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.

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.