But to come to our Author's Laws of Motion.

'Law I. Fire is attracted and collected by the motion and attrition of all other bodies.'

Several inftances of Fire's being the confequence of the motion and attrition of bodies, are brought as proofs of this law but, as no mechanical account of the manner in which this attraction or collection is effected, what we have above faid may suffice to render it juftly fufpected as a chimera.

Law II. The elementary particles of fire are in a constant state of repulfion to each other: and the nearer they are brought to contact, the greater is their repulfive force ⚫ from each other.'

This law,' continues our Auther, of Motion of Fire is alfo fo directly contrary to the law of attraction, which all other matter is endowed with, that we are yet acquainted with, that I muft defire my Readers to fufpend their judgment, till they have duly confidered the following experiments: from which, I hope, it will clearly appear, that 'fuch a repulfive power is fuperadded to, or does really exift in and between the elementary particles of all Fire, and acts ut on and repels them from each other, till the parts of the whole igneous mafs of fire is brought into a state of equilibrium and reft, if not prevented by the motion and action of other bodies, or by the directing power of Light • emitted from the fun. And that this repulfive power in fire is alfo the antagonist, or counteracting power, to the law of attraction which exifts in, or is fuperadded to the elementary particles of all other matter; and that if Fine had not been thus endowed with this wonderful repulfive power, no other created beings could exift in that state and condition in which we are, and fee them exift, without that power.

The experiments above hinted, duly confidered, ferve only to prove, that heated bodies have a repulfive power; but this is undoubtedly the effect of their inteftine motion: for, how is it poffible, that folid bodies fhould have any power of repulfion without being moved? Our Author, indeed, represents the fimple, folid, hard, elementary particles of Fire, as poffeffed of an innate and effential power of repulfion. But this is an apparent impoffibility. It had been confiftent to have attributed a paffive capacity of refiftance to them, as being hard and impenetrable; but a power of repulfion in a body apparently at reft, must in itself prove fuch body to be no perfect folid. To fay that the cause of this repulfive power

6

is unknown, and that all that we can fay of it is, Sic voluit, et fic juffit Deus, is, in truth, to say nothing at all to the purpose.

Law III. Fire is put in motion in parallel right lines by light emitted from the fun, and caufed to move with force, and produce heat and more light.'

By what means fire comes to be moved by light in parallel right lines, we do not readily conceive: for light itself, we imagine, does not move in fuch lines from the fun. But, perhaps, Dr. Hillary only means in lines nearly parallel.

Having laid down and illuftrated the foregoing propofitions, and established the above laws, our Author proceeds next to fhew, that Newton and others have been mistaken, in thinking the fun emitted fire from its body to the planets; and that Fire and Light are the fame beings. Hence,' continues he, Sir Ifaac was induced to fuperadd a third fubtile being, which he calls Æther, and which, I humbly apprehend, is only pure Fire.' Now we humbly apprehend, that however Sir Ifaac Newton might be mistaken in fuppofing (if he really did fuppose it) that light and fire were material particles emitted from the fun, yet we believe he was perfectly in the right, in fuppofing fire and light were very nearly allied; and alfo in conceiving the existence of an Æther r; which, we imagine, to be fo far from being in itself pure fire, that we conceive both light and fire to be only different fpecies of motion, propagated among the parts of fuch an etherial medium: which parts, as they pervade all bodies, fo, when violently agitated, do put fuch bodies into a burning ftate, and are productive of, what is commonly called, culinary Fire.

We will not, however, entirely fuperfede our Author's arguments on this point; but give our Readers an opportunity to judge of their validity.

Light alone,' fays he, never produces any degree of fenfation of heat.' This, he attempts to prove by the following experiment.

Firft, It is evident, and univerfally acknowleged, that ❝ the Moon is a body which has no Light but what it receives from the Sun.

Then let us place a concave fpeculum, as that of Villet's, (with which the experiment has been made) oppofite to the moon when fhe is at the full, in a ferene cold night, and the Light which the moon receives from the fun will

be

be reflected from it upon the fpeculum, and from thence into its focus, where a moft refplendent and refulgent Light will be feen, almoft equal to that received and reflected by the fame fpeculum from the fun, only a little paler: then place a thermometer, which is eafily moved by the leaft degree of heat or fire, as that of Drebbellius, in that refulgent focus, and we shall find that the air in the thermome<ter will not be the leaft expanded or moved; and fhews that there is no more fire in that focus than there was before the refplendent light was collected there, or was then in the circumambient air, though fo great a quantity of light was in that focus at the fame time. This experiment • demonftrates that a great quantity of very bright refulgent light may be collected, and can exift alone in a given space, without any addition of heat, or any increase of the quantity of fire. It also fhews, that this light, which comes from the fun, is, when thus reflected from the moon, fo changed in its power of acting on fire, that it has totally loft its power of putting the pre-exifting fire in motion in parallel right lines, and producing heat. The fame experiment being made, though with a much lefs fpeculum, within the torrid zone; where fo great a quantity of fire existed in the common air, where the experiment was made, that it caused the mercury in Fahrenheit's thermo'meter to rife as high as 80 degrees; yet the reflected light <from the moon, which was fo refulgent in the focus of that glafs fpeculum, did not in the leaft act on that pre-existing fire, fo as to put its particles in motion, nor produce the leaft increase of fire or heat. Hence it is evident, that as this great light, neither acts as fire, nor produces the fame ⚫ effects which fire does, it confequently is not fire.'

We must here take the liberty to obferve, that the different quantities of light paffing thro' the focus, when the fpeculum is applied to the fun and to the moon, cannot be estimated by any refulgency: and the reafon why moon-light does not heat and burn, is certainly its want of denfity or momentum.

There is this difference only, in our opinion, between light and fire: the former is the very fwift, regular, vibratory motion of a very fmall quantity of matter; and the latter an equally fwift, irregular motion of a larger quantity; or a fwifter of an equal quantity of the fame matter: which matter is also homogeneous to that of which every other body in nature is compofed. Fire and Light differ, therefore, principally as motions only of different momenta. The momentum of a fingle ray, or a few rays, of light, thus, do not produce

the

the fenfation of heat; but the momenta of feveral united, conftitute fire. The rays of the fun naturally falling on the fuperficies of bodies, in like manner, give them only refulgence and colour; but, artificially collected into a focus, by which the momenta of many, fall on a smaller space; the parts of the body on which they fall, yield to the greater force, and take fire. But if there be no opake, or refifting body in the focus, no heat or burning, as we have already obferved, enfues.

With refpect, therefore, to our Author's queries which are fubjoined to this performance, we shall be excused in passing them entirely over, as, for the reasons already given, many of them are futile, and admit of no anfwer. Many others of them, alfo, we will venture to fay, our Author himself may, on the principles we have hinted at, very easily refolve. K-n-k

A Series of Difcourfes on the Principles and Religion and the Chriftian Revelation. practical Subjects. By Samuel Bourn. bound.

S

Griffiths.

Evidences of natural And on fome proper 8vo. 2 vols. 12s.

UCH Readers as have a tafte for religious enquiries, of all others the most agreeable to every well-difpofed mind, will find in thefe Difcourfes a rich fund of rational entertainment. The great principles of natural and revealed Religion are explained and illuftrated in them, with much perfpicuity and strength of reasoning; and the principal objections that have been urged against them, anfwered in a very folid and fatisfactory manner and what will give peculiar pleasure to every judicious Reader, there is not the leaft trace of a bigotted attachment to party-notions throughout the whole work no contending for the diftinguishing tenets of any fect or denomination of Chriftians; but a candid, liberal, and ingenuous spirit breathes through the whole. Where the Author differs from commonly received opinions, he gives his reasons with modefty; and appears, indeed, to have no other view in his Difcourfes, but to discover truth, and to recommend it. We shall give a short view of what is contained in them, after inferting the Advertisement that is prefixed, which is as follows.

k;

It is taken for granted, in the following Difcourses, that the Writers of the New Teftament always mean, by the • term Avasaris, or refurrection, a restoration to life; or

• that

that operation or event, by which the perfon who dies paffeth from death to life, or from a ftate of inaction and infenfibility, to a state of action and enjoyment; without any reference to what becomes of the body. The reasons C are as follow.

(1.) If we understand the word refurrection, as denoting fimply a restoration to life; the language of the New Teltament on this fubject is perfectly intelligible and uniform; -but is ambiguous, if not unintelligible, if we under stand that word, as having a reference to the body.—This ⚫ reason will appear to those who carefully examine and com < pare the feveral paffages.

(2.) There is no fuch expreffion to be found in any of the Writers of the New Teftament, as a Resurrection of the body, or of the flesh and it is very unaccountable that they fhould never ufe fuch an expreffion, if fuch was their 'meaning.

(3.) The Apoftle declares, that flesh and blood cannot in•herit the kingdom of GOD; neither doth corruption inherit in• corruption. But if there fhall be a refurrection of the

body; and the spiritual incorruptible bodies of men in the ⚫ future ftate fhall be compofed of the fame materials as thefe ⚫ mortal bodies;-then flesh and blood may be faid to inherit the kingdom of God, tho' differently modified, and corruption is made heir to incorruption.

(4.) The Apoftle's enumerating the different bodies in the visible creation, 1 Cor. xv. is foreign to his purpose, if * he meant to illuftrate a refurrection of the body: he ought • rather to have pointed out to our observation the changes ⚫ and transformations which the fame bodies undergo. But • if he meant to fhew, that the divine power may invest men in a future ftate with other bodies of a different kind, in exchange for thefe animal bodies; then his enumeration is directly to the purpose: he leads us to a view of the visible creation, which ferves to elucidate his fubject; and he adds with propriety, There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body, i. e. a body of a kind totally different from the other.,

(5.) The fame Apostle exprefly guards us against the grofs notion of a refurrection of the body, in the very place where he uses the comparison of plants rifing from the feed: -Thou foul, that which thou fewest, is not that body which

fball be; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleafed him.