we find that the land is very near of the fame Figure with the Sea (only raised a little higher that it might not be overflowed) compofing with it the fame folid, and I have already fhewed that the Surface of the Ocean is fpheroidical and not spherical, there is no doubt to be made but that the Land was formed into the fame Figure by its wife Creator, at the beginning of the World, for if it were otherwife, then would the Land towards the Æquator have been overflowed with water, which as I have already proved, must have been higher at the Equator than at the Poles; and therefore the Sea would rife there and spread it felf like an inundation upon all the Land.

But for a further confirmation of the fpheroidical Figure of the Earth let us confider fome of the other Planets especially Jupiter who turns round his own Axis in the fpace of ten hours: It may easily be observed that his Axis is confiderably shorter than the Diameter of his Equator, and that in the proportion of feven to eight, as the obfervations of Mr. Flamstead and Monf. Cafini do testify; and therefore we need not doubt but that the Earth which is a Planet like the reft and turns round its Axis as they do, is of the fame Figure.

But the Theorift in his Latin Edition of the Theory, as alfo in his Answer to Mr. Warren, feems to infinuate, that the only way to find

the

the true Figure of the Earth is by measuring of it, and by that means to find what proportion the degrees of the Meridian in different Latitudes have to one another; for if they were exactly equal one to another, and alfo equal to the degrees of Longitude counted upon the Equator, then without doubt the Figure of the Earth would be Spherical, but if otherwife Spheroidical.

Now tho' I have already determined the Earths Figure from other Principles; Yet to comply with the Theorift in this point, I will give him an account of a Book whofe extract I have feen in the Acta Eruditorum Lipfie publicata for the year 1691, written by one Job. Cafp Eifenfchmidt a German who calls himfelf Doctor of Philofophy and Phyfick. The Title of the Book is, Diatribe de Figura Telluris Elliptico-Spheroide. And it is Printed at Strasburg in the Year 1691. The Learned and deep-thinking Author of this Book after he has Answered, at leaft has endeavoured to Answer the Arguments of Archimedes and others, by which the Figure of the Earth was proved to be Spherical, doth embrace the Opinion of the Theorist, and afferts that its Poles are higher or further distant from the Centre than its Equator: To prove this, he fets down an account of the different magnitudes of degrees of the Meridian according to the obfervations made of them in different Latitudes, and comparing them one with another,

another, he found that they continually decreased as the Latitudes increased, and indeed, as he fays in the fame proportion, as appears by the following Table, which I have inferted from the above named Extract.

From this he concludes that a plane cutting the Earth along its Axis would not be a Circle but an Ellipfis, whofe longer Axis would pass through the Poles and coincide with the Axis of the Earth; but its leffer Axis would be the common Section of the Equator with the Ellipfis, and from thence he infers, that the Earth is not of a Spherical, but an oblong Spheroidical Figure. After that he difputes against Mr. Newtons Hypothefis, which makes the Earth of a direct contrary Figure, and thinks that the accurate Obfervations by him related, are by far to be preferred to the Hypothefis upon which Mr. Newtons Calculus is grounded.

None

None but a man of prodigious ftupidity and carelesness could reafon at this rate! If he had afferted that the Earth was of an Oval Figure because Grafs grows or Houses stand upon it, it had been fomething excufable; for that Argument tho' it did not infer the conclufion, yet it could never have proved the contradictory to be true. But to bring an Argument which does evidently prove that the Earth has a Figure directly contrary to that which he would prove it has, is an intolerable and an unpardonable blunder; for if he had but protracted the Figure, and drawn equal Angles from the Centre, he might have easily perceived, that the Angle whose Crura were longeft, would have the greatest Subtense. Thus if the Angles [Fig. 8. Plate IV.] DAE and BAC were equal, but AD were longer than A B, it is evident that the fubtenfe DE would be longer than the Subtenfe BC, for if you take AM and AN equal to AB and AC and draw the Line MN, the Angles being small, BC and DE will differ very little from ftreight Lines, but BC is equal to MN, which is plainly lefs than DE, and therefore it is evident that BC is lefs than DE, that is, where the Subtenfes or the degrees are greateft, there alfo is the greatest Diameter: but it is plain by the Obfervations which Mr. Eifenfchmidt relates, that the degrees are biggest at the Equator, therefore the greateft Diameter of

the.

the Spheroid must be that of the Equator, and not the Axis of the Earth.

So far is this Argument drawn from Obfervations from deftroying Mr. Newtons Hypothefis, that it would moft evidently confirm it, if the Obfervations were exact enough, which I believe they are not.

I cannot but wonder at the ftrange Logicks of our Modern Philofophers who are able to draw any conclufion they have a mind for, from any Principles that can be given them. No man that looks narrowly into their Books can want Inftances in this matter, But in cafe this is not fo well obferved, I have furnished the Reader with two examples of this fort. The one is the Theorists way by which he proves the Earth to be of an Oblong or Oval Figure from the Principles of a Centrifugal force which all Bodies have that are on it. Now I think I have plainly fhown that the true Conclufion he ought to have inferred from this Hypothefis is, that the Earth had a quite contrary Figure from what he fancied it had. But Mr. Eifenchmidt has given us a yet plainer proof of this thing, for because he found that the Degrees of Latitude near the æquator were bigger than those which were near the Pole, he very innocently concludes that the Earth had its Axis longer than the Diameter of its Equator; but if he had understood the firft fix Elements of Euclid, or indeed those of common sense he might eafily