Part 43

Notwithstanding the agitating and highly important public events which occupied men’s minds, in the memorable year 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse could not entirely abandon, even then, his darling pursuits. His ardent attachment to the Newtonian philosophy led him, on various occasions, to vindicate it against new-fangled theories which sometimes appeared against it: for there still remained a few speculative men, and, among these, some persons of considerable learning, who continued to adhere to the visionary principles of Descartes and his followers. Of this, an instance occurred in the year 1776. A writer under the signature of M. W. (and who is supposed to have been the late Rev. Matthew Wilson, a respectable presbyterian clergyman, of Lewes, in the county of Sussex on Delaware,) published in The Pennsylvania Magazine, for March and April in that year, (conducted by the late Mr. Robert Aitken of Philadelphia,) some speculations, under the head of “A proposal for reducing Natural Philosophy to a System, with Remarks on the Cartesian and Newtonian Theories.” In his lucubrations, this writer discovered a decided partiality for the doctrine of Descartes, in preference to those of Newton. Nor did this admirer of the justly exploded philosophy of the former long want a coadjutor: for, in the same Magazine, for the succeeding month, appeared another reverend gentleman of the same religious persuasion, and known to possess a copious fund of scholastic learning; who, under the signature of J. W. approved, in the main, of the opinions of his precursor, on this occasion. After acknowledging that the Newtonian system prevailed universally in Great Britain, and pretty generally throughout the rest of Europe, he asks—“Shall we then hear any thing against the Newtonian principles, in Answer?” He adds—“I answer, yes.” After rendering a constrained kind of compliment to the great Newton, for his “inexpressible service to Philosophy”—“so far as he adhered to his own plan,”—he proceeds with introducing “A few Thoughts on Space, Dimension, and the Divisibility of Matters in infinitum.”

-----

Footnote 180:

That eminent mathematician and astronomer, Mr. Roger Cotes, in an excellent preface to his edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematica Principia Philosophiæ Naturalis, has explained the true method of philosophising; shewn the foundation on which the Newtonian system was built; and refuted the objections of the Cartesians, and all other philosophers, against it. In this preface, Mr. Cotes has ably answered those, who contended, that gravity or attraction, in the system of Newton, was not a clearer principle, nor one more fit to explain the phænomena of nature, than the occult qualities of the peripatetics: for, there were still philosophers, such as they were, who persisted in that absurd opinion! “Gravity,” said the objectors, “is an occult cause; and occult causes have nothing to do with true philosophy.” To which Mr. Cotes made this lucid reply:—“Occult causes are not those whose existence is most clearly demonstrated by observation and experiment; but those only whose existence is occult, fictitious, and supported by no proofs. Gravity, therefore, can never be called an occult cause of the planetary motions; since it has been demonstrated from the phænomena, that this quality really exists. Those rather have recourse to occult causes, who make vortices to govern the heavenly motions; vortices, composed of a matter entirely fictitious, and unknown to the senses. But, shall gravity therefore be called an occult cause, because the cause of gravity is occult, and as yet undiscovered? Let those who affirm this, beware of laying down a principle which will serve to undermine the foundation of every system of philosophy that can be established. For causes always proceed, by an uninterrupted connexion, from those that are compound, to those that are more simple; and when you shall have arrived at the most simple, it will be impossible to proceed further. Of the most simple cause, therefore, no mechanical solution can be given; for if there could, it would not be the most simple. Will you then call these most simple causes occult, and banish them from philosophy? You may so; but you must banish at the same time the causes that are next to them, and those again that depend upon the causes next to them, till philosophy, at length, will be so thoroughly purged of causes, that there will not be one left whereon to build it.”

The great doctrine of gravitation and attraction, the substratum of the Newtonian philosophy, is amply verified by numerous observations and experiments. Whether that which constitutes the principle of gravity be, in itself, an incorporeal or spiritual substance, or a materia subtilis, some very subtile kind of ethereal fluid, is a question which does not at all affect the actual existence of such a power. “We know,” as is observed by a great astronomer of our own time, “that all the bodies in our system are retained in their courses by such a power” (the power of attraction.) “And,” he adds, “it is a very singular instance of the unerring wisdom of the CREATOR, that the law which this power observes is such, that notwithstanding the mutual attractions of the bodies, the system will never fall into ruin, but is capable of preserving itself to all eternity. “Moreover,” continues the same profound writer, “the mutual attraction which takes place between distant bodies could not, of itself, either produce their motion about the sun, or the rotation about their axes: it required an external impulse to operate in conjunction with it, to produce these effects; an act, which nothing but the arm of OMNIPOTENCE could accomplish.” “An invisible power pervades the whole system, and preserves it. In the effects produced by man, we see the operation of the cause; but “the ways of the ALMIGHTY are past finding out.” “Hence,” says our author, “in whatever point of view we take a survey of our system, we trace the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of the CREATOR: his Power, in its formation; his Wisdom, in the simplicity of the means to produce the ends; and his Goodness, in making those ends subservient to our use and enjoyment. Thus we are led by our enquiries into the structure of the universe, to the proofs of the existence and attributes of a SUPREME BEING, who formed and directs the whole. Arguments of this kind produce conviction which no sophistry can confound. “Every man may see it; man may behold it afar off.” Let not therefore the ignorant declaim against those pursuits which direct us to a knowledge of our CREATOR, and furnish us with unanswerable arguments against the infidel and the atheist.”

