28

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

No, it will not prove us wrong any more than an “ equatorial telescope” does, and it once
made a gentleman exclaim. ‘ W h y ! in that way you C A N A C T U A L L Y S E E thecurvature of the earth.” Leeds Mercury, Dec. 20th, ’92. You see the instrument ismade to prove a foregone supposition. The Koreshan “ Rectilineator ” is madefor the same purpose. They assume by a “ geometrical proposiiion ’ that the earth
is concave, and then talk about “ a rail, one or two miles long, concaved eight inches
to the m ile.” W ho made these rails, and who looked along them ? W e know thatthey do big things in America, but we are inclined to think that the rail 2, or even imile long, is too long even for a “ cute Yankee.” (5.) Suffice it for the present that
we quote their own statements, “ H e (Koresh) comesas the Son of man . . . as theShepperd, the Stone of Israel . . . as the W O R D O F G O D . . . the. Messenger of
the Covenant, tht High Priest and Mediator of the age of light and life.” And thenit is ask€d, “ W'hat will you do with him ? ” For the present, “ curtain.”-T H E -H

a r t H 'N o t a g lo b e
S IX

VIEW.

M IL E S .

“ Parallax ” proving the Surface of Water to be Horizontal.

Z E T E T I C NOTIFICATIONS.
tS " Please to ask for “ The Earth— not a G lobe— Review,” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls.
T o be had direct from the Hon. Sec ,post free, to any address in the postal union for is per year, in advance.
A ll monies for the Society must be paid direct to the Hon. Secretary and Trea­surer, John 'W'illiams. Post Office Orders to be made payable at Sumner Street,
London, S .E .
W e must request correspondents to be careful in addressing letters to the Secre­tary, as several letters have been delivered opened by other Mr W illiam s’ living on
Bankside.
JO H N W IL L IA M S , 3 2 Bankside, London, S .E ., w ill insure safedelivery.
T H E R E C E I P T O F A C O P Y O F T H IS J O U R N A L F R O M O U R SE C ­R E T A R Y , IS A N I N V I T A T I O N T O S U B S C R IB E .
W ill friends please notice that if this spacecontains 1 B L U E P E N C IL
C R O S S , it is an indication that Y O U R S U B S C R IP T IO N IS D U E .
A RED
P E N C I L C R O S S indicates that your subscription w ill be due before the next issue.
W e regret that it was not staled in our last issue that this Journal would beenlarged to 28 p.p., hence the ^nce, port free, is placed at 3d.
T he Map we have been publishing at 2/, is at present “ out of print.”■Will friends in ordering books please notice that those only which are quoted on
the cover of the last issued Journal are those only in stock, others having been soldout.

“ UN IVERSAL GRAVITATION, A P U R E
ASSUMPTION.”
B y L eo C astle.

N o. IX .

'■T h e great majority of scientific writers and teachers commonly referto the “ time-honoured and universally-accepted law of gravitation ” asif they were quite unaware, that that law leaves many very serious dif­ficulties still unsurmounted, and that, even among men of science
themselves, it is by no means so universally accepted as it once was.
................. It is absurd to hold that it universally applies to all pheno­mena which it is held to govern. It cannot be denied that, in thewords of Samuel Laing, “ T h e universe contains many forms of motion
and many manifestations of energy, which cannot be explained by thelaws of gravity. F or instance, the runaway stars, the world of meteor­
ites, the proper motions of molecules and atoms, and the requsite dura­tion of solar heat to account for the undoubted facts of geolog}-.”W hat is gravity? W e are accustomed to speak of it as the one
well-known and established fact of the universe; and yet of IT S R E A L
E S S E N C E A N D M O D E O F O P E R A T IO N W E K N O W A B S O ­L U T E L Y N O T H IN G .
Nay, worse! its nature appears to be so
inscrutable to us, so far, that our accepted views and theories regard­
ing it are either essentially self-contradictory, or are directly contra­
dictory of the well-known and fundamental principles of physics. And,
still worse 1 the blinding influence of prestige has so far prevented thegreat army of teachers and students of the subject from perceiving thesevital and almost glaringly apparent contradictions.
W hat, then, is gravity? H ow does one mass of matter act uponanother mass without connection and apparently without requiring
time for the transmission of the impulse, however great the distanceat which it acts? Is it a pushing or a pulling force? H ow is it so30

TH E EARTHU N I V E R S A L G R A V IT A T IO N , A P U R E A S S U M P T IO N .

R E V IE W .

■wonderfully radiated out in all directions into empty space, where it
meets with no reciprocally attracting body? And, still more wonder­
fu l, why do we violate the law of the conservation of energy in its
favour by postulating its infinite generation and manifestation, both intim e and in space, by the merest particle of matter absolutely inde­
pendent of any other external cause or condition? W ould any per­son of intelligence claim that a material particle would, .independentlyo f any external cause, forever continue to generate any other form of-energy, such as heat or light? And, if not, why do we make the sole•exception in favour of the energy of gravity? A s all the known physi­
cal properties of the material particle continually remain unchanged,■
does it really create this infinite supply of force out of nothing ?
B u t let us pass from the innate nature of the mechanism of gravity
to its application to gross matter in the visible universe. Professor
Newcom b has shown by mathematical calculation that the gravitationo f the whole universe, assuming it to contain 100,000,000 of stars,-each five times larger than our Sun, would scarcely account for the
one sixty-fourth of the velocity of 200 miles per second actually pos­sessed by the star 1830 Groombridge. And yet the star Arcturus,
whose volume is eleven times that of our sun, is said to move with avelocity of even 400 miles per second.
Passing again from these and many similar objections to the law ofgravitation to be met with in almost every nook and corner of thenebular hypothesis, let us come down to a more familiar instance andinquire into the operation of that law in the case of the oceanic tides
upon our own world. According to the law of gravitation, the Moonis the chief tide-producer; and yet, with strange perverseness, when
the actions of the Sun and M oon are separated from each other, as
upon the comparatively small surfaces covered by large lakes and in­land seas, where the action of one of the bodies, owing to their peri■odical angular distances apart, is locked out by the surrounding land,•we find that the tide corresponding to the Sun is much greater than
th at corresponding to the Moon. A t Green Bay on L ake Michigan,
for example, the scarcely appreciable lake tide is accumulated andpiagnified by the funnel-shaped waters of the bay, much as the oceanic
tid e is in the Bay of Fundy. T h e result is that each m orning and each
evening regularly at about 7 o'clock, there is a tide varying from fiveto eight inches in height, the two low waters occurring exactly inter­mediately, or between 11 and 2.30 o’clock.
(See the Milwauhee
S en tin el of August 17th, 1892.) N ow these tides cannot possibly becaused by the Moon, because they do not conform to the Moon’s move­m en t at all, but on the contrary exactly to the movement of the Sun.

31

In fact the tide which actually does follow the M oon’s movement is<;o much smaller than the other as to be barely noticeable; although,•iccording to the law of gravitation, it ought to be about two and a half
tlrr.es greater than that o f the Sun.

Again, regarding the tides of the Mediterranean Sea, in a paper
read before the Paris Academy of Sciences, August 8, 1887, by M.
Heraud of the hydrographic survey, we find— “ These tides appear tobe the most important and regular in the whole Mediterranean Basin.
. T h ey continually increase in magnitude as far as Gabes where
they acquire a maximum of 2 metres at the mean spring tides.............
The tidal wave appears to come from the east, the m ian period being
apparently about 24- hours. A ll the observed circumstances would seem
to show that the relation o f the lu n a r to the solar tide is less than thatof the absolute actions o f the S u n and Moon." (N ature, xxxvi.
m .)And in the same connection— “ T h e relative part played by the
Sun and Moon, as deduced from gravitational formulae, does not quite
agree with the observed phenomena of the daily tides. It is believed
by many that the ordinary lunar tide, affecting mainly the oceanic en­velope, is complicated by the presence of a terrene tide largely influenc­
ed by the Sun, and that the earth does, to an'appreciable extent, yield
twice in the twenty-four hours to the deforming force of solar gravita­
tion.” (N ature, xlvii. 30.) And still again, at the port of Kinngehow
in Hainau— “ It appears certain that there are two tidal waves a day.”(Nature, xlvi. 63). Here, then, we have the. law o f gravitation
directly contradicted by actual observation-, for it seems utterly ab­surd to suppose that, if the Moon is more than twice as powerful asa tide-producer as the Sun, the principal tidal w'ave would not follow
the meridianal movement of the former rather than that of the latter;and more especially so in the case of large isolated bodies of water,where the contrary is actually observed to take place.
But the grandest scientific miracle yet remains to be considered.
According to the present tidal theory, the tidal wave originates upon
the Earth’s surface because the Moon pulls the water on the nearest
surface of the Earth more than it does the Earth’s centre, for the rea­
son that that surface is nearer the moon than the latter point. T heexcess of .the Moon’s attraction upon the nearest surface, over that at
the centre of the Earth, constitutes, therefore, the tide-raising force,
which pulls the movable water away from the Earth’s centre, and thus
raises the tide. Now this tide-raising excess of the Moon’s attraction
is readily calculable.
In fact, its amount has long ago been ascer­
tained by Newton to be sopievvhat less than the one twelYe-millionth

3?

T H E EARTH

T H E E F F E C T S O F E V O L U T IO N

R E V IE W .

part of the Earth’s own attraction, holding its surface waters to its
centre. (Sir John Herschel. Outlines o f Astronomy, p. 528, Note.)
In other words, then, the present theory of gravitation requires us tobelieve that one unit of force pulling the waters of the Earth towards
the Moon actually raises these waters several feet in direct opposition
to the twelve million equal units of force pulling the waters in the
opposite direction or towards the Earth’s centre !
It surely cannotl)e denied that the two forces are in direct opposition, because theAloon, the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s centre are supposed to be
in a straight line; and in fact it is only in this situation that the
Moon’s maximum tide-raising force applies. F or when the lines ofaction of the two forces become more and more inclined to each other,by the passage of the Earth’s surface out of the straight line, theMoon’s tide-raising force becomes smaller and smaller, until, when
the two forces would act at right angles to each other, the tide-raisingforce would entirely disappear.
T h e law, therefore, leaves us noalternative but to believe that, in this tidal tug of war, one unit offorce pulling in one direction actually outpulls twelve million equal
units of force pulling in the opposite direction! A nd yet the New­
tons and Herschels, the Taits and Kelvins of physical science not
only inplicitly accept this absurdity as a fact, but actually make it thebasis of profound astronomical calculations!
W hat a commentary
upon our boasted intellectual attainm ents!
I might go still further and show that, according to the generally
accepted views of the condition of the Earth’s interior, no oceanictide could exist at aJl. For, if the Earth’s interior is in a molten state,
tides would originate there just as in the surface waters; and the bot­
tom of the sea being thus elevated by the internal tide just to thesame extent practically that the surface of the sea is similarly elevated,
no oceanic tide whatever would be perceptible.
I need not here dwell on these objections to the alleged law ofgravitation more in detail, as they are already fully discussed, together
with many other important matters bearing upon this subject, in myrecently published work, “ Cosmical Evolution.” But, even from these
few briefly presented objections, does it not really seem as if our greatscientific and philosophical thinkers are actually down among thehobby-riders of politics, religion, and even of fashion, and, with thegravest dignity and confidence, imperturbably riding a pet theory as
absurd and crazy as can be found among them all ?*— Evan McLennan,“Notes and Queries,” Sept., 1896.
(T o he continued.)" Papeis on the Tides will nppear at the conctiisiun ul this series of letters by thi;

Sianie geptleniari,theeffectsof

EXPO SED .

e v o lu t io n

I

33

exposedBY“ A F O O L IS H T H I N G O F T H I S W O R L D .”Part
[to th b e d ito r

I.

of

The

F a ith * ~ \D e a r S ir ,— -In your “ Notes,” p. 445, of the current issue (Dec.,

1896),
you reproduce some extracts from the S u n d a y Papers, being the utter­
ances of Professor G. G . Stokes.

Your object in quoting his utterances on “ immortality ” is evident,
and quite in keeping with the object of The F a ith . But I am at a loss
to understand what your object is in quoting his utterances on the un­founded hypothesis of Evolution.
I notice you ask, “ Is there still occasion for being afraid of Evolu­tion?”My reply is, first, n o ! because “ God will make the quarrel of
Scripture H is own quarrel.” Secondly, y e s ! There is the greatest
occasion for being afraid, for G od’s people should not trust in man,but walk in God’s T r u th ; in other words, they should be “ doers of theWord and not hearers only.” I trust you will for G od’s Truth sake givethis letter your careful perusal, and, if possible, insert it in The F a ith .
Professor Stokes says, “ Evolution does not designate a cause, but
a process.”Well, for “ clearness of conception ” let me ask, whoever saw an
evolution? Where can one be seen in “ process” now? When did
the process commence ? Where and when did the " process ” of Involu­tion, which is essential to the process of Evolution, takes place ?
Professor Stokes must remember that “ process ” is a resultant oreffect, therefore Cause is inseparable froim it if absolute truth is theobject. Consequently, if he intends by the above statement to elim in ­ate Cause, he naturally exposes the illogical and untenable position of
the hypothesis he is seeking to explain or defend! Or, are we to under­
stand that Evolution teaches that “ sp ecies” are the results of an un­caused “ process ?” “ Process ” is the direct outcome of Cause, andinvolves intelligence, design, and power, which necessarily involves per­sonality. Is the cause (if it has a cause) of Evolution the Christian’s‘ This letter was first sent to the Editor of the Mission Department of “ The Faith.”
His reply and the reply from the Editorial Department of “ T he F a ith ”
will be published in Part III.

