1864.] The Rev. J. Bayma on Molecular Mechanics, 129 



2. It follows as a sort of corollary from this, that to be inert does not 

 signify to be without active power ; and that the very same element, which 

 on account of its inertia cannot act upon itself, may, notwithstanding this 

 inertia, have an active power, by which it may act upon any other element 

 whatever. 



3. Inertia is an essential property of matter, and is not greater in one 

 element than in another, but is always the same in all elements, whether 

 they are attractive or repulsive, whether their active power is great or 

 small. 



4. That which is called by natural philosophers the vis inertice is not a 

 special mechanical force added on to the active forces of elements, but is the 

 readiness of a body to react by means of its elementary forces, against any 

 action tending to change the actual condition of that body. 



These four propositions will remove many false notions, which give rise to 

 confusion of ideas and impede the solution of many important questions. 



Active power. — The questions relating to the active power of matter are 

 of the greatest importance, since on them depends nearly the whole science 

 of nature. On this point I am convinced, and think I can prove, that 



1. No other forces exist in the elements of matter except locomotive 

 or mechanical forces ; for these alone are required, and these alone are 

 sufficient, to account for all natural phenomena. So that we need have 

 no anxiety about the vires occultce of the ancients, nor need we make 

 search after any other kind of primitive forces, besides such as are mecha- 

 nical or locomotive. Hence chemical, electric, magnetic, calorific and other 

 such actions will be all reduced to mechanical actions, complex indeed, but 

 all following certain definite laws, and capable of being expressed by mathe- 

 matical formulae as in general mechanics. Hence in treating of molecular 

 mechanics we do not make any gratuitous assumption or probable hypo- 

 thesis, but are engaged on a branch of science founded on demonstrable 

 truths, free from all hypothesis or arbitrary assumption. 



2. There are not only attractive, but also repulsive elements ; and this 

 is the reason why molecules of bodies (as being made up of both sorts) 

 may at certain distances attract, and at others repel each other. 



3. Simple elements, in the whole sphere of their active power, and con- 

 sequently also at molecular distances, act (whether by attracting or repel- 

 ling) according to the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances. This 

 proposition may seem to contradict certain known laws, as far as regards 

 molecular distances ; but the contradiction is only apparent, and this appear- 

 ance will vanish when we consider that the action of elements (of which 

 we are now speaking) is not the same as the action of molecules. From 

 the fact that cohesion, e. g.y does not follow the inverse ratio of the square 

 of the distance, it will certainly result that molecules do not act according 

 to this law, and this is what physical science teaches : but it does not fol- 

 low that elements do not act according to the law. This truth is, as all 

 must see, of the utmost importance, since it is the foundation of molecular 



