Mineral and Mosaical Geologies. HI 



and equilibrium" between the two antagonist powers of gravity 

 and centrifugal force can only be found in that figure. Hence 

 the mineral geology appeals to his philosophy in support of 

 its assertion, and concludes, " since the earth has that sphe- 

 roidal form which its motion of rotation ought to produce in a 

 liquid mass, it follows, necessarily, that it must have been 

 fluid." 



It does not follow necessarily, nor at all, nor is any such 

 consequence deducible from Newton's philosophy. Newton, 

 ■with no other view than to illustrate his meaning, supposed an 

 earth formed of an uniformly yielding substance, in order to 

 shew that whilst at rest such a mass would be spherical, but 

 that when made to revolve on its axis, it would assume a sphe- 

 roidal form. But Newton constantly maintained " that God 

 at the beginning formed all material things (and, therefore, 

 this earth which is one of them) of such figures and properties 

 as most conduced to the end for which he formed them," and 

 consequently, for the reasons already given, " he formed the 

 earth with the same figure which, it is manifest, he has given 

 to the other planets. Moreover, unless the earth was actually 

 flatter at the poles than at the equator, the waters of the ocean 

 constantly rising towards the equator, must long since have 

 deluged and overwhelmed the equatorial regions, and have 

 deserted the polar, whereas the waters are now retained in 

 equilibrium over all its surface," Thus its oblate spheroidal 

 form is no proof of its original fluidity, though it is an incon- 

 testable one of that divine wisdom which fashioned it according 

 to the strictest rule of " harmony and equilibrium" between 

 those laws which he had ordained it should for ever after be 

 obedient to, and which therefore •' most conduces to the end 

 for which he formed it." ' Thus, both from crystalline cha- 

 racter and from the obtuseness of spherical figure, the mineral 

 geology concludes to chaos; whereas from both of these 

 Newton concluded to God.' 



Our author proceeds to shew that this discordance between 

 the conclusions of the mineral geology and those of Newton, 

 arises from the analysis of the former being limited to mineral 

 matter, whereas Newton's included all matter, of which mineral 

 matter is only a part. The investigation of the mode of the 

 first formation of mineral matter must be connected with the 

 investigation of the mode of the first formation of all matter 

 in the general, otherwise we assume a partial principle for a 

 general, and setting out in error, must continue in it to the 

 end. " Such a wonderful conformity in the planetary system," 

 said Newton, " must be the effect of choice, and so rnust the 

 uniformity in the bodies of animals ; these and their instincts 

 can be the effect of nothing else than the wisdom and skill 

 of a powerful, ever-living agent." 



