154 Remarks on Dr. Enfield’s Institutes 
-)’s mean anomaly ;” and over the Vth, “ Arg. IV—©’s 
mean anomaly.” Both these arguments are wrong. Those 
who may have the curiosity to look into Mason’s edition of 
Mayer’s Lunar Tables, from which Ewing’s were abridged, 
will see at a glance how these erroneous captions originat- 
ed. ey are in fact the 3d and 5th arguments of Mayer’s 
‘tables; but Mayer’s 3d table is omitted, and his 10th is 
‘made Ewing’s 5th. The captions were inadvertently. cop- 
ied, although they betrized; in consequence of these omis- 
sions, to the wrong tables. In the last edition, the caption 
: d table is altered to make it agree with the gene- 
ral ¢ ions for finding the arguments of Latitude given in 
‘Prob. Sth; bat that of the Sth still remains erroneous, as 
well as the general rule under Prob. 8th. It should be, 
“subtract the moon’s mean a anomaly from the second argu- - 
ment,” &c.; and the caption of table 5th should be, ‘* Arg. 
iI.— )’s mean anomaly. 
The fee part of the corrections and alterations made 
by y the ed itor of the last edition have our entire approbation. 
Particul mee regard to two highly important propositions, 
& the: one relating to the law of refraction, in the Optics, and 
that on the sun’s parallax, in the Astronomy, he has probably 
done the best that the elementary character of the work 
admitted. . There are a few instances, however, of altera- 
tions, the propriety of which appears very questionable, 
and which — to the labours of former editors requires 
us briefly to noti 
~ Thus in the frst. proposition: Matter may be, and mere 
‘extension is infinitely divisible,’ the clause in italics is ai 
-euliar to the last edition. We recollect having seen» 
‘Hutton’s Dictionary an attemptto establish a distinction a 
* tween ‘‘ actual” and “ potential divisibility ;” but we could 
bape understand it ; nor are we any more fortunate in regard 
o the language just quoted. If the term ‘¢ divisibility”. it- 
; self means nothing more than the possibility of being di- 
a vided, to say that matter may be infinitely divisible is a sole- 
m. -'The distinction between. the divisibility of matter 
and. that of extension seems to depend on the definition of 
term. If by “divisibility” be meant merely the pos- 
y of being ideally divided by a planes 
any separation of parts, then is one 
ags to maiter and to extention, in m precisely the 
