Chapter XXIV: Book IV (15)

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:

P. 145.

Footnote 31:

_Disc. de la Pesant. p. 149._

Footnote 32:

_Ibid. p. 165._

Footnote 33:

_M. Hugens de la Pesant, p. 152. Il est a croire, que la Terre a pris
cette figure, lors qu’ elli a esté assemblee par l’effect de la
Pesanteux: sa matiere sient des mouvement circulatoire de 24 heures._

Footnote 34:

_Lat. Theor. lib. 2. p. 185._

Footnote 35:

_Theor. l. 2. 5. p. 186._

Footnote 36:

_Plat. Cratyl. m. p. 425. Ἐπειάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐτὶ τάς μηχανὰς
καταθεύγουσι, θεοῦς αἴροντεσ. Cum rei alicujus engusios, ad machines
consugiunt & D inducunt._ This is also remark’d and render’d in other
Words by _Tully_ in _Nat. Dor. l. 1._ Cum _explicare argumenti exitum
non pet, confugitis ad Deum_. St. _Austin_ also speaking about the
supercelestial Waters, hath noted this Method, and reprov’d it, in
these Words, _Nec quisquam echos refellere, ut decat secundum
omnpotentism Dei sunt possibatis nos credere equas etiam am era quam
novimus atque sentimus, corpori in que sunt sydera, super sufas: Nunc
enim quam Deus rerum secundum Scripturam ejus, nec qu convenit, non
solus quad in vel ad misacutum omnipotent._ You see Discretion and
Moderation is to be used in these and such like Matters.

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are
referenced.