the other, we expect that "pure and Reply to J. C. "Observations" on Buffier's [Inserted in No. 7, col. 607.] MR. EDITOR, whence the quotation is takon, he considers actions as proceeding immediately from the will of man, or from the will or decrees of God; without rereferring, at that time, to motives as the occasions of willing, or as the instruments by which the Divine purposes are accomplished His object is to show that that doctrine which teaches us that the will is "bound," is opposed to those first principles that are found in every human being possessing common sense; and that these principles are so closely interwoven with the mechanism of the human mind, that notwithstanding there are persons who persuade themselves into a partial belief of opinions contrary to these "genuine sentiments of nature," yet, when both are brought to a fair practical test, the dictates of common sense are generally found predominant. That man is free, Buffier considered one of those important truths which nature teaches all men; and hence for a necessarian seriously to pretend to WHATEVER transformations the doc- him that he was not free, and yet not trine of Necessity may undergo in pass-consider his wager advantageous, he ing through such hands as the infidel | inferred could only proceed from the Volney, the deist Hobbs, the socinian necessary and invincible opinion he Priestley, or the calvinist Toplady, it had of his being free." Those who unloses nothing of its real nature. Whe-derstand the controversy on liberty and ther, with the pompous title philosophi- necessity, need not be informed that it cal, it connects human actions with is not an objection of yesterday against the laws of nature as their necessary the compulsive scheme, that it concauses; or whether, with the more tradicts our consciousness; nor yet sacred appellation decretive, it repre- that the pens of some of the ablest sents them as the results of the eternal necessarians have been employed to purpose and decrees of God, the con- elude the force of this objection. And sequences are the same. If it be true,an had N. R. attempted to prove that the uncontrollable destiny reigns through doctrine of necessity harmonizes with heaven, earth, and hell; free-agency our consciousness, and that the docis annihilated; the distinction between trine of liberty clashes with it, his obvirtue and vice is confounded; and the servations would have been more in equity of rewards and punishments en- place than they now are; as my object, tirely lost. But notwithstanding that in the article which contains Buffier's in every form which it assumes it ex- wager, was merely to repeat this obculpates man from guilt, and fixes what jection. As his remarks are foreign to are called his crimes, either on na- the subject, I might very properly pass ture or on nature's God; it is fre- them over in silence. I shall, however, quently of importance to keep the dis- briefly notice some of his observations. tinction in view to which I have just adverted. It was partly the forgetting of this distinction, I presume, that led your correspondent N. R. to mistake the object of that article on which he has animadverted, No. 7, col. 607. At the commencement, this writer informs us, that he "is convinced in his judgment of the fact, that man is free; but whether he has precisely the same idea of freedom with that correspondent, he is not prepared to assert." It is extremely probable, that we do not both use the word freedom in precisely the same sense; especially if, in the meaning which he attaches to it, nothing is included con3F 66 66 66 has not thought proper at all times to exert: it consists in a feeling of the heart. It is not the offspring of mere opinion; it has a higher source; and is possessed by all good men, by whatever shades of sentiment they may be distinguished. trary to the import of the language | ascribing to God an influence which he which he has put into the mouth of the "poor fellow" whom he has hypothetically introduced; namely, that every movement of" the "body" is previously ordained." Such a freedom, I think, looks very much like compulsion; and if it be true that every movement of" the "body" be previously ordained," then, for ought I see to the contrary, the murderer who struggles beneath a gallows, deserves no blame for the "movements of" his "body" that brought him to his unhappy end; nor does the writhing martyr in the flames, deserve praise for the piety and constancy that led him to the stake. What I mean by freedom, is something very different. 66 But, Sir, if this "singular wager" "exhibits an erroneous view of the subject in dispute," your correspondent N. R. endeavours to remove these false impressions which it may have occasioned, by placing the subject on its proper foundation. The true question seems, in his estimation, to be this; with respect to the “ movement of" the body," a man may do whatever he chooses (physical impediments of course excepted,) but then he will choose to do nothing without a reason or motive. On the first point, there can be no difference between us; and to the second, I unhesitatingly and unequivocally assent. At first sight, one might almost think that we might "shake hands, and ever after live in peace;” “ but," no, "it is vain to talk of peace: it must not be concealed, that this is not the question." The real question goes deeper, and is this, Whether in every action that is past, the volition which led to that action was absolutely controlled by the motive which it followed? or whether, prior to volition, it was not in the power of the mind to have paused, and to have collected and examined other motives, that would have presented a greater real or apparent good; and consequently have led to another volition and another action? This I By freedom, as it refers to actions morally good or morally evil, I mean, the absence both of compulsive causes and invincible impediments. The principle of action itself, I call a power imparted to the mind, by Him who formed it, either to act or forbear to act, when solicited by different desirable objects. Without such a freedom and such a power, the judgmentday is to me an enigma that baffles my conceptions. It lies on those who object to this, to prove, 1. That it is impossible for God to confer, or for a creature to possess, such a freedom. 2. To show, that without it a man may be justly accountable for his actions, and be a proper subject for rewards and punishments. "And when they have done this, they will have accomplished more than philosopher or divine has ever done before them." "But in their treatment of" this sub-maintain in the affirmative. That moject, "let them be on especial guard not to" lay too much stress on negative causality, nor "to waste their time in the silly" charge, that a belief in free agency proceeds from pride; "because such a" charge was never dreamt of by any" one, except he were an enthusiast or a bigot." Such a belief neither proceeds from, excites, nor implies, a haughty spirit." The doctrine of liberty does not place man beyond the control of his Maker; nor are its advocates reluctant to acknowledge, that they are wholly at the disposal of that God whose creative power formed, and whose continued energy preserves them in being. Humility does not consist in denying to man a power which God has conferred upon him, nor in 66 66 66 tives do not compel the will, is obvious from the following considerations. 1. They have no real existence separate from the mind; being nothing more than perceptions of certain desirable qualities in things. 2. In choosing or willing, it is the will that acts, and not the motives; motives being passive, like their causes. 3. It is impossible for that which is passive, to force that which is active. Motives, therefore, are merely the occasions, and not the efficient causes, of choosing; the efficient cause must be sought for in the mind itself. If, then, motives are passive, and it is the will itself that acts; and if the mind has a power to pause before volition, and oppose motive to motive; we may very safely admit that motive is essential to choice, without subjecting our elections to absolute necessity. 66 The difficulties," says a modern metaphysician, "in which this subject has hitherto been involved, have arisen in great measure from the improper expressions used in treating it; most of which are, in their literal sense, applicable only to corporeal nature, which is passive, and therefore suggest false conceptions when applied to mind, which is essentially active. Thus motives seem to imply something active, whereas they are, in reality, passive, being the ends which the mind pursues, or may pursue. They are said to impel the mind to action; which again falsely denotes activity, whereas the mind naturally pursues them in proportion to the real or apparent good they present. Thus also force and strength are improperly applied to them." And again, speaking of volition, he says, "The efficient cause of the volition is the mind itself; the term motive is in some degree improper, as it conveys the idea of activity, whereas it is, in reality, passive, being the term towards which the mind moves, or from which it recedes." On the same subject, Dr. Watts observes, "Some philosophers suppose nothing worthy of the name of agent or action, but the will and its exercises; and they call all other beings, and their powers and operations, merely passive; but this, perhaps, is too great a violence offered to the common sense of words, though there may be some appearance of reason for it in the nature of things." From the Dr.'s statement, the view that has been given of the will and its exercises, corresponds with the nature of things; it is only opposed to the common sense of words. And when words suggest conceptions contrary to the nature of those things which they represent, the meaning of those words must, of course, be accommodated to the nature of things, and not the nature of things altered to correspond with words. The will then determining the choice itself, instead of being certainly determined by the greatest, or always by the strongest motive; the only remaining topic claiming notice, is," that in all voluntary actions, a man will uniformly do that which, upon the whole, is most agreeable to himself." Thus, it seems, that self-gratification is the only spring of all voluntary actions. Now, with out attempting to prove, that self-denial can never be more agreeable than selfgratification; and without adducing a single fact from the page of history, to show that there have been men who have sacrificed every thing dear to themselves for the good of others; I will suppose, that all men uniformly act upon the principle laid down by necessarians: and then I shall be glad to be informed, in what the difference consists between men and devils? Judging of them by the spring of their actions, I seriously affirm, that I can conceive of no difference; as, the same definition will suit both. A being uniformly acting most agreeably to himself, is a definition that will exactly answer to either saint, sinner, or devil, if motives determine the choice, and if the end of all action is personal gratification. A scheme which levels these obvious distinctions of character, must be false.-I have probably written too much, and therefore hasten towards a conclusion. That there are questions of difficult solution connected with the liberty of the will, I am by no means disposed to deny. But as we have the evidence of consciousness for its truth; to deny it, is only to imitate the absurdity of those, who, discrediting the testimony of their senses, deny the existence and motions of material beings, because consciousness is not added to sense, to attest their existence. One of the writers already referred to, speaking of liberty, observes, "It is needless to adduce any arguments in proof of it, as the consciousness of our being ourselves, the active principles from which our determinations originate, and the remorse incident to the abuse of this self-determining power, impress the fullest conviction of this important truth." Having made these observations, I shall take a final leave of Buffier's Wager. Whatever inadvertency I may attribute to N, R., I by no means impute to him intentional misrepresentation; and with every proper feeling towards him, I remain, Sir, your's respectfully, Query on Elliptical Figures, MR. EDITOR, S. By giving the following remarks to the consideration of your readers, you will oblige your constant and much ad- a square, in the Constellation of the miring reader, M. P. Fishes. Mars rises on the 1st about eight in the evening, and on the 31st about six. His stay above the horizon is therefore so long, that the astronomer may pursue at leisure his observations on him. He is first seen between the third and fourth of the Crab, the former star above, and the latter below him, the intervening nebula being near to him to the west. His motion is very slow to the east till the 7th, when he is stationary, and he does not pass the fourth, receding back after this day, and directing his course to the third, passing between this star and the nebula, but nearest to the star. Lincolnshire, Oct. 14, 1819. CASUALLY taking up Dr. Hutton's Treatise on Mensuration, I opened to his definition of an Ellipsis, and found it to be as follows:-" The section is called an Ellipsis when the cone is cut obliquely through both sides." Which immediately struck me with the idea of a figure in the shape of an egg, having ordinates, drawn from points on the axes equally distant from the centre, of unequal length. Yet on looking a little further, I found the Ellipsis decribed as an oval whose two segments, occasioned by the cutting of its conjugate diameter, would be exactly similar and equal. Not satisfied with the the Doctor, I had recourse to Bonnycastle; and finding that he treats the THESE curious phænomena, which are subject in precisely the same manner, but of rare occurrence, have been obI am at a loss to account for what must served by astronomers of the two last be an error somewhere. In hope of centuries with very great care; and, seeing something further on the sub-from their observations preserved in jeet, these observations are submitted to the public. Celestial Phænomena. IF you think the following Astronomi- AN OBSERVER. THE TRANSITS OF MERCURY. the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, and the scientific works of other nations, tables of the motions of Mercury have been rendered as accurate as those of the other planets in the Solar System. Dr. Halley was the first who gave us tables, by means of which the times of the transits of Mercury over the solar disk could be readily calculated. These have been corrected by the late celebrated De la Lande, from more recent observations made by himself and others. From the corrected tables just referred to, it appears that the transits of Mercury over the disk of the sun return in stated periods of six, seven, thirteen, thirtythree, forty-six, two hundred and seventeen, and two hundred and sixty-three years, as follows: Transits of Mercury at the ascending node, in November. Astronomical Occurrences for December. THE sun enters Capricorn on the 22d, at four minutes past three in the afternoon, when the Winter quarter commences. The Moon is full on the 1st; enters her last quarter on the 9th; she is new on the 17th; enters her first quarter on the 23d; and she is again full on the 31st. She will pass Mars on the 5th, the Georgian Planet on the 16th, Mercury on the 17th, Venus on the 18th, Jupiter on the 20th, and Saturn on the 22d. Jupiter sets on the 1st, at one minute past nine in the evening; and on the 31st, about a quarter before eight. He is therefore on the western side of the meridian, and will easily be distinguished by his superior brightness. Saturn is on the meridian on the 1st, about a quarter past seven incurrence. the evening, and about half past five on the 31st. He is seen at a considerable distance to the east of Jupiter, and below four stars nearly in the form of PERIOD I.