loudly attacked in the general outcry against adopting occult causes. The laws of Nature, therefore, as laid down by Sir Ifaac, fhould be rather confidered as the elements of a science than as the elements of things. It is no impeachment of the truth of his fyftem, that his firft principle is not correfpondent with the first phyfical caufe. The firft element in a fyftem of philofophy may accord with the fecond, third, fourth, or the four hundredth in the fyftem of nature. Till we arrive at fomething univerfal, we must confider what is general as fuch. It would be abfurd, however, to deny what is general to be falfe, merely because it is not univerfal. It was fufficient for Sir Ifaac Newton, that the data he affumed were confirmed by phyfical experiment, whether they are merely phyfical caufes or mechanical effects, is the business of future enquirers to determine; nor doth the infufficiency of the Newtonian system to determine this, at all affect its own truth or importance. Inftead, therefore, of endeavouring to difprove, as our Author has attempted, the doctrine of attraction, and the theory of central forces, he had better have endeavoured to illuftrate and confirm both, a priori; by deducing them mathematically from more general laws. It would have been taking a step toward the real improvement of natural knowlege, to have given a geometrical explication of the mechanical caufe of gravitation, the revolutions of the planets, and the cohefion of the parts of bodies; whereas, in what our Author has here done, he has impotently cavilled at notorious truths; as if a new system of philofophy must neceffarily be made to overturn the Newtonian * ? We readily agree, with Mr. Jones, that Geometricians, in general, have reafoned very weakly in matters merely phyfical. We will not fcruple to fay, Sir Ifaac Newton himself has done fo on feveral occafions; fo weakly, indeed, that it is for this reafon we cannot help thinking, he must have been fenfible how inconclufive and fuperficial fuch arguments were: nay, he tacitly confeffes as much by frequently giving up the point, as not the immediate object of his purfuit. * Taking Mr. Emerfon's words, as above quoted, in this fenfe, it is, indeed, a joke to talk of a new philofophy. A new fyftem may difprove fome conjectures concerning the data on which the Newtonian fyftem is founded; but if it does not tend to confirm the bafis itfelf, as well as all the material parts of the fuperftructure, we may declare before-hand, it must be falfe. Our Our Author has, we confefs, pointed out fome remarkable defects of this kind, in the Advocates for the Newtonian fyftem: there is nothing more common, however, in fcientific difquifitions, than for Writers to fhew fome acuteness, in detecting the mistakes and overfights of their predeceffors, and yet to run themselves into blunders equally abfurd and ridiculous. How far Mr. Jones is more correct and precife, in phyfical argument, than the Geometricians he cenfures, our Readers may judge from the following inftance. In fpeaking of Fire, the agent he makes choice of to explain the mechanifm of Nature, he affects to ridicule a famous query of Sir Ifaac Newton's on that head. "He asks, (says Mr. Jones) Is not fire a body heated fo hot as to emit light copioufly for what else is a red-hot iron than fire? Let us anfwer this (continues our Author) by putting a like queftion concerning the element of Water. Is not water a body wetted fo much, as to wet every thing elfe copiously? for what else is a wet fponge than water? In this latter example every perfon will allow the fponge to be a diftinct body from the water, containing that element in its vacuitics. Now fire is as truly an object of fenfe as water; and hath as many properties to diftinguifh it as a fluid.” Specious as this plea may appear to fome at firft view, he must be a very fuperficial Reafoner who does not fee its fallacy on a fecond. Fire, he fays, is as truly an object of fenfe as water. Surely it is not fo in the cafe he exemplifies! The water may be fqueezed out of the fponge into a bowl or bafon; and will thus evidently appear to have an existence independent of the fponge or any other body. Can our Author do the fame with the fire? which way will he fhew the fire to be as truly an object of fenfe, and to exist independent of the iron or fome other body? We can take a piece of cold iron, and, without letting it approach any warm body, can even in a cold, dark room, by mere hammering, make it red hot; even fo hot, that it fhall warm and enlighten the furrounding atmosphere. By what mechanic operation can our Author take an empty fponge, and, in a dry room, without letting it approach any humid body, fill it with water? Water is evidently a body, fire is not. He may quote Dr. Alexander Stuart, or whom he pleafes, to prove that "fire is a fluid, vifible and obvious to the touch," we fhall, for our part, never be afraid of burning our fingers with it, unless it come in the shape of fome material body, As As to the existence of an Æther, or an elaftic fluid, conducive to those effects exemplified by Dr. Shaw and other Chemists, we conceive it inconteftibly proved; but we must join against our Author, in the opinion of Meffrs. Hoadly and Wilfon, that it is improper to call this fire: we hold alfo the argument thefe Gentlemen made ufe of, and which Mr. Jones treats as fallacious, to be very logical and fatisfactory. Indeed, we may fafely range ourselves with them, on the fide of Sir Ifaac Newton, and boldly defy all the Chemists and Electricians in the world, to bring one good proof, that pure elementary fire is any thing more than motion in the abovementioned Æther; or that palpable or culinery fire is any thing distinct from, and independent of, gravitating bodies. The doctrine inculcated by the paffage above quoted from Sir Ifaac Newton's Optics, of fire being only the violent motion of the agitated parts of bodies, has been greatly contro verted. Nothing, however, can be more inconclufive than the experiments made ufe of by Boerhaave and others, to prove the materiality of fire; nor can any thing be more abfurd than for a man, contending for the mechanical folution of natural phenomena, to adopt fo vague and unintelligible a principle as that of fire. In the third book, our Author recurs to the doctrine of a Vacuum, as exifting in the heavens, and between the parts of bodies; the truth of which he denies; entering into an experimental enquiry concerning the phyfical caufes of cohesion and repulfion. In the firft chapter of this book, he fhews, very fatisfactorily, the infufficiency of fome reasons that have been given, in fupport of the opinion of a vacuum between the heavenly bodies; particularly that of Sir Ifaac Newton, drawn from the direction of the tails of comets; which is plainly a paralogifm. We think him very deficient, however, in establishing his plenum; nor do we judge the authority of either Virgil or Plato of any great weight in phyfics. In fhort, after all we have faid against our Author's notions of fire, we can hardly find out what he himself means, when he comes to make use of it. "I use the term fire, fays he, in its largest fenfe, either for fire, light, or æther. We may, indeed, call it by any of thefe names, because the fame fluid must be understood by every one of them: though, if we were to stand upon ftrictness and propriety of expreffion*, it would And why not ftand upon ftrictness and propriety? Is there any fubject, in treating which they are more neceffary ?. Clear expreffions will naturally follow clear ideas. be be neceffary, on fome occafions, to ufe the firft of thefe; on others only the fecond or third." When this fluid is cold and invifible, he fays, he would call it æther: when it becomes lucid, it is to be called light; and when it gives heat, it is fire. That is, he would call cold fire æther; luminous fire, light; and hot fire, fimply fire +. Luminous and hot, indeed, are epithets applicable to fire; but furely cold fire is a very new and extraordinary term in phyfics! Who is there that will be very ready to credit our Author, or will not at leaft think he fadly mistakes himself, when he tells us, as he does in the very fame page, that "the employment most agreeable to him, is to fearch after things, and try to render them intelligible?". In the fourth and last book we have an entertaining collection of obfervations, chiefly from the antients, relative to the system of nature. As this Writer, however, from the beginning of his work pays fo little regard to the authority of Sir Ifaac Newton, the oracle of mathematical Readers, he cannot expect they will pay much to the dogmatical opinions of the Philofophers which he has here collected together. + Our Author, and perhaps fome of his Readers, may understand what he means, by telling us not to imagine heat and cold to be things different in their nature, and that it is the fame element, fire, that boils water and freezes it: but furely this is not the accurate language of a Philofopher! Rural Poems: Tranflated from the original German of M. Gesner. Small 8vo. 2s. Becket and Co.. A S these performances are not conceived in poetic numbers in the original, we fee no reafon why they Thould be called Poems. Poetical imagery without the certain diftinctions of measure, can no more entitle any work to the appellation of a poem, than a number of features, scattered without order or compofition, can be called a picture. Neither, in our opinion, can the Author of such pieces have any more right to the title of a Poet, than the Defigner of fuch features hath to the character of a Painter. As the one has afforded us no proof that he understands the proportions of compofition, neither has the other given us reafon to believe, that he knows any thing of the harmony of num bers; bers; yet these are effential properties of their respective arts. To taste these rural and pastoral compofitions, it is neceffary to refer to the manners of the Golden Age, for adopting which, rather than thofe of modern times, the Author has given us the following fatisfactory reasons, in his preface. "It is the peculiar privilege of paftoral to recur to the first ages of mankind; and hence it receives great advantage; as by that means the fcenes acquire a degree of probability, which they would not carry with them, if fuppofed to exift in modern times wherein the unhappy Peafant, fubjected to the hardest labour, in order to procure for his Prince, or the inhabitants of large cities, a fuperfluous abundance, groans, himself, under the weight of mifery and oppreffion; and is thereby rendered mean, cunning, and brutal. Not that I pretend a Poet, who amufes himfelf in this kind of writing, may not ftrike into fome new paths, and difcover new beauties, in obferving the manners and fentiments of our modern Pealants. But it requires the niceft tafte to be able to diftinguish and to polifh them, without entirely divefting them of their character of ruflicity.' We are entirely of Mr. Gefner's opinion, that paftoral poetry fhould always refer to that æra of fimplicity which we call the Golden Age, and can by no means approve the Chanfons des Bergers fur les Rivages du Loire, nor the Shepherd's Boy finging his polifhed lay on the banks of the Thames. The Author of thefe paftoral Effays tells us alfo in his preface, that he took Theocritus for his model; and we agree with him in the following character which he has given us of that Poet. "I have always efteemed Theocritus as the best model in this kind of writing; this Poet having expreffed, with the greatest exactnefs, the ingenuous fimplicity of paftoral fentiments and manners. His Idyllions contain a great deal more than mere roses and lillies. His defcriptions are not the vague effect of an imagination confined to the most obvious and common objects. They appear to be always copied immediately from Nature, the marks of whofe amiable fimplicity they bear. He has given his Shepherds the highest degree of innocent fincerity, making their lips ever exprefs the honeft dictates of their hearts. The poetical ornaments of their converfation are, all of them, taken from their rural occu pations, |