The result of all that can be said on the subject appears to be this: that no one can demonstrate the possibility of deducing gravity from the acknowledged fundamental properties of matter: and that no philosopher asserts, that matter has been found to exist, which was destitute of gravity. It is a property which we have no right to call _necessary_ to matter, but every reason to suppose _universal_. If we could show gravity to be a necessary consequence of those properties which we adopt as essential to our notion of matter, (extension, solidity, mobility, inertia) we might then call it also one of the essential properties. But no one probably will assert that this is the case. Its universality is a fact of observation merely. How then can a property,--in its existence so needful for the support of the universe, in its laws so well adapted to the purposes of creation,--how came it to be thus universal? Its being found every where is necessary for its uses; but this is so far from being a sufficient explanation of its existence, that it is an additional fact to be explained. We have here, then, an agency most simple in its rule, most comprehensive in its influence, most effectual and admirable in its operation. What evidence could be afforded of design, by laws of mechanical action, which this law thus existing and thus operating does not afford us? 5. It is not necessary for our purpose to consider the theories which have been proposed to account for the action of gravity. They have proceeded on the plan of reducing this action to the result of pressure or impulse. Even if such theories could be established, they could not much, or at all, affect our argument; for the arrangements by which pressure or impact could produce the effects which gravity produces, must be at least as clearly results of contrivance, as gravity itself can be.