t 182 ] 
Thefe computations have been made with no fmall 
rigor. I was fenfible that, to obtain an accurate con- 
clufion, it was necefiary to determine AO with ex- 
treme precifion ; and for that purpofe I fubmitted to 
the laborious tafk of computing the foregoing num- 
bers to the 1 1 th or r2th decimal place, by the com- 
mon operations of arithmetic. In the refult I differ 
from -Dr. Stewart, by much lefs than T _L__.th part 
of the whole diftance, that is, by lefs than 5 femi- 
diameters of the earth ; a very contemptible dif- 
ference in fo nice a calculation. That great mathe- 
matician indeed fecrns to have flattered himfelf, 
that he had determined the fun’s diftance within 
T-r V -s- a -a °f the truth. I fufpedt that when he af- 
firmed this, he did not confider that to attain fo 
great an accuracy in the conclufion, the line Ey in 
his method ( vide Stewart on the fun’s diftance, 
Fig. 10.), or AO in mine, fliould be determined 
ftridtly to the nth or 12th decimal place. And 
after the utmoffc rigor of computation, I am afraid 
any pretenfions to luch extreme nicety in the refult 
will be but ill-founded. For it is very likely that 
thefe computations reprefent the fun’s difiance lefs 
than it really is : becaufe the whole progrefiion of 
the moon’s apogee (which is the' bafis of the calcu- 
lation) is afcribed to the fun’s difiurbance of the 
moon’s gravitation to the earth. Whereas part of it 
muft be due to the difiurbances of the planets. 
What part is due to them we cannot tell, and there- 
fore cannot allow for it. But in giving the whole 
to the fun we certainly overrateEis difiurbing force, 
and by that means muft obtain too fmall a difiance. 
It 