34

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

God ? Professor Stokes in substance answers in the affirmative by say­ing, “ It is a process according to which the Divine will works in cer­tain cases, that is all.”Yes, “ that is all,” and enough too of the sort! But when andwhere did the Divine Will ever work by such a " process ?” T h e whole
school of Evolutionists are dumb and cannot answer! Just what God
declares of them in the Scriptures of Truth, saying, “ I will destroy
the wisdom o f the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of
the prudent.” But perhaps, sir, you, or the editor of The F a ith , willattempt an lanswer to my several questions.
In The F a ith for February, 1896, the editor asserts that, “ OurSun formed the centre of this Universe, and around it stretched at re­spectful distances.................its seven planets— Earth, the Moon, Mars,
Venus, Uranus, Jupiter, and Saturn, together with their Satellites.
These eight.................formed one Kingdom, to be ruled over by one
King, or Supreme Head, with a suitable Court................. Then fol­
lowed, by the wonderful skill and power of Jehovah-Elohim, thecreation (was it by the “ process ” of Evolution?) of a suit^ible Head torule in so magnificent a sphere................. This being was to be theHead and Ruler over all the eight Worlds................. The name of thiswonderful being was Lucifer................. What the Sun is to its planets,
so was Lucifer to the various forms of life that were afterwards created,angelic, primeval, and human................. T o Lucifer.................was de­legated power and authority throughout the wdde and wonderful sys­
tem of these eight Worlds................. H e had power. . . . . . to create
and to destroy; to kill and to make a liv e; to set up and cast down. . .
. . . Primeval man was probably his handiwork................. In Gen. i.
26 and ii. 7, Jehovah-Elohim is said to be the Creator o f man, as
known to us to-day, and as distinguished from primeval man. By
parity of reasoning we may conclude that any previous human creation
was the work of Lucifer.”
Is this “ contending for the faith, once for all delivered unto thesaints,” or, is it contending for “ science, falsely so-called,” as firstoriginated by Pythagoras, the Sun-worshipper, after he had spent sometime in hell? If it is the former, and not the latter, I should like toknow where he gets his information from about (to use his own distin­
guishing term) “ primeval man,” i.e., a man created by Lucifer ? The
Scriptures nowhere teach that “ power to create" was ever delegatedor conditionally entrusted by God to A N Y created intelligence, there­
fore, Lucifer never created “ primeval ” or any other “ man.” But the
Scriptures do authoritatively assert who it was that did create the (oneTHE

E F F E C T S O F E V O L U T IO NEXPO SED .

'35

and only) W orld and all things therein, organic and inorganic. W howill dare attempt to gainsay the,following declarations of God the Holy
Spirit?

“ By H im (Christ) were A L L things cre.ated, that are in heaven,and that are in earth, visible and invisible. . . . . . .
A L L things wereC R E A T E D B Y H IM and F O R H IM (not B Y and F O R Lucifer!). . .
/ . . and B Y H IM A L L T H I N G S consist.” Col. i. 16-17. “ AH
things were made by Him, and without H im was not anything madethat was made................. The W orld (not worlds) was made by H im .”St. John i. 3, 10 .; Gen. ii., iii. Compare Ps. xxxiii. 6 ; Rom. xi. 36 ;I Cor. viii. 6 } Eph. iii. 9. “ G od created man upon the earth.” Deut.
iv. 32 ; Neh. ix. 6 ; Rev. iv. 11, <x. 6 ; Isa. xlii. 5.
Yes, sir, according to Scripture Adam was “ T H E F I R S T M A N ,”I Cor. XV. 45, 4 7 ; I Tim . ii. 1 3 ; he is also called son, or offspring,of God.” Luke iii. 38 ; Acts xvii. 28, 29; not son, or offspring, of anape* Adam was the primeval— original— first in order— or, as God
in the Scripture of Truth puts it, “ Adam was first formed, then E ve,’and she is declared to be “ the mother of n il living.” In Luke iii. wehave G od the H oly Spirit inditing absolute facts about the creation ofman, and the geneological table there given is the utter refutation of
all that w hich learned Professors of Science have written to the con­trary. There man is presented as “ son of man,” “ son of God,” andthat surely is a state of unsurpassable honour, beyond which no thought
either angelic or human can exceed, for, the Man, Christ Jesus, is at
one end, and Adam at the other, and of him it is said by the H oly
Spirit, “ In the image of God created H e him.” Gen. i. 27. I assertthat these eight words of God absolutely exposes the hypothesis of
Evohition, as having its origination in the council-chamber of Beelze­bub, and is now propagated on earth in direct opposition to, andcontradiction of G od’s H oly Word.
I am sure, sir, that if the unscriptural assertions of science, “ falsely
so-called,” were not accepted without question, or investigation, suchstatements would never have been made as those quoted from The
Vuith.
T h e Word of G od nowhere teaches a plurality of Worlds. We
read that “ the World was made by Him,” and that “ H e formed it to
be inhabited.” St. John i. 10 ; Isa. xlv. 18.
In The F a ith (April, 1896) we read, “ His lie had been preferredl)y the foolish pair, before God’s Truth." Shall we prefer His lie of
Evolution to-day before God’s Truth, because it is clothed in the garbof “ Science, falsely so-called ?" H is lie in Eden consisted in making

36

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

r

T H E E F F E C T S O F E V O L U T IO N

E X PO SE D .

37

I know that scientists would very kindly relieve God of personal
God a liar. Man forfeited his God-given inheritance by his insensate
folly in accepting and acting upon Satan’s smooth tongued proposition.
A re we doing the same to-day? I think, sir, that when you have care­fully perused this letter you will see that Plane Earth teaching is some­thing vastly different to what you have hitherto thought it to be.

and constant operation, supposing the world and all things therein to“ Modern Science,” as J. Page Hopps, in the “ D aily Chronicle ’’(Nov. 9th, 1896), says, “ Changes our natural way of thinking about
God’s revelation of Himself.” Ergo, “ Modem Science,” is the devil’s

Astronom y, is an untenable as w ell as an unphilosophic one.

lie.
Gen. i., ii., is,D ivine revelation and history, therefore, true history;
consequently not a “ poem ” as some “ scientists ” and “ theologians ’have asserted. It is absolutely literal and highly scientific, because itis the D ivinely inspired account of the Creation of the heavens, theearth, and A L L things therein, by Him we now know as the Man
Christ Jesus. And here I would ask what better is the hypothesis of
G eo lo gy; seeing that “ Evolution is the central idea of it ?” Andplease observe, for these quotations are from the pen of a teacher anddefender of Evolution— “ it is this idea {idea, mind) alone which makes
Geology a distinct science. T his is the cohesive principle which unites
and gives cohesion to all the scattered facts of G eo lo gy; which cements
what would otherwise he a mere incoherent pile of rubbish into a solidand substantial edifice.” Science S iftin g s , January i6th, 1892, p. 203.
Hence, you see, Evolution and Geology stand or fall together, and as
the G lobe Theory of Modern Astronomy is the basis of the Evolution
hypothesis (the Globe, “ supposed to have been originally evolved froma mass of gas in rotation ”), the refutation of the globular hypothesis is
the utter overthrow of a l l man’s wisdom, falsely called “ Science.”
Small wonder then that it is declared by Jehovah-Elohim, “ That
which is highly esteemed ?mong men is an abomination in the sight of
the Lord.” Luke xvi. 15. Truly as we read in the first letter on“ Satan and Sorrow,” “ one may well shudder at the daring defiance ofGod’s revealed will and purpose, which is 'so painfully apparent inmodern popular literature.” For instance, if Adam was the offspring ofan ape, what about the Man Christ Jesus, who was made flesh andborn of the Virgin M ary? Christians, m il you accept a speculating
hypothesis as to man’si origin that degrades your Saviour to the levelof the beasts of the field ? Say not, this is “ pushing to the extreme.
I reply no', it is the logical common-sense and faithful sequence. Your;ay it is blasphem y; I reply— yes, it is,' and reduces the teachers andacceptors of it lower than the status of Peter when he denied “ theH oly and Just One.” And be it noted, no descendant of a beast canbe termed “ H oly.”

have been evolved and supplied at the outset vi^ith “ laws ” which would
evolve themselves in the sequence of events, without aid from personalagency. T he position which seeks to embrace Christianit-'' and Evolu­
its offspring. Geology, or the mother of them both, modern
Law de­notes mode of action, therefore, law separated from the continuous
active exercise of an agent is absolutely nothing: hence it is evident
that the existence of law and order proves conclusively the continual
putting forth of power by the Author of Nature, and this was the teach­ing of Christ when H e said, “ M y Father worketh hitherto and I work.”0(T o he continued.)tion, orTHE

SURFACEOF

B y L iu e t e n a n t M id d l e t o n ,IAWATER.
R .N .

