Chapter XXIII: Book IV (14)

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_,

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.

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.