now. He may see the Citations

if he please, in the _Theory_, or _Archæologia_.

It were to be wish’d, that this Examiner would look a little into

Antiquity, when he hath Time: It may be, that would awaken him into new

Thoughts, and a more favourable Opinion of the Theory as to this

Particular. Give me leave to mind him in his own Way, what some antient

Astronomers have said relating to this Subject. _Baptista Mantuanus_,

speaking of the Longevity of the Ante-Diluvians, says, _Erant illis, ut

Astronomia & Experimento constat, Cœli propitiores; volunt namque

Astronomi_, _&c._ This he explains by an uniform and concentrical Motion

of the Heavens and the Earth, at that Time; to which he imputes the

great Virtue of their Herbs and Fruit, and the long Lives of their

Animals. _Petrus Aponensis_, who liv’d above an Age before _Mantuan_,

give us much what the same Account: For making an Answer to this

Question, _utrum natura humania sit debilitata ab eo quod antiquitus,

necne?_ He says, _Cum capita Zodiaci mobilis & immobilis ordinati &

directè concurrebant, tunc virtus perfectiori modò à primo principio per

medias causastaliter ordinatas fortiori modo imprimebatur in ista

inferiora, cum causæ tunc sib invicem correspondeant——Propter quod

concludendum est, tunc naturam humanam illo tempore, ut sic fortiorem &

longæviorem extitisse._ I give it in his own Words as they are in his

_Conciliator. Differ. 9._

_Georgius Pictorius_, or an Author under his Name, unto the same

Question about the Longevity of the Ante-diluvians, gives a like Answer

from the same Astronomer, in these Words: _Petrus Aponensis adsert

rationem, & pro vario cursu & dispositione coelorum modo vitam humanam

breviari, modo produci seribit. Ex Astronomiá argumentum colligens, cùm

ait duos Zodiacos, unum in noná sphærâ, alterum in octava (quam

Firmamentum vocani) in initio rerum & temporum, sic à Deo fuisse

dispositos, ut Aries Arieti, Taurus Tauro, Geminis Gemini jungerentur: &

amborum cocuntibus in unum viribus fortior in Terras fieret fluxus. Unde

herbas tunc salubriores & fructus terræ meliores, & longiores vitas

animantium fuisse affirmat. Sed dennò illá syderali dissolutá ab invicem

per motum societate, totum ait inferiorem mundum ægrotare, atque per

decrementum claudicare cæpisse._ This, you see, is Astronomy in an

old-fashion’d Dress; but you can easily take off the Disguise, and apply

it to the true System of the Heavens. The same Author refers you, for a

more full Explication of that Matter, to his _Lectiones succisivæ, Dial.

prim._ which Book I have not yet had an Opportunity to see. I believe it

is in his _Opera Philologica_, printed in _Octavo_ at _Basil_.

But since the first writing of the Theory, there have been _Æthiopick_

Antiquities produc’d from an Abyssine Philosopher, and transmitted to us

by _Francisco Patricio_ in his Dialogues. If that Account he gives of

the _Æthiopian Archæologia_ be true and genuine, they exceed all other

upon this Subject: for they do not only mention this Particular, of the

Unity of Seasons in the primitive Earth, but the other principal Parts

of the Theory: As the Concussion and Fraction of the Earth; that the

Face of it before was smooth and uniform, and upon that Disruption it

came into another Form, with Mountains, Rocks, Sea and Islands. These

and other such Characters are mentioned there, whereof the Examiner may

see an Account, if he please, in the last Edition of the _English

Theory_, p. 189. The Story indeed is surprizing, which way soever you

take it, whether it was the Invention of that Abyssine Philosopher, or a

real Tradition deriv’d from the _Æthiopian_ Gymnosophists. However that

be, there are otherwise such conspicuous Footsteps in philosophick

History, and in what may be call’d Ecclesiastick, amongst the _Jews_ and

_Christians_, of some Revolution in the System of the World, as must

give occasion to any thinking Man to suppose, that there hath been a

Change made in the Situation of the Earth. This, by some of the

forementioned Authors, is ascrib’d expresly to the Earth; and what by

others (according to their Hypothesis) is ascrib’d to the higher

Heavens, we know upon a just Interpretation belongs to the Earth. Those

also that ascribe such Phænomena to Paradise, or the Golden Age, as are

not intelligible upon any other Supposition, must also be referr’d to

this Change of the Site or Posture of the Earth: So that upon all

Accounts (mediately or immediately) the Matter of Fact, that the Earth

hath undergone such a Change, is testified by History, Antiquity and

Tradition. It deserves also to be observ’d, that there was a general

Tradition amongst the Antients, concerning the Inhabitability of the

Torrid Zone; which may be an Argument or Confirmation, that there was a

State of Nature at one time or other, when this was true, and that such

a general Opinion could not arise, and be continued so long without some

Foundation.

So much for History to determine Matter of Fact: Now as to Reason (which

we mentioned as the other Head, to prove or disprove this Conclusion.)

That the Form of the primitive Earth which is assign’d by the Theorist,

being suppos’d, namely, that it was regular, uniform, and had an equal

Libration, it would naturally take an even and parallel Position with

the Axis of its Orbit, or of the Ecliptick, as is set down more at large

in the Theory: Nor can any Reason be alledg’d to the contrary. ’Tis

true, this Examiner, _p. 83._ notwithstanding any Uniformity and

Equilibration of that Earth, pretends it would be indifferent to any

Position, or _retain any Position given, as a Sphere will do, put in a

Fluid_. This might be, if that Sphere or Globe was resting; but if it

was turn’d about its Axis, and the Axis of the Fluid (which is the

present Case) it would certainly take a Position parallel to the Axis of

its Fluid, if there was no other Impediment.

The Matter of Fact being settled with the Cause of it, what the Causes

of the Change were, is more problematical. The Philosophers forecited

gave their Reason; _Aristarchus Samius_ gives another, and a _Comet_ by

some is made the occasion of it: The Theorist thinks that the

Dissolution of the Earth was the fundamental Cause, and that the Change

came to pass at that time, as many Indications and Arguments shew. And

as to the immediate Cause or Causes of it, I know none more probable

than what the Theorist hath proposed; _Eng. Theor._ _p. 267._ Either the

Change of its Center of Gravity, or of its Magnetism; the Line of

Direction to those magnetick Particles, and their passing through the

Earth being so alter’d, as to turn the Earth into another Posture, and

hold it there. As to those Expressions that he seems to quarrel with, of

the Inclination of the Earth, or the Pole, towards the Sun, ’tis the

Expression of the antient Philosophers, tho’ I think it might more

properly be called an Obliquation. Then that the former State is called

_situs rectus_, is another Expression which he finds fault with; though

every one sees that a _right Situation_ in such Places, is opposed to an

_oblique_, or inclined Position to the Axis of the Sun or Ecliptick, and

had been called _parallel_ in several other Places; and which he

himself, _p. 71._ sometimes, as well as other Authors, call a right

Position. This is but trifling about Words: If he grants that the

primitive Earth being uniform, and consequently equally pois’d, its Axis

would be parallel (which for shortness, is sometimes call’d _right_) to

the Axis of its Orbit, and is now in a different and oblique Posture,

this is all the Theorist desires, as to Matter of Fact. I conceive the

whole Matter thus: When the Earth was in that even and parallel Posture

with the Axis of the Sun, it had a perpetual Equinox and Unity of

Seasons, the Equator and Ecliptick being coincident: And as to the

Heavens, they with the fix’d Stars mov’d or seem’d to move uniformly and

concentrically with the Earth. But when the Earth chang’d its Posture to

that which it hath now, the Year became unequal, and the Equator and

Ecliptick became distinct Circles, or, if you will, a new Circle arose

from the Distinction. The Earth in the mean time continuing its annual

Course in the Ecliptick, had the Position of its Axis chang’d to a

Parallelism with the Axis of the Equator, which it holds throughout the

whole Year. As to the Heavens, they seem’d to turn upon another Axis, or

other Poles than they did before, and different from those of the Sun or

the Earth: And this fundamental Change in the Site of the Earth, had a

farther Chain of Consequences, as is noted by the Theorist, in reference

to the State both of the animate and inanimate World, This is, in short,

the State of the Case, which is sometimes express’d in different Terms,

especially by the Antients, who generally followed another System of the

Heavens and the Earth, and were not always accurate in their

Expressions.