-----S E R IE S O F L E T T E R S

W R IT T E N

IN

1871.

N o. II.
Sir ,— Kindly permit me in all humility to arouse, wake up, alarm,
terrify, freeze Globe-ite with the burning sensation that I wonder!—yes, I wonder. W ould Globe-ite be sensitively pricked up to a distantrumbling, mighty roaring, all-earth-clashing, sea-nonconvexing, air-split­
ting, gentle ear-tickler? T hen let Globe-ite be aware that I quiver,shake, nay— rattle with amazement to know, would he (Globe-ite) allow,
recognize, and determinedly swear that there is such a thing as a P E R ­P E N D IC U L A R ? Swear, Globe-ite, swear! Affirm yea! It is affirm­
ed! Globe-ite has graciously condescended that he acknowledges anordinance of nature (according to position) vertical, upright, perpendicu­
lar, or otherwise.

T h e affirmation granted, I will now convulsively venture to rigidly
assert that two perpendiculars may exist! Bolder and more adven­turesome I shriek on the high tenor C in an overwhelmingly command­ing, foe-bewildering whisper, that man, Globe-ite or Plane-ite, may in­sist on as many perpendiculars as he likes actually to pay for, mythic­
ally to possess. Perpendicular granted 1 T h e Bedford Canal granted !
Business challenges attention; and that business, the measuring of thesurface of water with a plumb-line. But firstly, I must request Globeite to be serious, choleraically serious; that type being the most woeful

38

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

representative of earnest solemnity, andwhich may possibly strike conviction
reception of the following simple truths.

promising a short fusillade
of erro’r, and assist theFirstly, that perpendicular containing or allowing of an extended
union which everywhere forms an angle of 90 degrees, either from theprimary point of junction or with an attached plumb-line,— must inthemselves be perpendiculars parallel to each other, and their line ofunion will be horizontal, and in the same plane.
Secondly, that any number of such unions between the said per­pendiculars must be horizontal to each other.

TH E SU R FACE OF W ATER.

39

exist to the greatest n icety ; otherwise circles of curvature would over-’lap circles of curvature. The plane superficies, on the other hand,allows of the rise and f a l l actually necessary to meet the exigenciesof tides, and the ordinary flow of the water from gales of wind, as also
from the circulation produced by change of temperature.
But now for the experiment, one which, if a little tedious, will befound to be most convincing. A lake or sea being inconvenient for
the test by plumb-line, in that a heaving base would surely allow of avery rough approximation, a canal is chosen, in that it offers a solid
foundation on its banks, and consequently I refer my reader to the
Bedford Canal.

f

I

Thirdly, that any area which is equidistant throughout from any
one horizontal line must in itself be horizontal, or, in other words,■perfectly level, and in the same plane throughout. T o measure thesurface of w-ater with a plumb-line is to a certain extent a matter of■uncertainty, from the fact that water is usually in motion, and suchmotion will disarrange the basis of operation, namely, the perpendicu­
lars, and will further swell up to the plumb-line and render anything
more than a rough approximation to a level out of the question: at thesame time be it remembered that the point is not necessarily to show alevel, but to show the arc o f curvature an im possibility as regards
the earth’s general shape. T h e difference between curvature and level
being so enormous— T H E C O N V E X A N D L E V E L B E IN G SO
U T T E R L Y O P P O S E D — any real approximation to a level is suffi­
cient to contradict any assumed curvature. T h e law of curvature be­
ing the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, the curva­
ture in six miles is twenty-four f e e t: the square of distance 6 times 6— 36 ; 36 multiplied by 8 inches— 288 inches— 24 feet. T h e law ofcurvature as above stated being in itself an approximation, the true
cui-vature in six miles would be a few inches less than 24 fe e t : but theexperimentalist, to support curvature, must certainly show a fall in six
miles, which shall approximate closely to 24 feet. On the other hand,the experimentalists, to controvert the absurdity of curvature, need
only show an approximation to a level on the said six miles of w ater:
taking 23 feet as the approximation for 24 feet of curvature, and allow­
ing 12 inches rise or fall in six miles, as an approximation to a level,
it is very plain that the one approximation is utterly fatal to the other,and that either will be sufficient as a crucial test of the superficial shapeof the said six miles of water, and consequently of the whole ocean,in that, wide expanses of water, called lakes or seas,
conform to
one general law as regards their superficial area.
Again, the curvature theories suffer this disadvantage, it must

T ake a number of perpendiculars, posts or otherwise. Erect No.
I perpendicular on a bank, secure it firm ly by a side support, and test
it by a plumb-line to see that it is truly perpendicular. Erect per­pendicular No. 2 on the opposite bank, and stretch a wire from one
to the other across the water— such wire forming an angle of 90 degrees
with either post, and wdth a plumb-line dropped from any part of it
to the water. Continue a line of posts along the bank, throughout thesix miles, or such shorter distance as shall be considered satisfactory.
Test each post as perpendicular and parallel to post N o. r, such test
being performed by a wire junction, as in the case of the first two posts,
all such wire junction being in the same plane. Distance being deter­
mined, place the last post on the opposite side of the can al; again
extend the m re across the ca n a l; again testing the perpendicularity ofthe posts and the angularity of the wire junction. T h e experimentbeing duly carried out, the last wire will be perforce in the same plane
as the original wire from posts Nos. i and 2. N ow remembering thatany area equidistant throughout from any one horizontal line must in
itself be horizontal, or, in other words, perfectly level, and in the sameplane throughout, let a plumb-line be dropped from wire No. i to thewater, the number of feet and inches being carefully noted; again let
a plumb-line be dropped from the last wire to the water, the numberof feet and inches being carefully noted; then, the two measurements
coinciding, the miles of water in between have a horizontal surface
parallel to the wires. T h e two plumb distances must coincide, orclosely approximate; and the general surface of still water must be aplane, as anyone may prove for himself.
(T o he continued.)*• To suppose that there are millions of incandescent bcclies, fiery globes, scatteredthrough the Universe, is an idea so extravagant that we may well wonder how it
could have become so prevalent. Its very preposterousness ought to excite suspicionsof its truth, and Justify the imputation of its absurdity.” —New PrinHp%a, p. 15,

40

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

T H E MOSAIC COSMOGONY PROVED TO BE A FACTM O D E R N A ST R O N O M Y SH O W N T O BE A F A B LE .
By

I n v e st ig a t o r .

