Now fince the daily geocentric motion of Venus about the 3d of Mar. was 1° 11' 21" direct, and by Mr Thomas's obfervations we see that the comet, in the space of 24 hours, was 1° 10' nearer Venus, therefore its apparent diurnal motion was then 1′21′′ direct, (3) fo that Mr Thomas might conclude, without contradicting himself, that the comet viewed from the earth, about the 3d of March, appeared to move thro' the heavens in the order of the figns; and then what I inferr'd from thence must be sight. Mr Yate we fee computes its diurnal motion then to be at least 3′ retrograde; but, as it appeared to run in a line that had about 20° inclination to the ecliptic, (4) its motion whether direct or retrograde was apparently much flower (5) on the 3d of Mar. when ascending from its perihelion, than (for fo much is the angle AC b) nor indeed could he poffibly make it nearer: now Mr Wright fays, his trajectory was conftructed from Mr Grabam's obfervations; was it poffible then that Mr Grabam, and every body elfe, could be mistaken almoft a whole fign in the place of the comet Dec. 23? If not, it is evident, the comet muft come in the direction b B; and if fo, he may bring his peribelion more back ftill, if he pleases, but every body will fee, by that time he has ftraightened the line PF to make it agreeable to the former, 'twill be a peribelion in a right line or thereabout. The direction of the line Bobliged Mr Wright to place his peribelion as far forward as he bas done, in order to bring the fun into the focus of his Ellipfis; and if this removed the comet fo far out of the way, as not to be feen from the earth oo the 3d of Mar, following, it was what he could not help: he thought his theory had been true; but the the comet feen in funshine on that day, or after, has fully demonftrated the contrary. (3) So then by a nice calculation, after I had fhewn him the way, he differs from me above 4; a very fmall matter! but the meaneft reader, by looking upon his scheme, may without calculation argue thus; if Venus moving daily about 1° 37° from towards g does at the fame time, as viewed from a, appear to move 1° 11' direct; then the comet moving from & towards F, mult needs, in the fame time, appear to move above 1o direa; for the curves ecg and Bb F appear to be parallel from B tob; and consequently the comet in 6 between Venus and the fun, muft move nearly the fame way as Venus, and nearly as much dire♬ ; feeing therefore that it did not do fo, but came in a day's time 1° 10 nearer Venus, it is moft evident, that it did not move in the line P F. (4) Fine calculations that can agree no nearer than 20° and 53° 45′ inclination! But as Mi Wright's trajectory agrees with the obfervations taken on the 23d of Dec. and this does not, nor cannot; I fhall take the liberty of following Mr Wright, who appears not to have been mistaken, as far as he depended upon obfervations, and not upon theory. (5) I faid formerly, the comet might run 2 or 3 along the heavens while it gained 2010'of Venus: I will here fhew that it might run above 30° along the heavens while it gained 1o 10', provided it moved with 53° 45′ inclination to the ecliptick, and that it was in a node, as Venus was nearly, on the 3d of Mar. In the oblique fpherical triangle ABC(fee the figure above) we have given the fide A B the diftance of the comet From Venus, Mar. the 3d, 26o 50', the fide B C the diftance of the comet from Venus, Mar. the 4 h, 25 40', and the angle A, the inclination of the comet's courfe to the ecliptick, 53°45', to find the fide AC: Let fall a perpendicular from B to D, and lay then, As the co angent of AB 26o 50' Is to radius; So is the cofine of the angle A 53° 45' Again, As the cofine of AB 26° 50' Is to the cofine of AB 16 39; So is the cofine of B C 25 40 To the cofine of the fegment D C 14 36. Add the two fegments together, and they give you the curve AC 31° 15'; and fo far might the comet move along the heavens, and yet be but 1° 10' neater Venus, which by letting fall a perpendicular from the angle C to E, may be found to be no less than 18° 33' retrograde; fo very little is there in what this gentleman fays fo pofitively, that be apparent motion of the comet was much flower, Indeed, if the comet had before this croffed the ecliptick, (as no doubt but it had) and was in any point between A and D, then the nearer it was to D the g eater would be the angle A, and of confequence fo much the lefs the fide AC; tho' ftill I believe every unb afed reader will admit that between 1o and 18° there was room enough, in all confcience, for a retrograde motion consent with my bypotbrfis, (6) If than it had been when defcending towards it, which motion would then have gradually increafed, if, according to Mr Yate's hypothefis, it had approach'd the earth in the ftrait