But, to return more immediately to the doctrine of gravitation: Some experiments had been made by M. Boguer and M. de la Condamine, so long since as the year 1738, upon the Chimboraso in South-America, in order to test the Newtonian theory of gravity, by examining the attraction of mountains; and the result accorded with that theory. With a view, however, to establish the principle more completely, the experiments of Messrs. Boguer and Condamine having been made under so many disadvantages, as rendered the result not sufficiently accurate to be entirely depended on, similar experiments were made upon the Mountain Schehallien in Scotland, by Dr. Maskelyne, at the request of the Royal Society, and under the patronage of his sovereign, the present king, who liberally undertook to defray the expenses. From observations of ten stars near the zenith, he found the difference of latitudes of the two stations on the opposite sides of the mountain to be 54″, 6; and by a measurement of triangles, he ascertained the distance of the parallels to be 4364, 4 feet, corresponding, in that latitude, to an arc of the meridian of 42″, 94, which is 11″, 6 less than by observation: its half therefore, 5″, 8, is the effect of the attraction of the mountain; and from its magnitude, compared with the bulk of the whole earth, Dr. Maskelyne computed the mean density of the latter to be about double that of the mountain. “Thus,” to use the words of Mr. Vince, “the doctrine of Universal Gravitation is firmly established.” The reader will find Dr. Maskelyne’s deductions from this experiment, in Vince’s Complete System of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 100 and seq.

Footnote 180a:

This extraordinary man, who was the first Plumian professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge, was born July 10, 1682, and died prematurely June 5, 1716.

Footnote 180b:

The Rev. Mr. Vince, A. M. F. R. S. Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, in the University of Cambridge. See his Complete System of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 291.

Footnote 181:

The essay signed M. W. is dated from that place.

-----

Much as Mr. Rittenhouse was averse to controversy of any kind, he could not content himself without publicly pointing out one palpable fallacy, among the many mistakes which the last mentioned writer had fallen into: for he did not notice the preceding production of ‘M. W.’ not deeming it, probably, worthy of his attention. Accordingly, having been shewn ‘J. W.’s’ essay, with some remarks on it by his ingenious friend Mr. Ellicott (then quite a young man,) Mr. Rittenhouse drew up some observations, very concisely, on the errors of this Anti-Newtonian essayist. This piece will be found in the same periodical work, for June 1776. Being addressed to Mr. Aitken, the publisher of the Magazine, our Philosopher concludes his strictures thus: “I wish the gentleman would be more cautious, for the future; as well on your own account as for the sake of your readers, some of whom may be misled by the weakest reasoning, on a subject which they do not understand and I will venture to assure him, that the whole doctrine of Infinites, which he is pleased to call a sophism, will not produce one contradiction in a mathematical head. Those of another cast need not meddle with it, since there is a sufficient variety of literary subjects to engage every man, according to the bent of his genius.”

-----

Footnote 182:

In the beginning of these observations of Mr. Rittenhouse, on “J. W.’s” piece, he says—“I am one of those who are ready to subscribe to the general maxim, That perfection is not to be found in any thing human; and therefore do not suppose the Newtonian philosophy to be so perfect as not to admit of amendment: But I must confess, that almost all the attempts to controvert that philosophy, which I have met with, amount to nothing more than so many proofs, that those who made them did not understand it. Of this kind, are the objections started by your correspondent, J. W.”

Footnote 183:

Alluding, probably, to Metaphysicians; for, neither Mr. M. W. nor Dr. J. W. was distinguished as a Mathematician.

-----

A further proof of Mr. Rittenhouse’s unremitting attachment to the interests of science, even “amidst the calamities of an unhappy war,” will be found in the following circumstances; a written memorial of which, is preserved in the family of his friend, the late Dr. W. Smith.

On the 2d day of November, 1776, Mr. Rittenhouse was engaged, in the city of Philadelphia, jointly with Dr. Smith and Mr. John Lukens, in observing the transit of Mercury over the Sun, which appeared that day. On the 9th of January, following, the Doctor and Mr. Rittenhouse employed themselves at the same place, in like Observations on an eclipse of the Sun, which then occurred. And, on the 24th of June, 1778, just one week after the evacuation of that city by the British army, the three gentlemen here named, together with Mr. Owen Biddle, were busied in making observations, there, on another eclipse of the Sun. The results of these several Observations, in the hand-writing of Dr. Smith, having been bound up by him with a copy of T. Mayer’s Lunar Tables, the writer of these Memoirs was obligingly permitted by Mr. Charles Smith, the Doctor’s son, to transcribe them, for publication in this work. A true copy of them is accordingly given in the Appendix.

But, to return to some political events of the year 1776: In the month of September of that year, Mr. Rittenhouse was one of twenty-four persons who were appointed justices of the peace, for the whole State of Pennsylvania; in their capacity of members of the then existing council of safety.

This appointment was made by virtue of an ordinance of the convention of Pennsylvania, which passed the first constitution of the state, on the 28th of September, 1776, of which he was also a member, for the city of Philadelphia. That convention could boast of possessing, among their members, two distinguished philosophers, Franklin and Rittenhouse: but it cannot be ascertained, whether the opinions of these two eminent men, on the subject of government, had any decided influence on the deliberations of that assembly. Certain it is, however, that the Constitution framed and promulgated by the convention, was predicated on too many new and untried principles of civil polity; that it contained too many aberrations from maxims founded on a knowledge of human nature, to have warranted a reasonable expectation, that it could long prove practically beneficial. Hence, after an experiment of fourteen years continuance, it was succeeded by the present constitution of the state; one admirably well suited to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens, individually, and to promote the prosperity of the whole community, so long as it shall be faithfully and wisely administered.

-----

Footnote 184:

Dr. Franklin was president of that convention.

Footnote 185: