neutral condition, forms a kind of atmosphere, extending far beyond the
mass of our atmosphere, yet _subject to terrestrial attraction_, yet
_physically imponderable_, and, consequently, following our globe in its
motion?" The incandescence of aërolites must, therefore, be owing to
friction against the molecules of the electric fluid which forms an
atmosphere around the globe. According to this view, some force keeps it
there, yet it is not ponderable. As it is of limited extent, this is not
the medium whose undulations brings to light the existence of the stars;
neither is Encke's, nor Herschel's, nor any other resisting medium.
Where shall we find the present established principles of science? If we
grant the Newtonians a plenum, they still cling to attraction of _all
matter_ in some shape. If we confine them to a vacuum, they will
virtually deny it. Is not this solemn trifling? How much more noble
would it be to exhibit a little more tolerance, seeing that they
themselves know not what to believe? We do not offer these remarks as
argument, but merely as indications of that course of reasoning by which
we conclude that the upholders of the present systems of science are not
entitled to any other ground than the pure Newtonian basis of an
interplanetary vacuum.


DIFFICULTIES OF THIS VIEW.

This, then, is the state of the case: Matter attracts matter directly as
the mass, and inversely as the squares of the distances. This law is
derived from the planetary motions; space is, consequently, a void; and,
therefore, the power which gives mechanical momentum to matter, is
transferred from one end of creation to the other, without any physical
medium to convey the impulse. At the present day the doctrines of
Descartes are considered absurd; yet here is an absurdity of a far