For this result would demonstrate a complete absurdity, in the present popular theory of the pure physical case; viz. That the centripetal forces, or forces which are said to tend to the centre, do not tend usque ad To the centre, but stop short at the surface of the earth! Then the name of centripetal is erroneous and absurd, and they should be termed surface-tending, or superficie-petal forces! Can any thing be conceived more unphilosophical than such an arrangement, or rather total derangement? For since all the external rays of attraction, or centripetal forces from all parts of the spherical superficies do, if produced inwards, meet in the central point, but only one of those rays does fall on any corresponding point of the superficies; therefore, the probability of all these forces being really and actually centripetal, (or terminating in the centre,) is to the probability of their being merely superficial, (or stopping at the surface,) in the direct ratio of countless numbers to one. Moreover, the aggregate central point not only surpasses each of all of the superficial points in this ratio, but also it equals the whole of them together in numbers, being composed of the whole; and, in point of unity of power and effect, it surpasses the whole of them together in the direct ratio, (to say the least,) of the surface of the sphere, to one point of the same; for the same quantity of the

power of attraction which is concentrated in the one central point, (according to universal analogy,) being (according to the popular theory) scattered so as to spread over the whole surface of the globe; therefore the said superficial power, at any one point of the surface of the globe, will be directly as that point to the whole surface of the sphere. But the power of attraction exerted by the centre at every point of the superficies of the sphere is evidently the power of attraction of the whole sphere, collected into one intense point. Or rather, and more correctly speaking, as the attractions balance and neutralise each other all round the sphere, by the popular hypothesis, therefore the ratio between the central and the superficial power will be literally "all the world to nothing.”*

This may easily be shown from the principles of natural philosophy assumed by the popular theory. For example, "why do the centripetal forces always tend to the earth's surface, in straight lines perpendicular to it, all ROUND THE GLOBE, so as to terminate in THE CENTRE, when produced inwards, if they all stop at the surface?"

It will be answered, by the popular theory, that from the "spherical figure of the earth, the greatest mass of matter in it, (supposing the matter to be homogeneous,) will always be measured by the cube of a true diameter, or a straight line passing through the centre; because this is the greatest straight line that can be drawn in a sphere. But the measure of greatest attraction is always that of the greatest mass of matter; hence the diameter of the sphere, or a straight

This view of the subject displays the great disadvantages of democratic government, which

line perpendicular to the surface of the globe, and passing through the centre, will always denote the line of greatest attraction, and of the greatest mass of matter; and in proportion as any line is more distinct from the diameter, in the same proportion the attraction which it measures or symbolises is less. Hence it is mathematically certain, that any body exterior to the earth, and under the power of its attraction, will fall to its surface in a straight line perpendicular thereto; because it is in the direction of the diameter, or the line of greatest attraction; and all other lines have less attraction in proportion as they are farther from that line. But, it may be said boldly, (says the popular theory,) that the central point has no special attraction, more than any other point in the line of the diameter, and that if it could be extracted from the diameter, the loss of attraction thereby would be only the loss of an insensible individual point of matter?" But, I would reply, that its very situation implies supreme power, because it must have subdued all the other particles on every side, before it could have arranged them in such an exquisite, and wise, and admirable system of subordination of parts to the whole, which symbolises intellectual conquest, or the triumph of reason and truth.

Hence the centre of the sphere typifies the supreme power of the king and government. It may be said also, in like manner in this case, that the king is only an individual man, or human point, and has no more power in himself than any other individual. His power proceeds from his office, and from his situation; and if he were removed from that office and situation, then his power would cease, and he would become weak like any other man. But is a king therefore not more powerful than a beggar? He who maintains this, may with equal reason maintain, that the central point of the globe

is typified by the scheme of mere superficial and individual attractions, on one hand; and

has no more power of attraction than any point on the superficies.

But, if all this declamation is considered as insufficient to demonstrate a peculiar and supreme power in the centre of the sphere, then we must go at once to the root of the matter, viz. the popular theory refuses to yield to analogical fancies, and entrenches itself in this above-mentioned fact, viz. "that from the nature of the form of the sphere, the central point is always found in the diameter, or the longest straight line that can be drawn in the sphere. Hence it is always found in the line of greatest attraction, and from this incident analogy assumes, and as it were, begs the question of superior attraction in itself. But there is no weight at all in this assumption; for if the central point were abstracted from the diametrical line, there would still remain a superiority of length in that line, above all other lines that are more distant from the centre; and, therefore, there would still be a superiority of attraction in that line; because the diametrical measure thereof had, or has, only lost one individual point too small to be perceived or missed."

It must be acknowledged that the above argument is just and conclusive, provided that the premises on which it sets off are all strictly true; but I positively deny that they are true, and I proceed to demonstrate, from matter of fact, that they are mathematically and philosophically false.

If, indeed, the whole attraction of the whole (of any) diametrical line in the sphere, acts upon any corpuscle beyond the sphere, to draw it to the surface of the sphere in a straight line perpendicular to the surface, (as the popular theory asserts,) then I submit to its dictum, and resign my pretensions; but I assert that the corpuscle is not attracted by the whole of the diametrical line, but only by that half of

the advantages of the concentrated power and compactness of monarchial lawful government

it nearest to the corpuscle, which terminates in the centre. I also assert, as a self-evident truth, that the remaining half of the diametrical line, from the centre outwards, does not attract the corpuscle at all, but that its attraction is exerted in a direction diametrically opposite to the attraction of the other half line nearest to the corpuscle; viz. from the extreme point (opposite) of the diameter inwards to the centre; so that the two opposite attractions do meet in the centre, and so balance and support each other, as it were, back to back. I also assert that the same things take place in every diameter, all round the globe, which is self-evident, and acknowledged by all the world, when they mention the word

ANTIPODES.

Thus the central point of the sphere is like a Briareus, with millions of arms, extended all round the globe, all of which catch hold of all things exterior to the mass, or body of the sphere, within their reach, and draw them inwards, like an immense polypous, seizing its prey. Hence the attractions of the several diameters all meet in the centre.

Now it is manifest, from the premises, that the central attraction does not so much resemble a brute, undistinguishing, chaotic, unregulated, contradictory, absurd, blind, self-destroying fury, as it resembles a select, judicious, discerning, superintending, regulating energy of a wise, and upon the whole, beneficent monarch.

We have only to endeavour to imagine, for a moment, that all the diameters of the sphere attract in one and the same direction, throughout their whole extent, all round the globe, without any regard to the centre, to see, at once, that they all and every one of them, must be supposed to act and pull, at the same moment, in opposite directions; like a man supposed (if it were possible) to run eastward and westward