This Author would square and conform all the Planets to the Model of the

present Earth: Whereas there is _Diversity of Administrations_ in the

natural World, as well as spiritual, yet the same Providence every

where. The Axes of the Planets are not all parallel to that of the Sun,

nor all oblique; and those that are so, have not all the same Degrees of

Obliquity, yet we have Reason to think them all habitable. In some there

are no different Seasons of the Year, and in some they differ in another

manner than ours; and the Periods of their Years are very different. In

like manner, as to the Days, in some they are longer, in others shorter:

In the _Moon_ a Day lasts fourteen or fifteen of our Days, and their

Nights are proportionably longer than our Nights. In _Jupiter_, the Days

are but of five Hours, and so the Nights; that Planet being turned in

ten Hours about his Axis. In _Mercury_ we know little what the Seasons

or Days are, but its Year must be much shorter than ours; as also is

that of _Venus_; and their Heat from the Sun, must be much greater.

_Jupiter_ and _Saturn_ are at vast Distances from the Sun, and must

proportionably have less Heat; and _Saturn_ must have a greater

Difference of Summer and Winter than we have, by reason of his greater

Obliquity to the Sun. These and such like Observations, show what Vanity

it is to make an universal Standard from the State of our Earth: Or to

say, this is best, and to make Things otherwise, would be inconsistent

with the _infinite Wisdom of their Maker_, as this Examiner, _p. 66._

pretends to do.

But to return to his Objections: This he suggests, _ibid._ as one, that

in case of a perpetual Equinox, the annual Motion of the Earth about the

Sun would be to no Purpose. Of this we are no competent Judges, no more

than of the other Differences foremention’d in the Conditions of the

Planets. Yet, in that Case, a Distinction and Computation of Time might

be made, by their Aspect to the different Signs of the Zodiack. There

may be, (for any Thing we know,) in the Extent of the Universe, Planets,

or great opaque Bodies, that have no Course about their Suns, for

Reasons best known to their Maker; and others that have no diurnal

Motion about their Axes: Nor ought such States, tho’ very different from

ours, to be concluded incongruous. If this Objection of his were of any

Force, it would lie against _Jupiter_ as well as against the

ante-diluvian Earth. And this minds me of his Objection taken from

_Saturn_ and _Jupiter_, whose Axes, he says, are Inclined to the Axis of

the Ecliptick; and yet, according to the Theorist, they have suffer’d no

Deluge. This is an unhappy Argument, for I think it hath two Errors in

it: But let us set down his Words, that there may be no Mistake or

Misrepresentation, _p. 76._ _Another Argument which may be brought to

convince the Theorist that the Axis of the Earth was at first inclined

to the Plane of the Ecliptick is, that it is certain by Observation,

that Saturn and Jupiter (whom the Theorist will allow to have suffered

no Deluge as yet) have their Axes not perpendicular, but inclined to the

Planets of their Orbits; and the Position is true of all the other

Planets, as far as they can be observ’d. And therefore, &c._ First, as

to _Saturn_, I’m sure the Theorist never thought that Planet to be now

in its original Form, but to be broken, and to have already suffer’d a

Dissolution, as you may see in both Theories, _English_ and _Latin_[25].

Then as to the Position of _Jupiter_, I know not whence he has this

_certain_ Observation, that its Axis is oblique to the Plane of its

Orbit: For[26] _Hugenius_ tells us just the contrary, and that it hath a

perpetual Equinox. Let these Things be examin’d, and hereafter let us be

cautious how we take Things upon the Examiner’s Word, if he be found to

have committed two Faults in one Objection.

Farthermore, he intimates, (_p. 94._) that the Theorist hath no Mind to

the Notion of _Attraction_; I believe so too, nor in Philosophy to any

other Notion that is unconceivable. He must tell us how this

_Attraction_ differs from an _occult Quality_, whether it is a

mechanical Principle or no; and if not, from what Principle it arises.

When he hath told us this, we shall be better able to judge of it.

After all, to conclude this Chapter, the one grand Question with the

Theorist (whatsoever there may be with other Authors) is this, _whether_

the Earth has chang’d its Situation since the Beginning of the World:

And that it has done so, the Theorist does still positively maintain.

Having insisted more largely upon these four first Chapters, as being

most fundamental in the Controversy, we shall dispatch more readily this

fifth and the seventh, leaving the sixth Chapter to a more particular

Disquisition in the last Place.

This fifth Chapter is designed against the Rivers of the primitive

Earth, according to that Origin and Derivation that is given them by the

Theorist. But it is to be noted in the first Place, that supposing they

had any other Origin or Course than what is there assign’d (excepting

only an Origin from Mountains,) the _Theory_ continues still in Force.

For this Point about the Waters of the first Earth, and the Explication

of them, is one of those Explications that admit of Latitude and

Variety; and therefore as to the _Theory_, the Question is only this,

_Whether_ an habitable Earth may have Rivers without Mountains. For if

any Earth may have them without Mountains, why not the primitive Earth?

Now it will be hard for the Examiner, or any other, to prove, that in

every World, where there are Waters and Rivers, there are Mountains. We

intimated before, that the general Frame of an Earth might be such as

would give a Course to Waters without particular Mountains. But we will

leave that at present to a farther Consideration, and observe now what

his Proofs are, that there could be no Rivers in the primitive Earth.

First he says, _p. 87._ _According to the Theorist’s Own Hypothesis,

there could be no Rivers for a long Time after the Formation of the

Earth_. Where is this said by the Theorist? His Hypothesis supposes,

that the soft and moist Earth could not but afford Store of Vapours at

first, as this Author in another Place hath noted for the Sense of the

Theorist, (_p. 86._) and now he says the quite contrary: The Chanels of

the Rivers indeed would not be so deep and hollow at first as they are

now, their Cavities being wrought by Degrees; but still there would not

want Vapours to supply them.

Then he says, _p. 88._ when that first Moisture of the Earth was

lessened, there could be no Supply of Vapours from the Abyss; seeing the

Heat of the Sun could not reach so far, nor raise Vapours from it, or at

least not in a sufficient Quantity, as he pretends to prove hereafter:

But in the mean Time he speaks of great Cracks or Pits, whose Dimensions

and Capacities he examines at Pleasure, and by these he makes the

Theorist to suppose the Vapours to ascend. Now I do not find that the

Theorist makes any Mention of these Pits, nor any Use of those Cracks

for that Purpose. The only Question is, whether the Heat of the Sun in

that Earth would reach so low as the Abyss, when the Earth was more

dried, a»d its Pores enlarg’d: So that this Objection, as he states it,

seems to refer to some other Author.

