( 3 82 ) 
dies fhould feera to have furnilh’d them with the greats 
eft Extent of Science. 
That Knowledge in many Languages and Terms of 
Art , and in the Hiftory of Opinions and Romantick 
Hypothefes of Philofophers, ftiouid fometimes be of no 
Efted in correding Mens Judgment , is not fo much 
to be wonder’d at. But that in Mathematic ks them- 
felves, which are a real Science , and founded in the 
necejfary Nature of Things } men of very great Abi- 
lities in abftrabl Computations, when they come to ap~ 
ply thofe Computations to the Nature of Things, ftiouid 
perfift in maintaining the moft palpable Abfurdities , 
and in refuting to fee fome of the moft evident and ob- 
vious Truths , is very ftrange. 
An extraordinary Inftance of this, we have had of 
late Years in very eminent Mathematicians, Mr. Leib- 
nitz, Mr. Herman , Mr. 'sGravefande , and Mr. Ber- 
noulli ; who (in order to raife a Huft of Oppofition a- 
gainft Sir Ifaac Newton's Philofophy, the Glory of 
which is the Application of abflraEl Mathematicks to 
the real Thcenomena of Nature,') have for fome Years 
infilled with great Eagernefs, upon a Principle which 
fubverts all Science, and which may eafily be made 
appear (even to an ordinary Capacity) to be contrary to 
the necejfary and ejfential Nature of Things. 
What they contend for, is, That the Force of any 
Body in Motion , is proportional, not to its Velocity , 
but to the Square of its Velocity „ 
The Abfurdity of which Notion, I fhall firft make 
appear, and then (hew what it is that has led thefe 
'Gentlemen into Errour. 
In the Nature of Things, ’tis evident, every Ejfe6l 
mull neceffarily be proportionate to the Caufe of that 
Effed; 