line A d, p. 201. confequently this comet on the 3d of Mar. was not approaching to, but receding from the earth in the direction b F. Mr Yate fays that, "From this felf-evident propofitionevery "thing, the farther it is from us, the lefs it muft appear to us, & vice "verja,I demonftrated, &c." This propofition will only hold good in objects that appear under the fame angle, (6) when at the fame diftance from the eye of the obferver; and, fince the tails of comets are obferved to be sometimes greater, fometimes lefs, when at the fame distance from the observer's eye, what Mr Yate has inferr'd from this propofition (7) must be falfe, and what Mr Thomas fays of the late comet's tail encreafing from 10 to 40 degrees, is very confentaneous to Sir Ifaac's theory. For by the foregoing fig. the comet's tail would about the 2zd of Feb. appear very fmall, both by reason of its vicinity to the fun, and of its bearing almoft directly towards the earth; and it may reasonably be fuppos'd that, while it was moving from P to b (as its diftance from the fun would not be much augmented) its heat and confequently its tail. would confiderably encreafe; that when it was arriv'd at b, its tail, being nearly in the most advantageous fituation, would appear largeft, feeing that its diftance then did not much exceed its distance from the earth on the 9th of Feb. For Mr Thomas fays, " Its head appeared very large "and bright; and, on a close inspection, I have perceiv'd it when the fun "has been about one diameter above the horizon." But on the 13th of Feb. in the morning this comet appear'd fuperior in magnitude, and nearly equal in luftre (8) to Venus; and I faw it then myfelf 8 or 10 min. after the fun was above the horizon, and might have done fo much longer had time permitted; therefore its nucleus may reasonably be conjectured to have appeared nearly of the fame magnitude to the 9th of Feb. and the 3d of Mar. following; tho' probably this comet did fhine (as others have been obferved to do) with more vivacity (9) when seen by Mr Thomas, because of the increase of heat it had acquired from the I i fun; (6) If it holds good thus far, it holds good far enough for my purpofe; for, furely, all Spherical bodies mult appar under the fame angle at the fame diftance; and my argument was not drawn from the rail, but from the fpberical head of the comet, which I concluded (according to Mt Wright's conftruction) must be a third part further from the earth on the third of Mar, than it was on the 23d of Dec. and confequently, if it was but ju feen on the 23d of Dec. it was not poffible to fee it on the 3d of March; but it was feen in funshine on the 3d (if not on the 7th) of Mar, and hence I plainly demonftrated that it muft be vaftly nearer the earth than that theory fuppofed. (7) What I faid of the comet's tail was not inferred from this propofition, as the weakeft reader must fee, but from its bearing away almoft directly from the earth; and confequently, as its angle was gradually growing lefs, and its diftance encreafing (according to that theory) it muft of neceffity grow fhorter as it afcended from its peribelion; but the contrary is known to be true, and therefore the comet muft take quite another courfe. He that can't fee the ftrength of these two arguments, muft certainly, from the weaknefs of his intellectuals, be incapable of conviction. (8) I don't love to queftion any body's veracity, but I myself faw the comet one morn. ing. (the fame morning for ought I know) and tho' it appeared about as big, yet it had nothing of the brightness of Venus: I believe this gentleman is the fift man in the world that ever faw a comet fhining with the luftre of Venus, tho' I fancy Venus itself could not be feen after fun-rifing, in that part of its orbit. (9) When Mr Davies faw the comet, it was nearly equal in luftre to Venus; but when Mr Thomas faw it, probably it fhone as bright or brighter than Venus. Credat J dæus apella, fun; hence, by the foregoing propofition, it is manifeft, that this come was nearly equi-diftant from the earth on the 9th of Feb. and 3d of Mar. and that Mr Thomas, if Mr Yate's hypothefis of rectilinear motion be true, would have feen it, notwithstanding the confumption it could, in that space of time, have undergone, without a close inspection (10) even tho' the fun had been much higher. Seeing then, that, by all obfervations, the late comet did move round the fun, and that, in all its appearances, it did accurately answer, and wonderfully confirm Sir Ifaac's theory; Mr Yate's heliocentric (11) quibble, and all that has yet been offer'd to the contrary, are to no purpose. Hevelius, as is well known, who embrac'd the hypothefis of the rectilinear motion of comets, having the opportunity to observe many of them accurately, complain'd that his calculations did not agree with his observations, and found reason to believe that the path of a comet was bent (12) into a curve line concave towards the fun. * If comets, as Mr Yate fuppofes, be meteors form'd by the fun, they are certainly meteors of a monstrous bulk, for their diurnal parallax being not perceptible, is a plain proof of their great distance from the earth; and confequently their magnitude and velocity (13) muft be very great alfo, which is not at all suitable to a meteor.And therefore unless Mr Yate produce good reasons, how the fun could form fuch a prodigious mafs of a meteor at fo vaft a distance from itself; how fuch a body, to which himself attributes gravity, vol. 13. p. 193. A. could independently acquire fuch an impetus as to force (14) a rectilinear paffage thro' this gravitating planetary fyftem, a fyftem ftrongly endow'd with attractive qualities; and why all comets are observed to be either approaching to, (15) or receding from the fun; fince by his hypothefis they may be form'd any where in this fyftem, and would certainly, fome time or other, have been feen traverfing regions, vaftly remote from, and oppofite to him, (16) and in such a direction, that a vifible approach to him would have been impoffible: I say until these objections be fully clear'd been confiderably swifter than the earth's. Every body knows that the velocity of the late great comet muft have (10) On a close inspection, it was feen on the coaft of New Holland after fun-rifing, when there was but one mathematician to look at it; in Great Britain it was feen, I be lieve, but by one, when there were many thousands to obferve it. (11) The question between me and Mr Davies is, Whether Mr Thomas by direƐ intended the beliocentric, or geocentric motion of the comet? If the former, Mr Davies must be very obftinate in ftill infifting on the latter, and making that author contradia himself. (12) Hevelius believed the path of a comet to be bent, tho' ftill he held it to be ftrait. Fye! Fye! for fhame let's have no more fuch ftuff. (13) As to the magnitude of comets, and how they are formed, I have already faid enough in my new theory; as to their velocity, every body knows, that their tails move as faft as their heads; yet their tails, in the opinion of the great Sir Ifaac Newton, are meer vapour; and confequently, a meer vapour may move as faft as they do, let them move as faft as they will. (14) From the free motion of the comets' tails, Sir Ifaac Newton argues the neceffity of a vacuum. (15) Surprizing ignorance! Can this gentleman ftrike a right line thro' a circle, that fhall not approach towards, and recede from its center? If the motion of the comets is rectilinear, this must neceffarily be the cafe. (16) Comets have been feen at a vaft diftance from the fun; tho' ftill, if they moved in right lines thy muft for that very reafon approach nearer, or go further from it. Hear'd up, and until better demonftrations prove the truth of their reczilinear motion, the Newtonian theory ftands unfhaken. (17) Your oblig'd bumble Servant, J. D. Wigton, Oct. 3. (17) How can it be fhaken, when it has the wonderful trajectory of Mr Davies to fup port it? a trajectory that is no more than 28° of longitude, inconfiftent with Graham's obfervation on the 23d of Dec, and in which the comet muft move but 1° too much diret, on the 3d of Mar, according to Mr Davies's own calculation.- -If conftruction and calculation fail, yet fancy, we fee, is fufficient to keep it fteady. N. B. The above having by J. D. been fent to Mr Yate, he added thefe Notes by way of Answer. Remarks on a Differtation concerning MELCHIZEDEK. A SIR, S the following reflections relate to an ancient piece of biftory, they may be allowed a place in your Magazine, or Mifcellaneous Correspondence. There is just published, a differtation on the hiftory of Melchizedek: in which the writer pretends to prove, that Abraham did not give tythes to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Abraham. To which purpose he afferts, That that history does not yield a proper ground for fuch opi"nion to be built upon, viz. that Abrakam gave tythes to Melchizedek, "but the contrary; and, "that the hiftorian is very particular and "exprefs that it was Melchizedek, p. 12, 13." It is granted by fome learned men, that the words, independant of the context, and he gave bim tythes of all, Gen. xiv. 19. leave doubtful who it was that gave tythes, Abraham or Melchizedek. Vid. Patrick in loc. But this writer, who can see farther than other people, fays, "the hiftorian is very par"ticular and exprefs that it was Melchizedek, who gave tythes to Abra"bam, and not Abraham to Melchizedek." To leffen the weight of his authority, without any nice criticism, 'tis fufficient to observe, that the Jews, for whofe immediate ufe the pentateuch was written, have generally understood this passage of Abraham, that Melchizedek received ty thes from him." This Melchizedek, faith Jofephus, B. I. C. 10. enter. "tained the foldiers of Abram with great hofpitality, and courteously "furnished them with every thing neceffary unto human life, extolling "at his feaft the bravery of Abram, and giving glory unto the most high "God, who had put his enemies into his hand. On the other hand, "Abram presented unto him the tenth of all the spoils which he had "taken from the Affyrians, which he received at his hands." Now can it be fairly thought, that the Jews, who may be fuppofed to understand their own books as well as the differtator, and who wanted for no respect for their ancestor, nor skill, nor vanity, to place him in the most advantageous light, would, from this hiftory, believe their father paid tythes to Melchizedek, if the contrary was, therein, very particular and exprefs? Be this as it will. From this affertion the differtator proceeds to obferve, "That the cir"cumftances which attended the cafe do not admit it to be otherwise. "For, firft, Melchizedek had done nothing to, or for Abraham, which "called "called for fuch a grateful return; whereas, Abraham had laid Melchi"zedek and all the people in that neighbourhood under an obligation of gratitude to him, in that he had rid the country of their great oppref"jor, p. 13." In answer to which, from the hiftory it appears, (1.) That Melchizedek was a neutral prince in the quarrel and war of the kings; and, confequently, Abrabam in engaging with, and beating Chederlaomer and his confederates, had done nothing to or for Melchizedek which called for any fuch grateful return from him. Melchizedek might have enjoyed the benefit of his neutrality and pacific difpofition, let which fide foever had the better. (2.) It was otherwife with Abraham: He was nearly concerned, and very fenfibly interested in the late progress of thefe princes arms. They had plunder'd Sodom, and took Lot, Abrabam's nephew, and all his goods, and carried him away captive, v. 11, 12. That his deceased brother's fon, whom he had brought up with him from Haran, from his native country, from his kindred, and from his father's house, and who for many years had fojourned with him, till lately obliged to feparate for mutual convenience and accommodation, (Gen. xii. 1, 4. xiii. 1, 5, 6.) that he, I fay, fhould now be pillaged of his wealth, and be allo forced into flavery, was an affecting confideration to Abraham. He was greatly interested in this event. His nephew's welfare was next his own, he being nearest akin to him; Abraham having at that time no feed of his own. This induced him to engage in the war; when Abraham beard that his brother, the dear remains of the fon of his father, was taken captive, he armed his trained fervants, v. 14. This mov'd him to battle, and animated him to victory. Whereas Melchize dek, who was neuter, had no fuch family-intereft nor concern; and, therefore, very juftly ftiles Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him Abraham's enemies, not his, v. 20. (3.) After the battle Melchizedek treated Abraham, and the people that were with him, as they paffed thro' his territory, in a hofpitable manner, who "must have been great"ly fatigued by their purjuing after, and fighting with Chedorlaomer and "his company, p. 8." And in this point of view, was not Abraham bigbly obliged to Melchizedek, rather than Melchizedek under an obligation of gratitude to Abraham? (4.) Melchizedeck was the prief, the pub lic head and officer in the worship of the true God in that country, where Abraham was a franger: and, therefore, fuppofe Abraham to be a priest himself at home in his own houfe and family, it is very improbable Melchizedek, in whofe province he was, fhould give tythes to him. (5) Melchizedek blessed Abraham in a folemn, religious way and manner, and affifted or joined with him in bleffing his God for the victory. This the hiftorian relates upon faying, He [Melchizedek] was the priest of the moft bigh God: intimating that in this character he performed this fervice: And he bleffed him, and faid, Bieffed be Abram of the most high God, poffeffor of heaven and earth: and bleed be the most high God which bath delivered thine enemies into thy hands. v. 18, 19, 20. If his blef fing implied no more than interefting his good wishes with God for Abraham's profperity; this, in a king, and in one of his character, and on fuch an occafion, was a favour Abraham could not well be infenfible of. These are circumstances that attended the cafe, and, duly weighed, discover our critick's modefty, who faith, "there was not the "shadow of a reafon for Abraham to have given tythes to Melbize dek; |