Tt may seem very late in the day to inquire whether the respective
claims of these two confessedly antagonistic systems are as well under­stood as they ought to be. T h e unaccountable silence and reserve of
the few approvers of the Scriptural cosmogonies, and the persistentand universal adoption of the modern theories, have resulted in the
too generally received opinion,^ that the former are no longer defens­
ible against the overwhelming multitudes who advocate and endorse thedoctrines of the more modern astronomers.

It can be hardly necessary, however, to show that in the inspired
records, the distinction between them is wide and fundament^, andirreconcilable. In the very first verse of the Bible, and in innumerable
other instances, the two systems are severally referred to as having noconnection whatever, in kind, or in degree. T h e “ Heaven and theEarth ” are invariably associated together, while the sun, moon, andstars, is, from the outset, spoken of as distinct, and wholly subservient,secondary, and inferior in every respect to the earth and its belongings.
This very striking diversity between the two systems is not expressedoccasionally or inferentially; it is unmistakably and prominently in­sisted on from the very first line, through every page of the Sacred
V o lu m e; nor does there occur one solitary exception to which our
opponents can lay claim ! Is this strongly pronounced and o ft repeateddistinction the result of accident or ignorance? D id the Almighty
Him self not know whether the earth or the sun ought to be the more
intimately associated with the Heaven of His presence ? But it is use­less insisting on what our opponents do not deny— that the B ible fur­nishes them with no support whatever; and they can only fall backupon the hackneyed plea that “ the B ible makes no pretension to teachscience,” or to “ speak with scientific accuracy.”
Certainly not, if
modem theories are at all worthy of the name of science, and profes­
sional phraseology is descriptive of facts and indisputable truths! But
the object of this paper is to show that these modern scientists have
yet to make good their claim to be considered the only reliable authority
upon these subjects. T h ey certainly have no lack of the most specious
arguments; and if their foregone conclusions can be regarded as logic­
ally conclusive, where no premises are referred to, and where firstprinciples are purposely ignored, then it may be useless to inquire
further on the subject. But Copernicus and Kepler, and Newtpn,

T H E M O S A IC C O S M O G O N Y |P R O V E D T O B E A F A C T .

41made the vague and iiaseless surmises of Pythagoras, and one or twoof his Pagan contemporaries, the solo ground-work of their vaunted
solar system! If these heathen philosophers had practically proved,
and left their proofs on record, that the earth on which they lived wasreally spherical, or had any possible analogy to the planetary orbs, andthat it had' no material support from above or beneath, but, neverthe­less, had not possessed the skill or sufficient inventive genius to proceed
any further, there would then certainly have been a very great field forthe display of the superior ingenuity and mathematical talents of suchminds as those of K epler and Newton. But these grand intellects were all •of them building, without any extravagance of language, a series ofcastles, in the air! T h ey set out with and built up their whole sys­
tem on the assumed correctness of the Pagan suggestion, that the earth
is a planet or spherical body, floating unsupported in sp ace; though
not one of them ever troubled himself to determine, from that day tothe present, whether this curious conception was a fact or a fable, or
have they ever endeavoured to ascertain or to establish the soundnessof their fundamental principles! I f solid bodies will, under any known
conditions, float unsupported in space; if, by the aid of the spectro­
scope, or any other curious contrivance, it can reasonably and rationallybe inferred that such an immaterial and luminous body as the sun iscapable, at a distance of nearly one hundred million miles, of exerting
such an extraordinary sustaining or attractive power over solid matterof indescribable ponderosity, as to keep it floating in an horizontal
direction, while at the same time it is being hurled round by centrifugal
force, in a circular orbit, a t the inconceivable velocity of three or fourtimes quicker than a flash of lightning, then we will admit that Newton
would have had some grounds for his reckless adoption and clever
arrangement of the various accessories essential to the completion of
his “ mathematical system.”
But his conclusions were too hastily
arrived at, his premises were not examined or asked for, and his con­ditions were never tested for an instant, neither were any of the coin­cidences attending it ever been understood or sought to be explained!
And, what is the most crushing deficiency of all, that every single prac­
tical test, that ingenuity could devise or the agony of despair suggest,
has, most unmistakably, proved the very reverse of what the theoiyrequired! Fiery or luminous gases have never, hitherto, been shown topossess any magnetic or attractive ■pow er; solid bodies have neverbeen known to float or revolve unsupported in space; and the curve,
which is absolutely essential to the formation of a globe, seems to be,most unaccountably, the one only shape that the Astronomer neverhas found, even on land, much less on water; and, in every aspect inwhich it may be viewed, it is found to be at once contrary to the ex­

T H E EARTH

42

R E V IE W .

plicit and unmistakable language of Scripture, the dictates of reason
and common sense, as well as to every fact that the most prejudiced
advocate of the system could devise or employ.
Now, on what plea can such an equivocal and hitherto unproved
system of cosmogony be adhered to? A re we justified in such a prac­
tical and prosaic age as the present in retaining what we dare not de­fend, what we cannot explain, and, whilst it is making us a nation of
infidels and scoffers at inspiration, is a disgrace to our civilization anda slur upon our very humanity itself? T h e one fact that there is nota single scientific professor that would venture openly to discuss, orattempt to elucidate the grounds on which it was originally foundedor sought to be established, ought to convince us that such an inde­
fensible system ought no longer to be tolerated, much less made com­pulsory in our educational establishments. Nothing can long upholda theory which exhibits such a dread of inquiry, or serve to prop up asystem, the ultimate overthrow of which, its own inherent rottenness
and absurdity, have rendered inevitable.

A VINDICATION OF T H E

DIVINE COSMOGONY.

BY JOHN DOve, M .A . ( i 7 S 7 -)M y L ord ,Having read the writings of the Mystics, Mythologists,
and Deists, I was greatly bewildered thereby; but most of all, by theanswers to the last; for I confess I received more damage by the lame
defences of Christianity, than by the shrewdest attacks of its enemies.
T hus confused, I abandoned my previous course of reading, and applied
myself to the scientific and natural pliilosphers, and the more modern
commentators of Scripture.
T h ey bewildered me ten times more!
T h e philosophers, I found, taught a lie for truth; and the commenta­
tors granted more than the moral philosophers asked, and finding theirown artillery turned against them, they were forced to go over to theenemy’s camp.
I was simply an inquiring spectator till past the 45th year of mylife ; nor knew who was right or wrong, but was strongly inclined tothe idea that they were all equally astray; because I never could under­
stand how an infinitely wise God could create a world of intelligent
beings and leave them to be groping in' the dark, as I was convinced
the majority of them were.
In the first iplace, I felt assured that is was impossible that theWord of God and His works ever could disagree! T heir disagreement

A V IN D IC A T IO N O F T H E D I V I N E C O SM O G A N Y .

43

once granted, there ends all certainty in divinity and philosophy forever. T o see and be able to demonstrate this agreement is the heightand summit of learning; and all learning that has not that tendency,
as it smothers the mind in ignorance, so it plunges its professors indoubt and confusion. Those, therefore, whose earth-born, homespun
schemes, whose skill is employed in destroying or resisting this divine
and important connexion, by setting up a standard of natural philoso­phy, virhich puts a control upon common sense as well as on the Scrip­
tures,— a standard of moral fitness, and making revelation stoop toit— a law of nature as the foundation of Christianity and the revela­
tion of God— I cannot help comparing to owls who arraign the eagle
for blindness, and in the twilight try him at their own bar. How far
this has been the case from the publication of a mathematical Princip ia and continues to be the case still, and the fruits of it have been adeluge of infidelity and every conceivable blasphemy, till superstition
is reduced to a system, and gloried in and paraded as a superior gospel;and this your Lordship camiot but have observed. A nd as i't is as
much in your Lordship’s power, as it is your proper province, yea, yourbounden duty, to lead us out of this gloom, I doubt not that j'ou will
exert yourself to restore to us the light and liberty of the true Gospel,and thereby save a once glorious kingdom, now sinking fast into thegrossest heathenism.
I have conversed in my time with a great many learned men, and,for more than twenty years past, never forgot to inquire of them con­cerning those curious phenomena— the “ laws of nature,”— ^which mean
nothing more than a kind of hap-hazard sort of substitute for the
Divine Creator. W ithout any presumption, I profess to be able todistinguish between the truth and the falsity of anything in the written
revelation of God, and between reason and romance, and between truth
and fiction generally. Having ca:st off many prejudices of my educa­
tion, I hope I have embraced no dangerous ones in their stead.
I presume, my Lord, that the written revelation of God was given
to be the rule of our faith and practice, to curb our enthusiasms, toregulate our researches, and to restrain our tendency to improve upon
His works. And, since it is the happiness of each rational creature
to understand the ways and works of God, it is inconceivable to thinkthat the teaching of his revelation should not effect this end better
than the whimsical “ laws of nature ” and pretended fitness of things,
which every man makes unfit as soon as he dislikes their fitness.
I have for many years carefully observed the gradations of infidel­
ity, and have seen many a man who had had a religious education andfeared to behave ill, by healing first one and then another sneer at

44

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

the Bible, in a little time cast off all religion, plead the right of pri­vate judgment, and utter blasphemies I dare not repeat.
T hey almost invariably begin with doubts about the authenticityof the history of Moses and the origin of his revelation, and then pre­tending to be convinced that he knew nothing of the matters he wrote
about, that the Prophets were fortune-tellers, the Apostles cheats,
Christianity a deception, and all revelation a dream. If your Lordshipconceives I have dashed the description with too much bitter, I assure
you I have greatly underseasoned it. Y ou will not I trust, regard me as
an enthusiast or a fanatic, for I am a sincere Protestant and a true
believer in the written irevelation of God, and a cordial well-wisher
and consistent member of the Church of England, as by law esta­
blished ; so no man can construe this as written to affront your Lord­ship or any other man. And that you may be enabled by your Lordand Master to exert yourself to stem that deluge of infidelity that ’s
fast sweeping us away, is the earnest wish and prayer of
Y ou r Lordship’s humble Servant,
JOH N D O V E .
T o the Right R ev. the Bishop of Oxford, A .D . 1757.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF T H E BIBLE.
CH APTERI.*

H a p p y would it be if men would forbear writing till they could publish

I

something for the benefit of their readers; nor ever leave anything un­reasonable or false upon record. H e that aims not at the first and to
avoid the last, is not an honest m an; nor while he neglects the Law of
God or H is Works, or sees not their connexion, will he ever be able
to teach divinity or philosophy. T h e evidence for the former will beconcealed, and though he may seem to have nature before him, hegoes not the right way to apprehend h e r ; he is still in pursuit, bu t will
never overtake his ob ject; for while he considers God and Nature
aliens,— H is W ord and H is Works contrary, he may wrangle about pro­blems, state his conjectures, digest them into exact method, and makethem appear fair and plausible, it will leave him hungry after all, andmankind none the better for his labours.
There is no m o d e r n p h il o s o p h y that has, as yet, perfectly andsatisfactorily illustrated the harmony between God’s Word and His
Works. But it is the only true philosophy and the only true religion;
for without the intelligent perception of this union there can be no* Capitals are ours.

Italics are origiiial.

rTHE

P H IL O S O P H Y O F T H E B I B L E .

spiritual or eternal life.

45

I will in the following pages undertake tos h o w : — I. T h at the doctrine of a moral “ law of nature,” is not to befound in Scripture, and is contrary to reason. 2. T hat the immediateagency and providence of God is founded on the Scriptures, and isstrictly conff)rmable to our reason.

Tt will be granted, our senses are not infallible, and that ourreason is imperfect. This affords an illustration that we want the helpof revelation; with that help, and not by “ the law of nature,” we may
discover the creative wisdom of God, and all other things which theingenuity of man cannot conceive. T h e histories of all past time
prove that all knowledge worthy of the name, was derived from theDivine or Mosaic system; and the more remote men are from thatfountain, and the more they swerve from that plan, the wilder are theirsystems of physical laws as well as of religion. T h e modern infidelplan of ridiculing everything sacred and divine is, therefore, not only
extremely foolish, but it must infallibly end in unutterable confusionand discomfiture.
I mention these things to show what a dangerous course is theneglect of the Scriptures and the alarming spread of infidelity have hadupon our literature and philosophy. So that to remain ignorant of theirtrue meaning, all other learning must leave us miserable fools; and,in demonstration of ttiis, I need only point to the infidel teachers of
the present a g e ; they will be found as unhappy as they are ignorant;
and as they refuse to be taught by that revelation that God has given
us, so they must remain groping in darkness, though the light is shin­
ing all around them.
Blush, then, ye philosophers, drop your pride, search the Scrip­
tures, submit to be taught by your Maker, so that you may be de­livered from your ignorance. In the Scriptures, vou will soon see, atleast you may, that those parts of Nature that we have any concern
with and which lie beyond the reach of our senses, are therein revealed
and made plain, to assist and improve our m inds; and those parts ofnature which lie more within the reach of our understandings, and w'ith
which we may be more familiar, m utually explain the Scriptures.
For in them we are frequently referred to the more abstruse parts ofnature; and when that is the case, we never fail to find them explained,
and with which not to be acquainted, is our shame and our disgrace.
And, unless these be taken in their proper connexion, they are, bothof them not only obscure but unintelligible. Wherefore, to suppose aman with his rabbinical learning, his heathen Greek, his inborn lightof nature, his fitness of things, without a P R A C T I C A L K N O W ­L E D G E of physicd nature, derived from or supported by Scripture,T H E P H IL O S O P H Y O F T H E B IB L E .
TH E EARTH

46

is as absurd as to find a cat able to catch fish in the middle of theAtlantic. A nd the man who does not see this, and yet pretends tobe a man of learning, is past c u re ; and this must be the case of every
man who rejects revelation; for no man ever yet was compelled to re­ject it on evidence ! And those who call themselves reasonable men,
and at the same time reject the original fountain of instruction, tofollow their own wild imaginations, is like the sailor who throws his
compass overboard to guess at the course, and looking into his shoes
to find the longitude at sea.
T H E W H O L E S Y S T E M O F M O D E R N P H IL O S O P H Y , E X ­C E P T T H A T W H IC H A G R E E S W IT H M O S E S, IS B U T A R E ­B E L L IO N

A G A IN S T

NATURE,ABLA SPH EM Y

A G A IN S T

TH E GOD OF N A TU R E , AND A PRO O F OF T H E W EAKN ESSO F O U R O W N U N D E R S T A N D IN G .
Sir Isaac Newton and a Rev. Mr. Clark wriggled themselves into
reputation, and flourished in the beginning of the present century; theformer a natural philosopher, the latter as a divine. T h e s y s t e m o f
THE FORMER HAS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT IT, but is a Cobweb of his
own weaving, of no consistence, as has been P R O V E D by men oflearning and skill, who have been jeered at and abused for attempting
to establish Truth, and justify the ways of God to man. T h e one
attempted to realise H IS O W N IM A G IN A T IO N S , A N D T O P R O V E
T H E I R T R U T H B Y H IS M A T H E M A T IC S , B U T N E V E R S U C ­C E E D E D , A N D T O R E A S O N B A C K W A R D S , A C E R T A I N IN ­D IC A T IO N

47

R E V IE W .

O F H IS B E IN G A S T R A N G E R T O T H E

VERY

E L E M E N T S O F S O U N D L O G IC , A N D O F H IS N O T B E IN G
ABLE TO REASO N A T ALL.
T here is a supreme pleasure in surveying the works of G o d ; itfills the soul with inexpressible admiration and reverential delight; but
it is sad to see their magnificence diminished or misrepresented, thefacts of nature ignored, her principles attacked, the sacred truths of
God seemingly exploded, and men’s vain imagination established intheir room. T his irritates the pious mind, rouses the soul, and ex­
cites her to oppose such fables and deceits.
How it should happen that Moses, who was Divinely inspired by
God and who once had the greatest reputation for learning of any man
upon earth, should fall into the disgrace he is in at present, so as tobe held in contempt by the most ignorant and profane upstart, is hard
to be accounted for but by those who know the human heart, which I
conceive our new fangled philosophers neitner know nor acknowledge.

But his philosophy can never be overthrown. H ad these profoundgeniuses c o n s u l t e d t h e ScRiPTtrREs a n d t h e t r u t h o f n a t u r e ,th e yw o u ldb a u b le

and

have

seen

c o n tr a r y

th e irtow h o leeverys y s te m

fa c t

to

to

be a

w h ic hs e n s e le s s

th e yc o u ld

a p p e a l.

Our wise translators could not have understood the Hebrew when
they made Job say— Chap. xxvi. 7., “ H e stretcheth the Nortti over the
Empty Place, and hangeth the Earth upon Nothing.” But Job says
“ H e stretcheth the North upon Tohu (i.e., desolation), and hangeth
the Earth upon B a lja m a h ■” for wliich there is no very literal transla­tion, but we may describe it as “ the firmament of H is power.” See
the same word in Ps. cl., and other places.
And as the Scriptures declare this ini the plainest language, there
can be no doubt that our forefathers understood it so, till in later■'enlightened times,” the miraculous power of gravity was introduced,
which is intended, I believe, to pull all and everything to the centre
by a force in proportion to the quantity of matter in a body, and without any known or visible cause; and for this imaginary device, we are
to take' Sir Isaac Newton’s bare word,— reject the first mechanical lawof nature— give up our senses and our reason too, every moment,—
and, with a sturdy faith give Sir Isaac Newton credit for knowing morethan the Creator himself!
When the present theory of philosophy is contrasted with the re­vealed system, it would be considered as an experiment to try thecredulity of mankind, for it is as contrary to reason and common sense,as the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor can I think there is one manin Europe that seriously believes it, and I am perfectly certain there isno man on e,arth c,an prove it to he true: and its inventor, Newton,
was, at last, so far convinced of this, that he confessed as much, as
may be seen by comparing the various editions of his Optics, publishedin his lifetime.
It will, no doubt, be inquired whether I understand Sir Isaac New­
ton’s philosophy? N o! N o more than I understand the anatomy ofa spectre; but I perfectly understand that a, spectre has no bones; andI as perfectly understand Sir Isaac Newton’s P H IL O S O P H Y IS A S
D E V O ID 0 -F T R U T H , O F R E A S O N A N D P R O O F , as a spectre
is of bones; and his warmest advocates have confessed that they do
not understand him, while it is quite out of their power to prove that
I do not understand Moses.
It must be allowed. Sir Isaac Newton was good at mathematics,
but he certainly mistook their use, when he applied them to ascertain

48

TH E! EARTHR E V IE W .

distances, diameters, densities of the heavenly bodies; for by the dis­
agreement of his followers, in these points, we are obliged to conclude,
they knew nothing at all about them. Mathematics are of excellent
use when employed about their proper ob jects; but were never designed
to rob the professors of common sense, and to fill the vulgar mind
with wonJer. I remember to have read of a D utch philosopher, whopretended to tell, by the mathematics, how many particles of light flowfrom an inch of candle, of one inch diameter in an hour; with otherlike whims. I knew a famous one, who thought his tailor a fool, be­cause he could not make him a suit of clothes L/ measuring his thumb.
Many more instances I could give, which engages me to believe they
are not all conjurors, and that a goose, when she passes under the
lintel of the barn door, and lowers her head for fear of it, is as gooda judge of the height of the lintel, as the best mathematician in Europe
is of the distance of the sun from the earth, and that all the paradeand fuss we have had about it, is merely theoretical; for they pooh atthe difference of fifty million miles as if it were a difference of only
fifty inches; and when you express any surprise at their inability losecure greater accuracy, only treat you with contempt, for not knowingthat in such immense distances, millions were but as hairs’ breadths.

[i

■
I'

If

Therefore give me leave to ask, whether it is possible to makecommon sense of Scripture, till this lumber be parted with? For I
assert it is impossible for any man to be a deist in creed, when he under­
stands the genuine simplicity of the Hebrew records, and very difficult
to avoid it',in its present disguise.
I t cannot be truly said that the Hebrew language has beenthoroughly understood since the apostolic a g e ; which may be one reasonof that confusion in sentiment, which has distracted the church fromthat day to this, and the philosophers, too, who have exploded the
Scriptures and followed the superstitions of the heathen.
W ere the veil taken away from the philosophers' eyes, the Scrip­
tures would appear worthy of the Wisdom of G od in giving them tou s ; for with all the obscurity with which artful men have darkened
them, they exceed all other books in their original sublimity of style,clearness of ideas, A N D A C C U R A C Y O F T H E I R F A C T S .
(T o he concluded in our next.)

AN SW E R S TO CORRESPONDENTS.
A ll Letters to the Editor must be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side of thepaper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed. A ll letters miMt be prepaid and addressed to

M r J. w i l l i a m s ,96 A r k w r i g h t S t r e e t , N o t t i n g h a m .

B IB L I C A L

b ib l ic a l , scie n tific ,49& NA TURA L COSMOGONY.

B e in g the substance o f a Lecture delivered on board the U.S S “ Goih ’ in

Algoa Bay, on 20th May, iSgs.
B y T.W .
I n every matter with which Knowledge stands connected, prejudiceknows no bounds, and when called upon to “ give up the ghost,” makes
a determined stand, and always “ dies hard.” T h e subject I have to
speak upon ’to-night is one which has exercised the minds of men fromthe earliest times. Before the 15th century “ earth’s m illions” hadever been content to be satisfied with the facts of the Sun’s motion
and the Earth’s immobility. These things could be seen and were
therefore believed.
Since those simple days, however, men withtheories, as startling as they were new, have appeared. T hey declaredthat sentient beings could no longer trust their eyesight, being underan optical delusion as to the Sun’s motion and the Earth’s immobility.
T h ey further asserted that the Sun was “ immovable ” in a far-off place
they dubbed “ sp ace; ” that that Luminary was many millions of miles
distant from the “ Planet,” called “ our g lo b e ;” and many, many times
its size; and that “ cmr globe ” was flying away in “ space ” at a terrificrate. A s time wore on, other wiseacres arose and enlarged upon thetheoretical teaching of their “ predecessors in office,” until to-day wehave an hypothetical system of “ Astronomy,” the knowledge of which,
it is pretended, only giant minds can attain to! Prejudice in thesematters has such a hold on the minds of men who have been taught
to “ leam on credit and on trust believe ” without ever having practic­
ally tested the assertions made, that I can only hope to present theother side of the picture to you without expecting to influence many ina direction they have been taught to believe is the wrong one. I am
determined, however, to say nothing that I km not prepared to prove,and I invite the severest criticism and the most searching investigation.
I shall be happy to reply to questions, or to enter into debate withany one present, on the points touched upon, provided always thattemperate language is used and the ordinary rules of courtesy observed.
B IB L IC A L .
It is plain from the H oly Scriptures that the Earth is resting on
foundations; that it has no revolving motion whatever, and that it
cannot be m oved ; that the Sun revolves above and around the Earth,and tha!t all the luminaries we see in the heavens are there fpr the
special purpose of ser\dng the Earth. T o these facts the following
passages, among many others, te stify :— Gen. i. 16-18; i Sam. ii. 8;
Pss. cii. 25, xcvi. 10, xxiv. 2, cxxxvi. 6, xix. 1-6 ; Micah vi. 2 ; Job
xxxviii. 4-6; Jer. xxxi. 3 7 ; 2 Kings xx. 1 1 ; Ecc. i. 5 ; Joshua x.
12-13.

Ji

S C IE N T IF IC A N D N A T U R A L C 0 3 M 0 G 0 N Y .

50

THE

EARTH

B IB L IC A L , S C I E N T I F IC A N D N A T U R A L C O SM O G O N Y.

R E V IE W .

So much for Biblical Cosmogony.
L e t us
“ S C IE N C E ” (so-called) has to say on the matter.

now

see whatW e are all acquainted with the school-book theories written by the“ learned,” and illustrated in attractive form for the comprehension of
the young. M uch is taught in these books, and sometimes a little isattempted 'to be proved ; but, I venture to say, when we look at themwith the aid of our adult common sense and in the light of experience
gained since school days, we shall find nothing, or next to nothing,practically proven.
T h e present is a favourable opportunity for discussing the subjectof N A V I G A T I O N in relation to the shape of the world. I t is gener­
ally supposed, even by the experienced, that the rules laid down mNavigation Works for the guidance of the Mariner, are those which apply
to a globular surface. T hat the very opposite is really the case, I
shall proceed to prove from practical experience. I affirm that therules in such books are really those required for ascertaining a ship’s
position on the surface of the ocean, which surface, when at rest, is
L E V E L — H O R IZ O N T A L , and above which Sun, Moon, and Stars
revolve; and that, as water is I .E V E L and not convex, the world is avast irregular plane and not a globe.
On or about the 21st March and 21st September the Sun travels
the circle, called the “ Equator,” and is thus at right angles to the earthand sea at all points on that circle. This fact constitutes the standard
measuring rod for all observations for finding the ship’s position at sea.
If, for example, we are in Latitude 20 deg., N . or S., the altitude of theSun’s centre at noon (the time when the Sun reaches its maximum
altitude at our position), on, say, 21st March, will be 70 cleg.; if in
70 deg., N. or S., the altitude will be 20 deg.
P'rom March 21st, the Sun travels in a northerly direction, until
it attains its greatest Northern Declination, about the 21st June; sothat on any day except that on which the Sun is on the Equator, thedeclination has toi be taken account of, as in the working out of thefollow ing; —On May ist. Sun’s declination was 22 deg. 8 min. N . ; altitude.
Sun’s centre, 25 deg. 14 min., bearing N . ; required the latitude.
True alt. Suns centre
N
25°
14'
90°
Declinaiion,
Latitude,
or,

64°
22°

46'
8'

S
N

42°

38'

S.

Suns declination,
Suns Altitude, -

-

-

-

22°
25°

8'
14'

N
N

47 °
90°

22'

N

51

S
Latitude,42°
38'
In this case, had the observation been taken when the Sun was on
the Equator, the Latitude would have been 64 deg. 46 min., but as theSun had gone 22 deg. 8 min. further North, that amount must be de­ducted from the position the ship would have occupied had the Sun
been on the Equator. I t w ill thus be seen that the rig ht angle
the S u n mahes vrith the surface o f the ocean
on the E quator isthe basis o f a ll navigation.
Now, whoever heard of a right angle on a rotund surface? Try,
if you will, to obtain that angle on a ball— the tiny globe I hold in myhand— and you will fail. Or, search the books of Euclid and Geome­try, and your failure to get the angle will be equally certain. On aplane surface, such as the ocean, all is plain and sim ple; on the con­vex surface of a ball it is impossible.
Obsei-ving the angular distance of the Sun, or any heavenly body,is done iu exactly the same way as one would measure the height ofsay, a church steeple, with a sextant.
In working out the position from the time the observation is taJcen,
the factors 'of Index Error, Sun’s correction, Semi-diameter, and D e­clination are plain enough; the only thing we require to notice here
is what is erroneously styled “ dip.” When an observation has beentaken, it is supposed that, as the surface of the sea is assumed to beconvex, an allowance must be made for the “ dip ” of the Sun behindthe “ apparent ” horizon of the observer; being the difference between
the “ apparent ” and the “ true ” horizons. This, however, is completely
upset by the fact that the height above water level (mark the term
“ lev e l” ) of the observer’s eye regulates this so-called “ dip.” I f his
eye were at luater-lev^l, there would be nothing to deduct fo r dip,
but as he stands on the ship’s deck, he has to deduct a certain amountfor the number of feet his eye is above sea level. Therefore “ dip ”
is simply a misnomer for the factor, it is the height above water-levelof the observer’s eye; for it follows that the higher the eye of the ob­server, the greater will the reading on his instrument be, and thus the“ height of eye ” must be deducted to give the correct reading. But,
i f the surface o f the ocean were convex, an allowance would haveto be made with the eye at water-level. T h is fact kills the “ dip ’
theory, and allows it no hope of a resurrection.
(T o he continued.)

THE

52

EARTH

R E V IE W .

T H E P E N D U L U M TR IC K EXPOSED.
“ F O U C A U L T ’S

P E N D U L U M .”“ To make apparent the rotation o f the Earth.”“ If the pendulum be started along the Zero line, in a short time it will appear to
depart from it and take an oblique course. This arises from its remaining true to its
first direction, while the table and surrounding objects have moved with the Earth.
The experiment was first performed by Foucault at The Panthion, