relative terms, and therefore to prove a pofition incommodious, we must not only confider the confequences of the pofition its felf, but the Nature and Conftitution of those Animals to which it is to be adapted; and I hope I may affirm (without any reflection on Divine Providence) that the prefent pofition in which God hath put the Earth, is more fuitable and agreeable to the Nature and Frame of our Animals and Plants, than any other, and especially than that which the Theorift affigns to the Primitive Earth: I am fure that feveral Divines have afferted this, and were never thought by fuch an affertion, to prescribe to God Almighty what was beft to be done.

I cenfur'd the Theorist indeed for enquiring into Phyfical causes, when there are none that can be known, and neglecting the final ones, which were the only real principles by which the question was to be determin'd. For as I fhew'd in the Examination, there is no reason that can be affign'd why the Axis of the Earth fhould have one pofition more than another; the two motions of the Earth round the Sun, and round its own Axis, being perfectly independent on one another. God Almighty would order that which was moft fitting and convenient for its Inhabitants; and I lay'd it down as an Axiom, that God Almighty did always choose fuch pofitions as brought with them the greatest good and ad

vantage

vantage to the Univerfe; and therefore, fince the oblique pofture of the Earths Axis was that which its Maker was pleas'd to choose, I thought it might be undoubtedly prefum'd, that it was the beft. Proceeding on this principle, I enquir'd into the feveral advantages which we reaped by the prefent oblique pofition, and fhew'd, that it was preferable to any other; and furely this cannot be (as the Defender thinks) a prefcribing to God Almighty, and telling him what is best to be done in this or that World. When from the Wisdom and contrivance of what is already done, we argue that it could not have been done in a better manner.

He goes on and fays, "That some men

cry out mightily against reafon; and yet "none are more fond of it than they, when "they can get it on their fide. Some men "inveigh against Phyfical causes, when o"thers use them, and yet as gladly as any "make use of them, when they can make "them serve their purpofe; and when they "cannot reach them, they defpife them, and "are all for final causes. I never knew any that cry'd down either reafon or Physical caufes, when they were plain and obvious. But it is no wonder if there are some that are displeased with the reasons and causes that are affign'd, by a fet of Philofophers who think they can give a Mechanical account, how an Animal, a Mountain, a Planet, or a World

may

may be made; and yet they know not fo much of the principles of Staticks and Geometry, as to explain the most common and ordinary appearances of nature, which are really explicable by Mechanical principles.

And tho' one would think that it were but reafonable, that a man who pretends to give the Phyfical caufes of all thofe things, fhould be very well skill'd in Arithmetick, Geometry, Mechanicks, and the Laws of motion; yet it generally happens, that those that are leaft acquainted with thofe Sciences, pretend moft to the folution of fuch intricate problems, whereas they, who know them beft, can beft discover how far they may proceed upon Phyfical caufes, how far their principles will lead them in the discovery of truth, and where it is that they must be content to be ignorant; they know that they have not fufficient Data to determine fuch problems, nor a great many others that have not the hundreth part of the difficulty of those I have mentioned; and they are well pleas'd if they know their final caufes, the ufes for which they were defign'd by their wife Contriver, and never trouble themselves with that which it is impoffible to discover.

Monfieur Hugens I think, was at least as great a Philofpher as the Theorist, and it may be eafily fuppos'd, that he understood Mechanifm fomewhat better; yet he fays, that he would be contented, and fhould think, that

he

he had done a great matter if he could come to the knowledge of things as they are now, never troubling himself about their beginning, or how they were made, knowing that to be * Hugenii out of the reach of humane knowledge, or Cofmotheo- even conjecture. *

ros.

This Author it seems is very angry with me, for denying, that the Primitive Earth had fuch a position as the Theorift affign'd it; and upon that account he fays, I follow the very doctrine of thofe Scoffers mention'd by St. Peter, who faid, Since the Fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were. Why fo? Did thefe Scoffers affert, that the Earth had never any perpendicular pofition to the Plane of the Ecliptick? and did St. Peter affirm the contrary? Did he fay that the old World had a perpetual Equinox, the Equator being coincident with the Ecliptick, and its Axis parallel to the Axis of the Sun, as this Gentleman phrafes it? I can find no fuch difcourfe in either of his Epiftles, nor can I see how fuch a thing can be deduced from them.

A man that had no Theory, or any particular System of his own to defend, would think this the plain meaning of St. Peter, that there were fome men then in being, that deny'd a Providence, or that God Almighty had any care in the Government of the World, because they thought, that fince its Creation, every thing went on ftill in the fame method, without any particular mani

feftation

festation of a Providence; these the Apostle refutes, by telling them, that the World once perished by a Deluge of Waters, and that it was to perish again by Fire; both which are arguments enough for a Providence, and of God's particular care of the World: this I take to be his plain meaning; except St. Peter be to be understood in an Allegorical fenfe as well as Mofes.

After this general difcourfe, he comes to a more particular confideration of the inconve niencies alledg'd against the parallelism of the Axis of the Earth, with the Axis of the Ecliptick. One argument I brought was, that by the prefent pofition of the Earths Axis, we receiv'd more of the Suns heat, than if it had mov'd always in the Equator; and if our heat at prefent is not too great for us, (as without doubt it is not) it was a very good reason why the prefent pofition fhould be efteem'd better than that the Theorist calls a right one, wherein we fhould not have fo much of the Suns influence, as we have. The Defender thinks this is no argument against the Theory, for fays he, if the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates, who would defire the extream heats of Summer? I answer, every one that obferves how neceffary the Summers heat is to the production of Vegetables, and the ripening of their feed, which could never be brought to any perfection,