1829.) 
Then, again, as to the periodic times of 
the comets—Bessel declared the period of 
that of 1769 to be 2,089 years; but then it 
is acknowledged, that an error of only jive 
seconds in observation would alter the period 
to 2,678, or 1,692 years. The comet of 
1680 was calculated by some at 8,792 years, 
by others at 8,916, while Newton and Halley 
fix it at only 570. 
Mr. Milne, we think, gives up the para- 
bolic and hyperbolic curve—of course no- 
thing can exceed the absurdity of calculating 
the returns of a comet, on the supposition of 
any but a recurring or continuous curve—a 
circle or ellipse ; and equally absurd is it to 
talk of periods of thousands of years, be- 
cause that in fact involves a confession, that 
by far too small a segment of the orbit is 
ascertained to determine the whole. 
It isnot by calculation, but by comparing 
and observing, that the probability of Hal- 
ley’s comet began. He ascertained the ap- 
pearance of a comet in the same quarter of 
the heavens in 1531, 1607, 1682, and on 
this ground predicted its recurrence in 1758; 
and a comet actually did appear in the ex- 
pected position in March 1759. The dif- 
ference is attributed to disturbances, which 
tronomers have yentured to calculate. 
Now, if a comet recur in the same regions 
in 1834, or 35 (the perihelion is calculated 
for 16th March 1835, by Damoiseau), no 
one will any longer doubt its identity. 
But what has become of the comet of 
1770? This appears, on probable evidence, 
to have had an orbit of five years and a half, 
and yet has never been seen since. Dr. 
Brewster shrewdly suspects it has been meta- 
morphosed into a planet, and that Pallas is 
the very he or she. If not, he concludes it 
must be lost ; but what he means by “lost,” 
we do not understand. Mr. Milne evi- 
dently does, for he solemnly and italically 
“assures us it is mot lost. ‘* Beyond a doubt,” 
he adds, “‘ it isno longer discernible, solely 
through the disturbing influence of Jupiter.” 
Some new intrigue of his, beyond a doubt. 
Encke’s comet, however, of which we have 
heard so much lately, is the most interesting, 
because it is better identiffed than any other. 
Its revolution appears to be about three 
and four months. In 1818, Pons 
__ ‘ discovered a comet, and Encke calculated 
its period to be 1,208 days. In the same 
regions had one been observed in 1786, 
_ 1795, and 1805. He accordingly ventured 
_ to predict its recurrence in 1822, visible in 
34° south latitude in the beginning of June; 
and on the 2d of June, 1822, a comet was 
actually seen at Paramatta, 33° 42’ lat. 
Encke announced it again for August 1825, 
and his calculation was true to a minute. 
Again he announced its perihelion this very 
10th January 1829, the day on which we 
are now writing, and visible through No- 
vember and December. But whether it 
has been actually seen, we know not. It is 
not visible by the naked eye. Mr. South, 
of Kensington, the sidereal astronomer of 
Domestic and Foreign. 
661 
the day, tells us, by the papers, he chinks he 
sees it. 
Stories from Church History from the 
Introduction of Christianity to the Six- 
teenth Century. By the Author of “ Early 
Recollections,” &c. 1829.—If there is one 
thing less fitted than another to be pressed 
upon the consideration of children, or very 
young people, it is, we verily think, Church 
History. Its pages, come from what quarter 
they may, are filled with prejudices and mis- 
representations. Scarcely any but profes- 
sional persons—scarcely any, therefore, but 
those who are interested in the support of 
particular churches, or sects—quite a different 
thing from religion, for that is a personal 
thing—eyer discuss the subject with any 
particularity. In such histories we find 
every thing twisted to suit the personal ob- 
ject; and, unhappily, in the few instances 
where distinguished laymen have taken up 
the topics, they have done so in a spirit of 
mockery, not only towards the agents of 
religion, but of religion itself. It is only, 
too, since the reformation, that materials 
exist on all sides, to enable impartial men 
to examine conflicting statements, and draw 
honest conclusions, which must be, gene- 
rally, of the most unfayourable kind—vary- 
ing only in degree. In the remoter periods 
of Church History, the predominant party 
took effectual measures to suppress evidence 
by extinguishing the writings and state- 
ments of their vanquished opponents. It 
is, therefore, only incidentally, or by saga~ 
cious inferences fermed on close sifting, 
that any information has been gathered of 
what was so sedulously destroyed,—nor 
would even such materials have been left 
us, had the parties been capable of esti- 
mating the possible acuteness of after criti- 
cism. From these causes scarcely a step 
can be safely taken, without the utmost cau- 
tion—every assertion, every fact, requires 
its evidence to be looked into, and much 
more, every deduction and every sentiment 
built upon them. ‘This, then, is no subject 
for children, let the story be told by whom 
it may; but when it is told by a person, 
whose object is directly and avowedly to 
enforce the sentiments of a party, and thus 
entrap young people into unsure and premas 
ture judgments, it is still more unfit. The 
title, too, misleads—we took it to consist of 
stories of individuals, but it proves to be a 
regular survey of the general history, and, 
of course, the more intolerable. The writer 
uses no measure or scruple in the delivery 
or his judgments—nay, he regards it as a 
point of duty, to apply the most virulent 
terms upon all who are not of the true 
evangelical caste. Vile heretics—bad men, 
are continually at his pen’s end. He is, 
like Cobbett, with rogue and scoundrel for 
ever in his mouth, or a parrot, that calling 
every body enckold, is, probably, now and 
then right. Speaking of the heresies of the 
third century, he tells the children whom he 
