Besides the appeal to the Scriptures, and the evidence of the senses, the author has fortified himself with the authority of some eminent men. Thus he attempts to neutralize the weight of the celebrated names which are arrayed against him, that he may come before the reader free from the idola of prejudice.

"Lord Bacon, Sir William Temple, Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Thomas Brown, and the Hon. Robert Boyle; these celebrated men either declared the hypothesis of the solar system to be chimerical, or they bore positive testimonies against it. So did the excellent Sir Henry Saville, the founder of the mathematical and astronomical professorships at Oxford, which still bear his name. The Hon. Edward Howard, of Berks, who understood astronomy well, in the year 1705 dedicated a book to the Prince of Denmark, titled, Copernicans of all sorts convicted.' In which he undertakes to prove, that'their bypothesis was astronomically, philosophically, and sensibly false to all impartial apprehensions."""

Boyle says,→

'Though in pure mathematics he that can demonstrate well, may be sure of the truth of a conclusion, without consulting experience about it; yet because demonstrations are wont to be built upon suppositions or postulates; and some things, though not in arithmetic or geometry, yet in physical matters, are wont to be taken for granted, about which men are liable to slip into mistakes; even when we doubt not of the ratiocination we may doubt of the conclusion, because we may of the truth of some of the things it supposes.

"Therefore it cannot but be a satisfaction to a wary man to consult sense about these things that fall under the cognizance of it, and to examine by experience whether men have not been mistaken in their hypotheses and reasonings.""

Sir Matthew Hale inclines to the opinion, “rather that the earth is the common centre, than the imaginary hypotheses of Copernicus, Galileus, Kepler, and Descartes." Mr. Blundevil, a tutor in Lord Bacon's family, in his Cosmography, observes: “Some deny that the earth is in the midst of the world, and some affirm that it is moveable, as Copernicus, by way of supposition, and not that he thought so indeed."

Mr. Prescot observes, that though many of the learned had seen the fallaciousness of Sir Isaac Newton's principles of creation, and of planetary motion, "most, if not all of them, seem to have taken for granted the applicability of his real or imaginary experiments, and the truth of his assumed facts, without ever putting them to the test of examination. It seems to have been gratuitously admitted, that his system rested upon a mathematical basis; but the truth is (contends our author), that the foundations of it are altogether ima

ginary and fallacious, and, therefore, all his mathematical diagrams and ratios, grounded thereon, are false and delusive."

It does not appear that Mr. Prescot has any objection to the mathematical calculations of the astronomers whom he opposes; but he levels his attack upon their hypothetical data. If their premises were correct, he would evidently admit their inferences; but he stoutly denies that the experiments from which they reason were applicable to the subject. Thus, he says

"We are, however, assured that Mr. Huygens, the mathematician, demonstrated,* by the vibrations of a pendulum, that all bodies on, or near the surface of the earth, in their fall, descend so as that at the end of the first second of time they have described sixteen feet, one inch, and acquired a velocity of thirty-two feet.' I have examined the rule from which he makes this deduction, but I confess I am not able to discover any just comparison between the motion of a vibrating pendulous body, and a body detached in the act of falling to the earth: the respective motions are so completely distinct, that I am well satisfied no geometrical reasoning can ascertain the velocity of the one from the motion of the other. But the theory supposes what is impossible; namely, that these experiments be performed in an unresisting medium, such as Newton means by what he terms, the æthereal regions, which have never been proved to have an existence except in the heads of phisophers. It is a question that cannot be decided in a space so confined as the receiver of an air-pump, even if could be completely exhausted of the air, which is impossible."

He afterwards proceeds to observe, that—

The operation of that which gives weight to bodies, is evidently limited to the surface of the earth, or within a short distance of it. An illiterate miner once informed me, that it was commonly observed by the men with whom he laboured, that they could lift a greater weight in the works below than upon the surface of the ground above. The same remark I find in Lord Bacon's Natural History. "It is,' says he, affirmed constantly by many, as an usual experiment, that a lump of ore at the bottom of a mine will be tumbled and stirred by two men's strength, which if you bring to the top of the earth will require six men's strength at the least to stir it; it is a noble instance, and is fit to be tried to the full; for it is very probable, that the motion of gravity worketh weakly, both far from the earth, and also within the earth, the former, because the appetite of union of dense bodies with the earth in respect of the distance is more dull,— the latter, because the body hath in part attained its nature when it is some depth in the earth. For, as for the moving to a point or place, which was the opinion of the ancients, it is a mere vanity.' The

* This word, though very properly applied by Euclid, is grossly prostituted by modern philosophers.

facility of moving heavy bodies in mines was likewise noticed by the ancients in the pits whence they drew the sal.ammoniac in Egypt; but they erroneously supposed it to be owing to the buoyancy of subterraneous vapours. These accounts alone, if founded in fact, are, I think, decisive against the theory of gravity; for, according to that hypothesis, the difference of a few hundred, or of even a few thousand, yards of ascent, or descent, could produce no sensible alteration in the weights of bodies."

On the subject of Attraction, astronomers hold that all bodies are mutually heavy, or gravitate mutually towards each other, and this gravity is proportionate to the quantity of matter; and at unequal distances it is inversely as the square of the distance, and so the sun and planets mutually gravitate towards each other. To prove this property in matter, they say, "Action and Reaction are always equal and in contrary directions. If a stone be pressed by the finger, the finger is equally pressed by the stone: if a horse draws a stone, the stone draws the horse equally backward; for the rope is equally stretched towards both."

Mr. Prescot objects to this illustration as inconclusive, because in the one there is a visible connexion, but not in the other: the medium, or rope, by which the sun and planet mutually draw each other, is assumed, and no distinction is drawn between the inert matter of the stone, and the principle of animal life which actuates the horse; and Mr. Prescot demands," Is there any force unconnected with spirit ?"

To the experiments which have been made to explain or prove the revolutions of the primary and secondary planets and comets, our author, also, very confidently opposes himself. He ridicules the whirling a ball round the finger, and tying a pebble to a mill-stone. Such "experimental" proofs are, he says, very little to the purpose. He then proceeds

"This doctrine of mutual attraction, had it any real existence, would be utterly subversive of the system; suppose, for example, Jupiter and Saturn to be posited in the same point of the heaven,— I mean with respect to their heliocentric longitude,—and that Jupiter by the powerful attractive force ascribed to Saturn, is disturbed and drawn out of the orbit which he would otherwise describe, according to the doctrine of centripetal forces; how, in such case, would Jupiter regain his proper course? For, if the action of Saturn could attract him a single mile, that action would then be increased, and would continue to increase, according to the doctrine of philosophers, in the reciprocal duplicate proportion, while, at the same time, the power which should have retained Jupiter in his orbit decreases in the same proportion."

It may be important also to observe, that Newton believed

the sun to be a body of fire; but this opinion has long been generally abandoned, and the sun is now supposed to be a body of earth with a luminous atmosphere. The subject is open to the observation of our author, that, as it is impossible that a body of fire and of earth can be of the same density, the system of gravity which had so strangely mistaken the nature of the central body cannot be depended upon.

It appears, that the only sensible or vulgar evidence we have of the mutual gravitation of the celestial bodies, is the operation of the moon upon the tides. Our author has industriously applied himself to falsify the fact which has been asserted.

"The Newtonians (says Mr. Prescot) assure us, that the sun's influence in raising the tides is but small in comparison of the moon's; for though the earth's diameter bears a considerable proportion to its distance from the moon, it is next to nothing when compared to its distance from the sun; and, therefore, the moon must raise the tides much higher than they can be raised by the sun."

On this our author observes, that his opponents are at variance with their own laws-namely, the attraction in proportion to the respective quantities of matter.