-6 years, 8 days, 18 hours, and 39 minutes, with two intercalations; and one day more, if the year of the preceding transit be bissextile, or the one following it. the end of this period, moves along the solar disk in a track 31′ 26′′ to the north of his preceding one at the same node. This period is of very rare oc Mercury at PERIOD II.-7 years all but 7 days and 57 minutes, with two intercalations; otherwise days 57 minutes only must be substracted. Mercury's track at the end of this period will be | the time and circumstances of the next 23′ 12′′ to the south of that at its com- | transit of this planet at the descending mencement. This period occurs twice or thrice in a century. PERIOD III.-13 years, 2 days, 17 hours, 42 minutes, with three intercalations; but, when there are four, 1 day, 17 hours, 42 minutes, must only be added. Mercury's track is 8' 14" more to the north at the end of this period. PERIOD IV.-46 years, 4 hours, 42 minutes, with twelve intercalations; but, when there are only eleven, a day more must be added. Mercury's track 1' 35" more to the south. node?-By a single glance at Period To the transit of 1799 add Period II. 33 years; and the sum will be 1832 for the year of the next transit. From May 7 days, 1 hour, 4 minutes, subtract 2 days, 52 minutes, (there being eight intercalations) and the difference, 5 days, 0 hours, 12 minutes, will be the time in the month of May of Mercury's inferior conjunction. The nearest approach of the centres will be found by subtracting 5' 31" from 13′ 46′′; the difference 8′ 15′′ being the nearest apMer-proach of the centres of the Sun and Mercury in the transit of 1832, the planet being to the north. PERIOD V.-217 years, 6 hours, 11 minutes, with 54 intercalations. Mercury's track 6" more to the south. In the transits of the nineteenth century Mercury will be about 5" more to the north. PERIOD VI.—263 years, 1 day, 11 hours, with 66 intercalations. cury's track l′ 40′′ more to the north. Transits of Mercury at the descending node, in May. PERIOD I.—13 Julian years, 3 days, 7 hours, 53 minutes, with three intercalations. Mercury more to the south 17' 7". PERIOD II.-33 years, all but 2 days, 52 minutes, with eight intercalations. Mercury 13′ 46′′ more to the north. Example 2. The same transit calculated by the one which happened in 1786; the time of the conjunction being May 3 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes, and the nearest approach of the centres 11'21", the planet being to the north.-To the transit of 1786 add 46 years, and the sum 1832 will be the year of the transit. To May 3 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes, add 1 day, 6 hours, 40 minutes, (there being only eleven intercalations,) and the sum May 5 days, 0 hours, 42 minutes, will be the time of the inferior conjunction. If we subtract 3' 30" from 11' 21", the difference PERIOD V.-263 years, 1 day, 97' 51' will be the nearest approach of hours, with 66 intercalations. Mercury the centres, the planet being to the 3' more to the south. north: PERIOD III.-46 years, 6 hours, 40 minutes, with twelve intercalations. Mercury 3′ 30′′ more to the south. PERIOD IV.-217 years, 2 hours, with 54 intercalations. Mercury 13" more to the north. N. B. If there should be fewer intercalations in any of the above periods than what are specified, as will frequently happen in the longer ones according to the Gregorian calendar; an additional day must be added for every one which is wanting to make up the specified number. Three examples will be sufficient to shew how the transists of Mercury are to be calculated by the above periods. Example 1. A transit of Mercury happened at the descending node on the 7th of May, 1799; the time of the conjunction being at 4 minutes past one in the afternoon at Greenwich, and the nearest approach of the centres 5′ 31′′ the planet being to the south.-Query, Example 3. The same transit calculated by the one which happened in 1615; the time of the conjunction being May 2 days, 21 hours, 39 min. and the nearest approach of the centres 7' 37", the planet being to the north.-To the transit of 1615 add 217 years, and the sum 1832 will be the year of the transit; and 2 days 2 hours added to May 2 days, 21 hours, 39 minutes, (there being 52 intercalations) will give May 5, at 39 minutes past eleven in the forenoon for the time of the conjunction. To 7' 37" add 13"; and the sum 7′ 50′′ will be the nearest approach of the centres. It will be observed that there is a considerable difference in the circumstances of the transit of 1832, as ob |