But now supposing the Vapours rais’d, he considers what Course they

would take, or which Way they would move in the open Air. But before

that be examin’d, we must take Notice how unfairly he deals with the

Theorist, when he seems to make him suppose, _p. 94, 95._ that Mountains

_make way for the Motion and Dilatation of the Vapours_; which he never

suppos’d, nor is it possible he should suppose it in the first Earth,

where there were no Mountains. Neither does the Theorist suppose, as

this Author would insinuate, that Mountains or Cold dilate Vapours, but

on the contrary, that they _stop_ and _compress them_, as the Words are

cited, even by the Examiner a little before, _p. 86._

Then as to the Course of the Vapours, when they are rais’d, the Theorist

supposes that would be towards the Poles and the coldest Climates. But

this Author says, _p. 97._ they would all move Westward, or from East to

West; _there being a continual Wind blowing from the East to West,

according to the Motion of the Sun_. Whether that Wind come from the

Motion of the Sun, or of the Earth, (which is contrary,) is another

Question; but however, let them move at first to the West, the Question

here is, _Where they would be condens’d_, or where they would fall. And

there is little Probability that their Condensation would be under the

Equator, where they are most agitated, but rather by an Impulse of new

Vapours, they would soon divert towards the Poles, and losing their

Agitation there, would fall in Dews or Rains. Which Condensation being

made, and a Passage open’d that Way for new ones to supply their Places,

there would be a continual Draught of Vapours, from the hotter to the

colder Parts of the Earth.

We proceed now to the seventh Chapter, which is in a good Measure upon

the same or a like Subject with this, namely, concerning the Penetration

of the Heat of the Sun into the Body of the Earth. This, he says, _p.

148._ cannot be to any considerable Depth; nor could it pass the

exterior Orb of the first Earth, and affect the Abyss, or raise Vapours

from it. To prove this, he supposes that exterior Earth divided into so

many Surfaces as he pleases, then supposing the Heat diminished in every

Surface, he concludes it could not possibly pass through so many. Thus

you may divide an Inch into an hundred or a thousand Surfaces, and prove

from thence, that no Heat of the Sun could pierce through an Inch of

Earth. We must rather consider Pores than Surfaces in this Case; and

whether those Pores were straight or oblique, the Motion would pass

however, though not the Light: And the Heat of the Sun might have its

Effect, by a direct or indirect Motion, to a great Depth within the

Earth, notwithstanding the Multitude of Surfaces that he imagines. Those

that think a Comet, upon its nearer Approach to the Sun, would be

pierc’d with its Heat through and through; and to such a Degree, as to

become much hotter than red hot Iron, will not think it strange, that at

our Distance from the Sun, its Heat should have some proportionable

Effect upon the inward Parts of the Earth. And all those imaginary solid

Surfaces do not hinder, you see, the magnetick Particles from running

through the Body of the Earth, and making the Globe one great Magnet.

But let those Considerations have what Effect they can, this Supposition

however is nothing peculiar to the Theorist. I know some learned Men

think the Heat of the Sun does penetrate deep into the Bowels of the

Earth; others think it does not, and either of them have their

Arguments. These alledge the equal Temper of Vaults and Mines at

different Seasons of the Year: The other say, ’tis true, subterraneous

Places keep their Equality of Temper much better than the external Air,

and those Differences that appear to us, are in a great Measure by

comparison with the Temper of our Bodies. Then for their own Opinion,

they take an Argument from the Generation of Metals and Minerals in the

Bowels of the Earth, and other subterraneous Fossiles. These, we see,

are ripen’d by degrees in several Ages, and cannot, as they think, be

brought to Maturity, and raised into the exterior Earth, without the

Heat and Influence of the Sun: Of the same Sun that actuates all the

vegetable World, that quickens Seeds, and raises Juices into the Roots

of our deepest, and Tops of our highest Oaks and Cedars.

But let this remain a Problem; I will instance in another remarkable

Phænomenon, which is most for the present Purpose, I mean Earthquakes.

Let us consider the Causes of them, and the Depths of them: I think all

agree, that Earthquakes arise from the Rarefaction of Vapours and

Exhalations, and that this Rarefaction must be made by some Heat; and no

other is yet proved to us by this Author than that of the Sun. Then as

to the Depth of Earthquakes, we find they are deeper than the Bottom of

the Sea: For, besides that they communicate with different Countries

divided by the Sea, they are found sometimes to arise within the Sea,

and from the Bottom of it, at great Depths. This seems to prove, that

there may be a strong Rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations far within

the Bowels of the Earth; and the Theorist desires no more. If in the

present Constitution of the Earth, there may be such Concussions and

Subversions for a great Extent, we have no Reason to believe, but there

might be (at a Time appointed by Providence) an universal Disruption, as

that Earth was constituted. Finally, whatsoever the Causes of this

Disruption and Dissolution were, ’tis certain there was a _Disruption of

the Abyss_, and that Disruption universal as the Deluge was; which

answers sufficiently the Design of the _Theory_. However, if he have a

mind to see, how this agrees with History, both sacred and prophane, he

may consult, if he pleases, what the Theorist hath noted upon that

Argument, _Archæol. l. 2. c. 4._ besides other Places.

But this Author says farther, That supposing such a Disruption of the

Abyss, and Dissolution of the exterior Earth, no universal Deluge

however could follow upon it; because there could not be Water enough

left in the Abyss to make or occasion such a Deluge: For the Rivers of

the Earth being then supply’d from the Abyss, by such a Time, or before

the Time of the Deluge, he says, there would be no Water left in it.

Thus he goes from one Extreme to another: Before he said, the Power of

the Sun could not reach or affect the Abyss to draw out any Vapours from

it; now he would make the Evaporation so excessive, that it would have

emptied the great Abyss before the Deluge. This is a great Undertaking,

and to make it good he takes a great Compass: He pretends to shew us,

what Quantity of Water all the Rivers of the Earth throw into the Sea

every Day; and beginning with the River _Po_, and taking his Measure

from that, he supposes there are such a certain Number of equivalent

Rivers upon the Face of the whole Earth; and if the _Po_ casts so much

Water into the Sea, the rest will cast so much more, and in Conclusion

so much as would empty the Abyss.

You will easily believe, _Sir_, there must be great Uncertainties in

this Computation: But, if that was certain, as it is far from it, still

he goes upon Suppositions that are not allow’d by the Theorist. For,

first, he supposes the Waters of the present Sea to be equal to the

Waters of the great Abyss: Whereas, supposing them of the same Depth,

there would be near twice as much Water in the _great Deep_, as is now

in the Ocean; seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth, and

the Sea reaches but to half of it. Secondly, He should prove that the

Rivers of the ante-diluvian Earth were as many, and as great, as we have

now. The Torrid Zone then had none, and much less would serve the

temperate Climates than is requisite now for the Earth. Besides, the

Rivers of that Earth were not supplied by Vapours only from the Abyss,

but also from all the Earth, and all the Waters upon the Earth: And when

the Rivers were partly lost and spent in the Torrid Zone, they were in a

great Measure exhal’d there, and drawn into the Air by the Heat of the

Sun, and would fall again in another Place, to make new Rains and a new

Supply to the Rivers. So, in like manner, when he supposes, _p. 158._

the Rivers that were upon the Earth, at the Time of the Disruption or

the great Deep, to have thrown themselves off the Land, as if they were

lost; and makes a Computation how much Water all the Rivers of the Earth

amount to: This, I say, is a needless Computation as to the present

Purpose. For whatsoever Mass of Waters they amounted to, it would not be

lost: If they fell down and joined with the Abyss, they would increase

its Store, and be thrown up again by the Fall of the Fragments, making

so much a greater Mass to overflow the Earth; So that nothing is gain’d

by this Supposition. The Effect would be the same as to the Deluge:

Whether the Waters above the Earth, and those under the Earth met

together sooner or later, when their Forces were joined, they would

still have the same Effect, as we said before of the Vapours. And to

conclude that Point, the whole Sum of Waters, or Vapours convertible

into Waters, that were from the Beginning, or at any Time, would still

be preserv’d above Ground, or under Ground: And that would turn to the

same Account, as to the Flood.

These Waters and Vapours all collected, the Theorist supposes

sufficient, upon a Dissolution of the Earth, to make the Deluge: Not

indeed in the Nature of a Standing Pool, as it is usually conceiv’d; a

quiet Pool, I say, overtopping and standing calm over the Heads of the

highest Mountains; but as a rushing Sea, overflowing and sweeping them

with its raging Waves and impetuous Fluctuations, when it was violently

forc’d out of all its Chanels, and the Vapours condensed into Rain. Such

an Inundation as this, would be sufficient to destroy both Man and

Beast, and other Creatures, those few excepted, that were miraculously

preserv’d in the Ark. This is the Theorist’s Explication of the Deluge,

and I see nothing in this Argument, that will destroy or weaken it.

Now, this being the State of the Deluge, according to the Theorist, what

this Author says in the next Paragraph (_p. 167._) is either a

Misrepresentation, or an Equivocation. For the eight Oceans requir’d by

the Theorist, is the Quantity of Water necessary for a Deluge in the Way

of a Standing Pool: Whereas this Author represents it, as if the

Theorist required so much Water to make a Deluge upon his Hypothesis.

This, I suppose, upon Reflection, the Author cannot but see to be a

Mistake, or a wilful Misrepresentation.

This is the Sum of his seventh Chapter: There are besides some

Suggestions made, which it may be were intended for Objections by the

Author: As when he says, (_p. 151._) that the Heat of the Sun would be

intolerable upon the Surface of the Earth, if it could pierce and

operate upon the Abyss. We allow, that its Heat was intolerable in the

Torrid Zone, which thereby became unhabitable; and there only the Sun

was in its full Strength, and had its greatest Effect upon the Abyss.

But in the other Climates, the Heat would be moderate enough; nay, so

moderate, that this Author says in another Place, _p. 66, 69_, _&c._ it

would not be sufficient to ripen Fruits, and in the Whole, of less Force

than it is now in the present Constitution of the Earth. So apt is

Contention to carry one out of one Extreme into another.

His last Objection is about the Duration of the Flood, that it could not

last in its Force a hundred and fifty Days, if it had been made by a

Dissolution of the Earth, and an Eruption of the Abyss. But as this is

affirm’d by him without Proof, so the contrary is sufficiently explain’d

and made out, both in the _Latin_ and _English_ Theory, p. 52, 56.

I had forgot to tell him, that he ought not to suppose, as he seems to

do, when he is emptying the Abyss, (_p. 165._) that after the Torrid

Zone was soak’d with Waters by the Issues of the Rivers, no more Waters

or Vapours were drawn from it then, than were before, or consequently no

less from the Abyss. For when the middle Parts of the Earth had drunk in

those Waters, the Force of the Sun would be less upon the Abyss through

those Parts, and the Vapours would be more and greater from them, than

before when they were drier, and in the same Proportion they needed less

Supplies from the Abyss.

CHAP. VI.

_Concerning the Figure of the Earth._

I Deferr’d the Consideration of this Chapter to the last, because I

thought it of a more general Concern, and might deserve a fuller

Disquisition. ’Tis now, you know, become a common Controversy or

Enquiry, _what the Figure of the Earth is_. Many think it not truly

Spherical, as it was imagin’d formerly, but a Spheroid, either oblong or

oblate; that is, either extended in Length toward the Poles, like an

oval; or, on the contrary, swelling in Breadth under the Equator, and so

shorter than a just Sphere betwixt Pole and Pole, and broader in the

middle Parts. ’Tis true, the Theorist is not directly concern’d in this

Controversy, because he does not in the _Theory_ affirm the present

Earth to be oblong or oval, not knowing what Change might be made at its

Dissolution. However, it may be worth the while to enquire what

Arguments are bought, either from Causes or Effects, to determine the

Figure of the Earth, whether past or present.

’Tis easy indeed by Observation to determine, that the Earth is a convex

Body, not plain, as the _Epicureans_ fansied; and convex on all Sides,

and therefore in some sort orbicular; but whether it be truly spherical,

those common Observations will not determine. The Theorist nam’d and

pointed at such Observations, as he thought would be most likely to

discover the precise Figure of the Earth: As to observe, for Instance,

whether the Extent of a Degree was the same all the Earth over, in

different Latitudes, or at different Distances from the Equator. Then to

observe whether the Shade of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be

truly round, or any other ways irregular. And also to observe, if

towards the Poles, the Return of the Sun into their Horizon, be

according to the Rules of a spherical Surface of the Earth. Let us

consider these separately, as to the present Earth.

As to the Measure of a Degree in different Latitudes, we find that

Authors are not all of the same Mind. Some will have them unequal, and

in such a manner, according to their Distance from the Equator, as from

that to infer, that the Earth is oblong. This Examiner takes Notice of

Dr. _Eisensmidius_, as one that hath made that Observation, and that

Inference from it, and gives him very rude Words upon that occasion,

making him a Man of _prodigious Stupidity, and Crackpot_, _p. 140_, and

one that did _not understand the first six Elements of Euclid, or indeed

those of common Sense, p. 143._ Whatsoever this Professor was, he was

not the first that made that Observation and Inference. For another

Mathematician, better known, had made the same, some time before him: I

mean _Milliet Deschales_, in his _general Principles of Geography_, _Fr.

l. 1. propos. 29._ But, ’tis true, he says, this Conjecture of his, that

the Figure of the Earth is oval or ecliptick, would not be well

grounded, if the Shade of the Earth in Lunar Eclipses was found to be

always perfectly round; of which we shall have occasion to speak

hereafter. For this, which he makes a Scruple against his own Opinion,

is by others made an Occasion of suspecting that the Earth is really

Oval. But we must also acknowledge, that the same _Deschales_ in his

_Latin_ Works does not own the Observation, but owns the Inference,

which is that the Examiner quarrels with. He owns it, I say, in these

Words,[27] _Si figura terræ esset ovalis, plura milliaria decurrenúa

essent versus Æquinoctialem ad inveniendum in elevatione poli mutationem

unius gradûs quàm versus polos._ And he gives this Reason, _Quià ovalis

figura prope vertices minorem sphæram imitatur: versus Æquinoctialem

autem in majorem sphæram degenerat._ And again, having taken Notice of

the various Computations of a Degree upon the Earth, he subjoins[28],

_Hæc observationum discrepantia nonnullis suspicionem fecit, Tellurem

non omninò sphæricam esse, sed sphæroidem ellipticam, ita ut versus

polos in minorem circulum abiret. Sed opus est pluribus observationibus

adid persuadendum._ The Theorist did not assert either the Observation

to be true or the Inference, but mark’d it as an Observation that

deserv’d to be enquir’d into, in order to determine the Figure of the

Earth. For it seems apparent, that if the Body of the Earth be oblong or

oblate, the Extent of a Degree will not be really the same as if it was

truly spherical. Neither do I know any single Observation that would

give us more Light, or better help us to discover what the Configuration

of the Earth is, than the Measure of a Degree exactly taken in different

Latitudes.

I happened lately to be in Company with a learned Gentleman, and amongst

other Things that fell into Discourse, I ask’d his Opinion, what

Inequality there would be in the Degrees of the Earth, in case it was

oval, and where it would fall; whether they would be greater towards the

Poles, or towards the Equator. We were suddenly interrupted by the

coming in of new Company, but he said he would send me his Thoughts upon

a little Reflection; and accordingly, after a few Days he was pleased to

send me this Letter.

_SIR_,

[Illustration: A Circle, with various Points marked.]

Having now some Leisure (the Elections for Parliament, wherein I had

any Concern, being over) I have here sent you my Thoughts on a

Subject we lately discours’d of at _Kensington_. Whether in case the

Earth is a long Spheroid, the Degrees of Latitude would be greater

near the Equator, or near the Poles. I conceive they would be

greater near the Equator. Let the Ellipsis _BDCF._ represent the

Earth, draw the Line _gp._ which may be a Tangent to the Ellipsis,

and likewise meeting with the Axis _BC_, and its Transverse _FD_

(after they are produc’d) make the Triangle _gAp_ an Isosceles, and

consequently the Angles at the Base _Agp_, _Apg_ each 45 Degrees. I

say _HC_ will measure the 45 Degrees of Latitude near the Pole, and

_DH_ (which by Inspection without farther Demonstration is evidently

bigger) those near the Equator. (I ought to have premis’d that _B_

and _C_ represent the Poles.) It is plain the Inhabitants at _H_

will be in the Latitude of 45 Degrees, by reason their horizontal

Plane _gp_ is by Construction 45 Degrees distant to the Horizon of

the Inhabitants under the Line at _D_, which lies parallel to the

Axis _BC_.

If the Earth be a broad Spheroid, _D_ and _F_ representing the

Poles, then by the same Method of Reasoning, the Degrees of Latitude

will be greatest near the Poles: But as the longest and shortest

Diameter of the Earth has in no wise so great a Disproportion as in

their Figure (their Difference not exceeding the two hundredth Part

at most) the Inequality of the Degrees of Latitude will be

proportionally less; but in all Cases, the long Spheroid makes the

Degrees greatest near the Equator; and the broad Spheroid those

greatest near the Poles. I hope in a Fortnight to have the

Satisfaction of seeing you in _London_, and remain,

_Sir, Your most Humble Servant._

The Examiner would do well to consider this, lest all the reproachful

Characters he casts upon _Eisensmidius_, should recoil upon himself.

’Tis Prudence, as well as good Manners not to be fierce and vehement in

Censures, for fear of a Mistake, and a Blackblow. However, the pretended

Demonstration which this Examiner brings to prove, that, in case the

Earth was oblong, the Degrees would be greater toward the Poles, does

not affect _Eisensmidius_, for it proceeds upon a Supposition which that

Author does not allow; namely, that the Vertical Lines, or the Lines of

Gravity are to be drawn directly to the Center of the Earth: Whereas

_Eisensmidius_ supposes they ought to be drawn at right Angles, to the

Tangent of each respective Horizon, and would not in all Figures lead

directly to the Center. However, we do not wonder that he is so rude to

Strangers, seeing he bears so hard in other places, upon some of our own

learned Countrymen.

We proceed now to the Theorist’s second Observation, about Lunar

Eclipses and the Shade of the Earth. This Shade is generally presumed to

be exactly round, as the Section of a Cone: And yet the best Astronomers

have doubted of it, and some upon that Occasion have doubted of the

Figure of the Earth. _Kepler_[29] in an Observation of a Lunar total

Eclipse, not finding the Shade of the Earth perfectly round, but rather

oblong, _ut ejus dimetiens à Zona Torrida consurgentis sit minor

dimetiente ejus à Polis Terræ surgentis_, suspects that the Figure of

the Earth was so too. And that we must conclude it to be so from this

Observation, if there was not some Obliquity in the Rays of the Sun,

whereof he shews no Cause or Occasion. _Si retinenda esset, inquit,

rectitudo radiorum, Globus ipse Terræ fiet oviformis, diametro per Polos

longiore._ And a like Observation to this he cites from _Tycho Brahé_,

in a central, or next to central Eclipse of the Moon. These two great

Astronomers, it seems, did not find the Shade of the Earth to be justly

conical; and thereby take away the Reason or lessen the Doubt, which

hindered M. _Deschales_ from concluding (upon another Observation) the

Figure of the Earth to be oval.

The third Observation of the Theorist remains, which is about the Return

of the Sun unto the polar Parts of the Earth, whether that be according

to the Rules of a spherical Surface. The Observations that have been

made hitherto in the Northern Climates about the Return of the Sun to

them, make it quicker than will easily consist with a spherical Figure

of the Earth; much less are they favourable to a gibbous Form: For that

Gibbosity under the Equator must needs hinder the Appearance and

Discovery of the Sun in the respective polar Parts, more than a

spherical Figure would do. Now it hath been observ’d in _Nova Zembla_,

that the returning Sun appear’d to them seventeen Days sooner than they

expected, according to the Rules of Astronomy, the Earth being supposed

truly spherical; and this may be thought an Argument that the Earth is

rather depress’d in its middle Parts. I leave the Matter to farther

Examination. I know ’tis usually imputed to Refractions, but that is

upon the Presumption that the Earth is justly spherical; and a better

Answer (upon that Supposition) I think cannot be found. Though, I think,

it will not be easy in that Way, and upon that Solution to make all the

Phænomena agree, or to shew that the Refractions could make so great a

Difference. However, this is no improper Topick to be consider’d in

reference to the Determination of the Figure of the Earth, and for that

purpose it was noted by the Theorist.

We have now done with that side of the Question, that respects the

oblong Figure of the Earth, and it remains to consider the other Part; I

mean the Opinion of those that make the Earth protuberant about the

Equator, or an oblate Spheroid. This the learned Monsieur _Hugens_[30]

thinks may be prov’d by Experiments made about the different Vibrations

of _Pendulums_ in different Latitudes of the Earth. ’Tis found, he says,

by Experience that a _Pendulum_ near the Equator, makes its Vibrations

slower than another of the same Length, farther from the Equator; and

gives an Instance of it from an Experiment made at _Caiene_ in _America_

(which is four or five Degrees from the Equator) compar’d with another

made at _Paris_. From this Trial he concludes, first, that the

Gravitation is less under and near the Equator than towards the Poles,

according to their several Degrees of Latitude. Then he infers, by

Consequence, that the Land and the Sea are higher towards the Equator,

than towards the Poles. And in Conclusion, that the Figure of the Earth

is protuberant and gibbous in the Middle, and more flatted, or of a

shorter Diameter betwixt Pole and Pole.

In this Conclusion, you see, there are several Things to be considered

according to the Premisses. First, Matter of Fact, concerning the

Inequality of Vibrations in equal Pendulums, according to their

different Latitudes; then the following Inferences made from that

Inequality. As to the Matter of Fact, Monsieur _Hugens_ seems to be

doubtful himself: He does not vouch it from his own Experience, but he

takes it from the Report of Monsieur _Richer_; whose Person or Character

I do not know, nor whether his Relation be extant in Print. However,

Monsieur _Hugens_ speaks dubiously of the Experiment, as such an one

whereof we ought to expect farther Confirmation. For he says[31], _we

cannot trust entirely to this first Observation, whereof we have not any

Circumstance noted to us; and still less to those that are said to be

made at Guadeloupe, (at a greater Latitude,) where the Pendule is said

to be shorter by two Lines than that at Paris.[32] We must expect to be

more justly inform’d of these different Lengths of Pendules, as well

under the Line as in other Climates._ And he refers us to a farther

Trial by his Clocks, rectified for a second Voyage, whereof I have yet

heard no Report. If Matter of Fact be dubious, or Experiments

discordant, we cannot be assur’d of the Conclusion. It were to be

wish’d, that this different Gravitation in different Latitudes, might be

prov’d by other Experiments than that of the Pendulum. Methinks, in

ponderous Bodies, this Difference might become sensible: Not indeed by a

Balance or Scales, for the supposed Decrease of Gravity would have the

same Effect upon the Counterpoise as upon the Body weighed; but by other

Powers that do not depend immediately upon Gravity, as _Springs_, or any

other Engines, or by Rarefactions, or whatsoever hath the Force to

raise, sustain, or remove ponderous Bodies. For such Powers have a less

Effect with us than near the Equator, where the Gravitation of Bodies

that make the Counterpoise, is supposed to be much lessen’d. Neither do

I know if they have try’d the Barometer, whether that will discover any

such Elevation, at, or near the Equator; the Mercury sinking there much

lower than with us, or indeed to nothing, if the Height be comparatively

so great as is supposed. It seems strange, that the Difference of

seventeen Miles (call it little, or call it great, compar’d with the

Semidiameter of the Earth) should have a sensible Effect upon Pendulums

and upon nothing else.

Methinks, that Height of the Equator should make a different Horizon (as

to the Heavens, or the Earth, and Sea) East and West, from North and

South; the Figure of the Earth being a Sphere one way and a Spheroid in

the other. The Sea also must be a prodigious Depth at the Equator;

deeper by seventeen Miles, than at or near the Poles. I would gladly

know what Experience there is of this. Then in reference to our

_Rivers_, how swift and rapid, upon this Hypothesis, must the _Rivers_

be that rise at or near the Equator, or how slow the Motion of those

that ascend towards it, if at all they can be supposed to climb so great

an Hill. The great River of the _Amazons_, in Southern _America_, is in

some Parts of it four or five Degrees from the Equator, others say much

more; yet runs up to the Equator with that vast load of Water, and

throws it self there into the Ocean. In the Northern _America_, _Rio

Negro_ is represented to us, as having a longer Course against the bent

of the Earth, and crossing the Equator, falls down Southward several

Degrees: So the _Nile_ in _Africa_ crosses the Line, and hath a long

Course on this side of it. _Rivers_ do not rise higher by a natural

Course than their Fountain’s Head, and Hydrographers usually assign two

Foot, or two Foot and an half in a Mile for the Descent of _Rivers_, but

upon this Hypothesis there will be fourteen or fifteen Foot (in respect

of the Center of the Earth) for every Mile, in Rivers descending from

the Equator; which is a Precipitation rather than a navigable Stream.

Suppose a Canal cut from the Equator to the Pole, ’twould be a Paradox

to say the Water would not flow in this Chanel, nor descend towards the

Pole, having fourteen or fifteen Foot Descent for every Mile, according

to your Figure of the Earth: And also it would be as great or a greater

Paradox, to suppose that Rivers would rise to the Equator, and with the

same Celerity (as we see they do) upon an Ascent of so many Feet. And

after all, to conclude the Argument, if this Difference of Pendulums be

found, it will still bear a Dispute from what physical Causes that

Difference proceeds.

Thus far we have considered what Arguments have been brought for the

oblate Figure of the Earth from Effects; and have noted such

Observations to be made, as we thought might be useful for Discovery of

Truth, on what side soever it may fall. We are now to consider an

Argument taken from the Causes, and brought by these Authors to prove

the same spheroidical Figure of the Globe. To this purpose they observe,

as is obvious and reasonable, that in the diurnal Motion of the Earth,

the middle Parts about the Equator (where the Circles are greatest, and

consequently the Motion swiftest) would fly off with a greater Force,

and so rise higher than the other Parts that were mov’d in lesser

Circles in the same time, and would have less Force to remove themselves

from the Center of their Motion. This is agreed on all Hands, and was

own’d by the Theorist in a fluid Globe turn’d about its Axis, in case

there was no Impediment to hinder the rising or recession of those

middle Parts. But before we speak to that, on both sides you see it must

be suppos’d and granted, that the Globe of the Earth was once fluid, or

the exterior Orb of it; and we ought to consider when, or at what Time

this was. It must have been surely at the first Formation of the Earth,

when it rose from a Chaos, and before its Parts were consolidated and

grown hard. Supposing then that the interior Orb of the Earth was once

cover’d over with an Orb of Water, the Question will be, how this Orb of

Water came to be cover’d with dry Land, or came to be divided into Land

and Water, as it is now.

[Illustration: A: The Earth, covered with Water.]

[Illustration: B: The Earth, as it is now.]

Let (A) represent an Hemisphere of the Earth, in its first State, when

covered with Water; and (B) the same Hemisphere as it is now. This

Author must tell us, consistently with his Hypothesis, how the Earth

could pass out of one of these States into the other, without passing

through some intermediate State; or how this Change was made in its

Surface, from what Causes, and in what manner. If the first Earth was a

Concretion upon the Face of the Waters, then indeed it would have the

same Figure with the watery Globe under it; but if it was from the

Beginning in this present Form firm and solid, as it is now rocky and

mountainous, then the Question is, _how_ the Parts or Regions of the

Earth about the Equator could be raised above a spherical Figure, or

into an oblate Spheroid, as they say the Earth is now. I take it for

granted, that they suppose the Land raised as well as the Water; for

otherwise the Ocean would overflow at those Parts of the Earth. Suppose

then the Waters raised by the Circumvolution of the Earth, how was the

_Terra firma_ rais’d, or how could it be rais’d by that or any such

Cause?

These Questions are no matter of Difficulty to the Theorist, who

supposes the first Earth to have covered the Waters, and to have taken

their Shape, whatsoever it was, as upon a Mold: Then upon its

Dissolution and Disruption at the Deluge, to have fallen into that

uneven and uninterrupted Form it hath now. But feeling this Method does

not please the Examiner, he must tell us how, upon his Hypothesis, the

Land or solid Parts of the Earth could be rais’d above a spherical

Convexity into such a gibbous Figure, as he supposes them now to have

under the Equator.

Monsieur _Hugens_[33] makes this broad Spheroid of the Earth to have

been the Effect of Gravity in the Formation of the Earth; the Matter

whereof being then turned round, it would, as he thinks, be brought to

settle in this oblate Figure. Very well! But this must be in its very

first Concretion from a Chaos, before it was fix’d and compact as it is

now; for the Rotation of the Earth could have no such effect upon it

after it was hard. Now if you admit the exterior Globe of the Earth, to

have been in such a State betwixt Fixtness and Fluidity, it will lead us

directly to the Theorist’s Hypothesis, which supposes a soft and tender

Concretion at first, over all the Face of the Waters. I say, _over all

the Face of the Waters_: For it must be universal; both because there is

no Reason why these earthy Particles that made the Concretion, should

not fall upon one Part of the Globe, as well as upon another; and also

if they did not fall upon the Equinoctial Parts, how came there to be

Land in that part, or that Land rais’d higher than the rest, as this

Hypothesis will have it?