"According to their creed, the sun is 64,000,000 times greater than that of the moon, and his distance from the earth is four hundred times greater. The square of four hundred is 160,000; therefore the sun's attraction of the earth, supposing his mass to be equal to that of the moon, would be 160,000 times weaker than the moon's attraction; or, in other words, the mass of the sun, at the distance they place him, in order to possess on the surface of the earth an attraction equal to the moon's, ought to be 160,000 times greater than the moon: but, according to Newton, the density of the sun to that of the moon, is ás 4891 to 1000: its mass of matter would, in that case, be to the mass of matter in the moon, as 13,085,259 to 1. But it is said that the distance of the sun is four hundred times greater than that of the moon therefore the effect of the solar gravity on the tides compared with the lunar gravity, would be as 13,085,259 to 160,000; or as 82 to 1. We are, notwithstanding, very gravely told, that its effect in raising the tides is no more than a fourth or fifth of the moon's attraction; that is to say, about four hundred times less than it ought to be according to the unerring principles of gravity! But mark their further reasoning upon this point. It is owing to the sun's immense size and distance, but the moon, because her distance in comparison to that of the sun from the earth, is very small, the forces with which she acts on different parts of the earth will vary more considerably from parallelism and equality.'

"This curious sophistry is, as I said, an evasion of their own boasted theory of gravity. It is a very important point, and they cannot possibly get over it. The aspect, or angle of apparent magnitude, is very nearly the same in both luminaries; and the question here, is not concerning the effect of attraction upon a homogeneal body, but

upon one composed of earth and water; and however the earthy parts might, or might not, be affected, it is very certain that the light, moveable, watery parts, by being acted upon by a force eighty-two times greater than that of the moon, would inevitably communicate such an amazing agitation to the ocean as would quite absorb and render imperceptible the comparatively weak effect of the moon's attraction; and also render the ocean completely unfit for the purposes of navigation. But nothing of the kind is experienced, and consequently the whole theory of gravity is imaginary and false.'

It is also maintained, that the actual observations which have been made on the state of the ocean, are directly at variance with the results of these calculations.

"The great Pacific Ocean is, of all other parts of the globe, the most proper for examining the validity of Newton's theory of the tides; for, there the operation of the moon, supposing his hypothesis to be well grounded, would not be obstructed by head-lands, bays, gulfs, &c. In a space of many thousands of miles, in every direction, there is nothing to interfere with the movements of this mighty ocean, excepting a few insignificant islands just rising here and there above the surface, which, comparatively, no more obstruct its motions than the nilometer does the overflowings of the river Nile. How then does theory agree with observation there? Mr. Wales, the astronomer, who accompanied Cook, tells us: his words are- in these observations some very curious and even unexpected circumstances have offered themselves to our consideration. It will be sufficient to instance the exceedingly small height to which the tide rises in the middle of the great Pacific Ocean; where it falls short two-thirds at least of what might have been expected from theory and calculation."

"Cook says, that the tides at the Sandwich Islands are so inconsiderable, that it is hardly possible at any time to tell whether they had high or low water; or whether the sea ebbed or flowed. At Van Diemen's Land, he found the perpendicular rise to be eighteen inches; and it never appeared to have exceeded thirty inches. At the Friendly Isles, he observed, it was only in the channels and a few places near the shore that the motion of the tide was perceivable; it rose from three to six feet, which was the most considerable elevation that he had met with in that ocean between the Tropics. At Otaheite it was proved that the tides never rose higher than fourteen inches at most; and that it was high water nearly at noon, as well at the quadratures as at the full and change of the moon."

We are further reminded, as a proof that the moon does not govern the motion of the waters, that the current in the Mediterranean continually sets into the Straits in a direction

* This sufficiently refutes the Newtonian assertion, that, "High water takes place about three hours after the moon passes the meridian." In Liverpool, where I reside, it is high water, generally, about half an hour before the moon passes the meridian. At Plymouth, six hours after; Isle of Wight, nine hours after; and at London, fifteen hours after the moon has passed the meridian. The time differs every where.