separation? why should this nebulous matter grow cooler and cooler? why should it not retain for ever the same degree of heat, whatever heat be? If heat be a fluid, if to cool be to part with this fluid, as many philosophers suppose, what becomes of the fluid heat of the nebulous matter, as the matter cools down? Into what unoccupied region does it find its way?

Innumerable questions of the same kind might be asked, and the conclusion to be drawn is, that every new physical theory which we include in our view of the universe, involves us in new difficulties and perplexities, if we try to erect it into an ultimate and final account of the existence and arrangement of the world in which we live. With the evidence of such theories, considered as scientific generalizations of ascertained facts, with their claims to a place in our natural philosophy, we have here nothing to do. But if they are put forwards as a disclosure of the ultimate cause of that which occurs, and as superseding the necessity of looking further or higher; if they claim a place in our Natural Theology, as well as our Natural Philosophy; we conceive that their pretensions will not bear a moment's examination.

Leaving then to other persons and to future ages to decide upon the scientific merits of the nebular hypothesis, we conceive that the final fate of this opinion can not, in sound reason, affect at all the view which we have been endeavouring to illus

trate; the view of the universe as the work of a wise and good Creator. Let it be supposed that the point to which this hypothesis leads us, is the ultimate point of physical science that the farthest glimpse we can obtain of the material universe by our natural faculties, shows it to us occupied by a boundless abyss of luminous matter: still we ask, how space came to be thus occupied, how matter came to be thus luminous? If we establish by physical proofs, that the first fact which can be traced in the history of the world, is that "there was light;" we shall still be led, even by our natural reason, to suppose that before this could occur, "God said, let there be light."

CHAPTER VIII.

The Existence of a Resisting Medium in the
Solar System.

THE question of a plenum and a vacuum was formerly much debated among those who speculated concerning the constitution of the universe; that is, they disputed whether the celestial and terrestrial spaces are absolutely full, each portion being occupied by some matter or other; or whether there are, between and among the material parts of the world, empty spaces free from all matter, however rare. This question was

often treated by means of abstract conceptions and à priori reasonings; and was sometimes considered as one in which the result of the struggle between rival systems of philosophy, the Cartesian and Newtonian for instance, was involved. It was conceived by some that the Newtonian doctrine of the motions of the heavenly bodies, according to mechanical laws, required that the space in which they moved should be, absolutely and metaphysically speaking, a vacuum.

This, however, is not necessary to the truth of the Newtonian doctrines, and does not appear to have been intended to be asserted by Newton himself. Undoubtedly, according to his theory, the motions of the heavenly bodies were calculated on the supposition that they do move in a space void of any resisting fluid; and the comparison of the places so calculated with the places actually observed, (continued for a long course of years, and tried in innumerable cases,) did not show any difference which implied the existence of a resisting fluid. The Newtonian, therefore, was justified in asserting that either there was no such fluid, or that it was so thin and rarefied, that no phenomenon yet examined by astronomers was capable of betraying its effects.

This was all that the Newtonian needed or ought to maintain; for his philosophy, founded altogether upon observation, had nothing to do with abstract possibilities and metaphysical ne

cessities. And in the same manner in which observation and calculation thus showed that there could be none but a very rare medium pervading the solar system, it was left open to observation and calculation to prove that there was such a medium, if any facts could be discovered which offered suitable evidence.

Within the last few years, facts have been observed which show, in the opinion of some of the best mathematicians of Europe, that such a very rare medium does really occupy the spaces in which the planets move; and it may be proper and interesting to consider the bearing of this opinion upon the views and arguments which we have had here to present.

1. Reasons might be offered, founded on the universal diffusion of light and on other grounds, for believing that the planetary spaces cannot be entirely free from matter of some kind; and wherever matter is, we should expect resistance. But the facts which have thus led astronomers to the conviction that such a resisting medium really exists, are certain circumstances occurring in the motion of a body revolving round the sun, which is now usually called Encke's comet. This body revolves in a very excentric or oblong orbit, its greatest or aphelion distance from the sun, and its nearest or perihelion distance, being in the proportion of more than ten to one. In this respect it agrees with other comets; but its time of W.5

revolution about the sun is much less than that of the comets which have excited most notice; for while they appear only at long intervals of years, the body of which we are now speaking returns to its perihelion every 1208 days, or in about three years and one-third. Another observable circumstance in this singular body, is its extreme apparent tenuity: it appears as a loose indefinitely formed speck of vapour, through which the stars are visible with no perceptible diminution of their brightness. This body was first seen by Mechain and Messier, in 1786,* but they obtained only two observations, whereas three, at least, are requisite to determine the path of a heavenly body. Miss Herschel discovered it again in 1795, and it was observed by several European astronomers. In 1805 it was again seen, and again in 1819. Hitherto it was supposed that the four comets thus observed were all different; Encke, however, showed that the observations could only be explained by considering them as returns of the same revolving body; and by doing this, well merited that his name should be associated with the subject of his discovery. The return of this body in 1822, was calculated beforehand, and observed in New South Wales, the comet being then in the southern part of the heavens; but on comparing the calculated and