In these Remarks upon the protuberant Figure of the Earth, you see it is

allow’d, that there would be a greater Tendency from the Center in the

middle Parts of the Globe, and the Waters would rise there, if there was

no Impediment. But the Theorist did believe that the Vortex, or

circumfluent Orb was streighter, or of a shorter Diameter there than

through the Poles; and consequently the Waters having less room to

dilate, would be press’d and detruded towards the Poles. These Authors,

it may be, will allow no Vortices to the Planets; but then they must

assign some other sufficient Cause to carry the Planets in their

periodical Motions (and with the same Velocity for innumerable Ages)

about their common Center; and the Secondary about their Primary: As

also what gives them their diurnal Rotation, and the different Position

of their Axes. Neither would it be easy to conceive, how a great Mass of

fluid and volatile Matter, having no Current, or Determination any one

way, and being often check’d in its progressive Motion, should not fall

into circular Motions, or into Vortices of one sort or other; especially

if you place in this Mass some great solid Bodies turned about their

Axes.

These are more general Problems; and when they are determin’d with

Certainty, we shall better judge of the Particulars that depend upon

them. But I say still, that neither Figure of the Earth, oblong or

oblate, can be prov’d from the Rotation of the Earth and its Gravity,

without supposing the Globe form’d into that Shape before it came to be

harden’d, before it came to be loaded and stiffen’d by Rocks and stony

Mountains. Therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allow’d, that there

was such a Time, such a State of the Earth, when its tender Orb was

capable of those Impressions and Modifications; and that Orb must have

lain above the Waters, not under them, nor radicated to the Bottom of

them, for then such Cause could not have had such an Effect upon it. And

in the last place, this Concretion upon the Waters must have been

throughout all the Parts of the Earth, or all the Parts of the Land

which are now rais’d above a spherical Surface; and no reason can be

given, as we noted before, why the rest should not be cover’d as well as

those. So that in effect both the Hypotheses suppose that all the watery

Globe was at first cover’d with an earthy Concretion.

Now this being admitted, you have confirm’d the main Point of the

_Theory_: Namely, that the Abyss was once, or at first cover’d with a

terrestrial Concretion, or an Orb of Earth. Grant this, and we’ll

compound for the rest, let the Earth at present be of what Figure it

will: If there was such an original Earth that cover’d the Waters, both

the Form and Equilibration of the Earth may easily appear, and how by a

Dissolution of it a Deluge might arise. But as to the present Earth, the

Theorist never affirm’d that its Figure was oval, but he[34] noted such

Observations made or to be made, as he thought might be proper to

determine its Figure, and still desires that they may be pursued. He

added also, that he would be glad to receive any new ones, that would

demonstrate the precise Figure of the Earth. And accordingly, he is

willing to consider in this Particular and all others, the Arguments and

Remarks of such eminent Authors, as have lately given a new Light to the

System of the World.

This may suffice to have spoken in general concerning these two

spheroidical Figures of the Earth. We must now consider what particular

Objections are made by the Examiner against its oval Figure. He says,

_p. 103, 104_, _&c._ admitting the oval Figure of that first Earth, it

would not be capable however, to give a Course to the Rivers from the

polar Parts, towards the Equinoctial. And his Reason is this; because

the same Causes which cast the Abyss or the Ocean towards the Poles,

would also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles: But there is

no Parity of Reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean, and the Rivers. We

see in the Flux and Reflux of the Ocean, let the Cause of it be what it

will, it hath not that Effect upon Rivers, nor upon Lakes, nor upon

lesser Seas; yet the Circum-rotation of the Earth continues the same.

And his confounding the Ocean and Rivers in the ante-diluvian Earth is

so much the worse, seeing there never was an Ocean and Rivers together

in that Earth. While there was an open Ocean, there were no Rivers, and

when there were Rivers, there was no open Ocean, but an inclos’d Abyss:

So though he makes large Transcripts there and elsewhere out of the

Theory, he does not seem always to have well digested the Method of it.

After this Objection, the Examiner charges the Theorist with want of

Skill in Logick; but his Charge is grounded upon another

Misunderstanding or Misrepresentation. He pretends there, _p. 107._ that

the Theorist hath made such a Ratiocination as this. _All Bodies by

reason of the Earth’s diurnal Rotation, do endeavour to recede from the

Axis of their Motion; but by reason of the Pressure of the Air, and the

Streightness of the Orb, they cannot recede from the Axis of their

Motion, therefore they will move towards the Poles, where they will come

nearer to the Axis of their Motion._ These are the Examiner’s Words in

that Place, where he says he will put the Theorist’s Reasoning in other

Words: But I do not like that Method, unless the Examiner were a more

judicious or faithful Paraphrast than he seems to be: Let every one be

tried by their own Words, and if there be any false Logick or Nonsense

in the forecited Words of the Examiner, let it fall upon their Author.

The Theorist said[35], that Bodies, by reason of the Earth’s Motion did,

_conari à centro sur motûs recederè_: These Words this Translator

renders, _endeavour to recede from the Axis of their Motion_; and by

changing the Word _Center_ into _Axis_ (whether carelesly or wilfully I

know not) of plain Sense he hath made Nonsense; and then makes this

Conclusion, _p. 108._ (which follows indeed from his own Words, but not

from those of the Theorist) _because all Bodies do endeavour to recede

from the Axis of their Motion, therefore they will endeavour to go to

the Axis of their Motion_.

The Theorist’s Argumentation was plainly this: Seeing in the Rotation of

the Earth, Bodies tend from the Center of their Motion, if they meet

with an Impediment there, they will move laterally in the next easiest

and openest way; and therefore the Waters under the Equator being

stopp’d in their first Tendency, would divert towards the Poles;

wherein, I think, there is no false Logick. That there was no Impediment

there, he must prove by other Arguments than his own Dictates or bare

Assertion, which will not pass for a Proof.

He proceeds now to discourse of the centrifugal Force and the Effects of

it, together with Gravity: But he should have given us a better Notion

of the centrifugal Force, than what he sets down there; for he says (_p.

110. l. 24._) _A centrifugal Force, is that Force by which a Body is

drawn towards the Center_: This is a strange Signification of that Word.

And in the next Page (_p. 111. l. 22._) he says, by this centrifugal

Force, Bodies _endeavour to recede from the Center of their Motion_;

which is true, but contrary to what he said just before. I think ’tis

Gravity, not centrifugal Force, that brings Bodies towards the Center.

But to pass by this Contradiction, and to proceed: What he says, from

others, about the Proportions of the centrifugal Force and Gravity in

Bodies turn’d round, and particularly in Fluids, how they would fly off

more or less, according to the Circles of their Motion, was always (as

hath been mention’d before) suppos’d and allow’d by the Theorist, if

there was no Restraint or Pressure upon one Part more than another of

the fluid Globe: So that he might have spared here six or seven Pages.

In like manner, he might have spar’d what he hath transcrib’d in his

following Pages from those excellent Authors we referr’d to before,

about calculating the Diminutions of Gravity made by the centrifugal

Force, in different Latitudes; with other such Excursions. These, I say,

might have been spar’d, as needless upon this Occasion, or to the

Confutation of the _Theory_, till the principal Point, upon which they

depend, be better prov’d. I made bold to say, they were transcrib’d from

those Authors, as any one may see that pleases to consult the Originals,

_Newt. Philos. Nat. Princ. Math. l. 3. prop. 18, 19, 20._ _Hugens

Discour. de la cause de la Pesanteur, p._ 147, 148, _&c._ And this

_French_ Discourse of Monsieur Hugens, he hath not so much as once

nam’d, though he hath taken so much from it. And after all, when these

Things are determin’d in Speculation, it will still be a Question what

the true physical Causes of them are.

At last, for a farther Confirmation of the broad spheroidical Figure of

the Earth, he adds an Observation from the Planet _Jupiter_, which is

found to be of such a Figure. And _therefore_, he says, _p. 137, 138._

_We need not doubt, but that the Earth, which is a Planet like the rest,

and turns round its Axis, as they do, is of the same Figure_. He might

as well conclude, that every Planet, as well as the Earth, is of the

same Figure. And what Reason can he give, why all the Planets that have

a Rotation upon their Axis, are not broad Spheroids, as well as those

two which he supposes to be so? If that be a sufficient Cause, and be

found in other Planets as well as those, why hath it not the same

Effect? Or he might as well conclude, that the Earth hath a perpetual

Equinox, because _Jupiter_ hath so. This is the same Fault which he hath

so often committed, of measuring all the Works of God by one or two. If

a Man was transported into the Moon, the nearest Planet; or into

_Mercury_ that is so near the Sun, or into _Saturn_, (or any of his

_Satellites_) that is so remote from it; would he not find, think you, a

much different Face and State of those Planets, from what we have upon

this Earth? Inhabitants of a different Constitution, the Furniture of

every World different, Animals, Plants, Waters, and other inanimate

Things: As also different Vicissitudes of Days and Nights, and the

Seasons of the Year; according to their different Positions, Revolutions

and Forms? Therefore not without Reason we noted before, how much the

Narrowness of some Mens Spirits, Thoughts and Observations, confine them

to a particular Pattern and Model, nor considering the infinite Variety

of the divine Works, whereof we are not competent Judges.

Now comes in his rude Censure of Dr. _Eisensmidius_, both for his

Mathematicks and bad Logick, or want of _common Sense_; but to this we

have spoken before. He also, in the same Paragraph, _p. 142._ wonders at

the Theorist’s strange Logick, to make the centrifugal Force of Bodies

upon the Earth, to be the Cause of its oblong Figure. That indeed would

be strange Logick if it was made the proximate Cause of it. But that is

not the Theorists’s Logick but the Examiner’s, as it is distorted and

misrepresented by him. The Theorist suppos’d the Pressure of that Tumour

of the Waters, occasion’d by the centrifugal Force (as its original

Cause) to be the immediate Cause of the oblong Figure of the Earth; and

that Pressure suppos’d, there is nothing illogical in the Inference. He

had formerly taken Notice, _p. 101, 103._ of this Reason, from the

Streightness of the Orb in that Part, when he gave the Theorist’s

Account of that Figure; but he thought fit to forget it now, that his

Charge might not appear lame.

This, Sir, is a short Account of this Author’s Objections; but there are

some Things so often repeated by him, that we are forc’d to take Notice

of them more than once; as that about Miracles and final Causes. He

truly notes, _p. 31._ that to be _a much easier and shorter Way of

giving an account of the Deluge_, or other Revolutions of Nature: But

the Question is not, which is the shortest and easiest Way, but which is

the truest. No Man in his Senses can question the divine Omnipotency,

God could do these Things purely miraculously, if he pleas’d; but the

Thing to be consider’d is, whether, according to the Methods of

Providence, in the Changes and Revolutions of the natural World, the

Course of Nature and of natural Causes is not made use of so far as they

will go. Both _Moses_ and St. _Peter_ mention material Causes, but

always including the divine Word and Superintendency. The Theorist does

not think (as is sufficiently testified in several Places) that purely

material and mechanical Causes, guided only by the Laws of Motion, could

form this Earth, and the Furniture of it; and does readily believe all

Miracles recorded in Holy Writ, or elsewhere, well grounded: But

Miracles of our own making or imagining, want Authority to support them.

Some Men when they are at a loss in the Progress of their Work, call in

a Miracle to relieve them in their Distress. You know what hath been

noted both by [36]Philosophers and others to that purpose.

As to final Causes, the Contemplation of them is very useful to moral

Purposes, and of great Satisfaction to the Mind, where we can attain to

them. But we must not pretend to prove a thing to be so or so in Nature,

because we fancy it would be better so; nor deny it to be in such a

manner, because to our Mind it would be better otherwise. Almighty Power

and Wisdom, that have the whole Complex and Composition of the Universe

in View, take other Measures than we can comprehend or account for. Even

in this small Earth that we inhabit, there are several Plants and

Animals, which to us appear useless or noxious, and yet no doubt would

be found proper for this State, if we had the whole Prospect and Scheme

of Providence. As to efficient Causes, they must be either material or

immaterial, and whatsoever is prov’d to be the immediate Effect of an

immaterial Cause, is so much the more acceptable to the Theorist, as it

argues a Power above Matter. But as to purely material Causes, they must

be mechanical; there being no other Modes, or Powers of Matter (at least

in the Opinion of the Theorist) but what are mechanical: And to explain

Effects by such Causes, is properly natural Science.

We have taken Notice before of this Author’s ambiguous use of Words,

without declaring in what Sense he uses them: And he is no less

ambiguous as to his Opinions. When he speaks of the Origin and Formation

of the WORLD, he does not tell us what he means by that Word; whether

the great Compound of the Universe, or that small Part only where we

reside. His _centrifugal_ Force he interprets in contrary Senses, or in

contrary Words, and reserves the Sense to himself. Sometimes he speaks

of the Motion of the Sun, and sometimes of the Motion of the Earth, and

sticks to no System: Neither does he tell us what he means by the

_Mosaical_ Abyss, or _Tehom Rabbah_, which the Theorist supposes to have

been broken up at the Deluge. We ought to know in what Sense and

Signification he uses Words or Phrases: at least if he use them in a

different Sense from that of the Theorist’s.

I know, _Sir_, you will also take Notice of his hard Words and coarse

Language, as, _that’s false, that’s absurd, that’s ridiculous_. This,

you will say, is not the usual Language amongst Gentlemen; but we find

it too usual with some Writers, according to their particular Temper and

Experience in the World. For my part, I think Rudeness or Disingenuity

in examining the Writings of another Person, fall more heavy (in the

Construction of fair Readers) upon him that uses them, than upon him

that suffers them. I am,

_SIR_,

_Your most humble Servant_,

_FINIS_.

Footnote 22:

_Engl. Theor._ _Chap._ VIII. p. 112, _&c._

Footnote 23:

_Cic. de Nat. Dict. l. 1._

Footnote 24:

_Galil. Syst. Cos._ _p._ 133. _Hugen. Cosmetô._ _c._ 2. _p._ 115.

Footnote 25:

_Engl. p. 230, &c. Lat. p. 107._

Footnote 26:

_Cosmoth. p. 135._

Footnote 27:

_l. s. Prop. 4._

Footnote 28:

_Ibid._ Prop. 56.

Footnote 29:

_Ephames. par. 2. ad An. 1624._

Footnote 30: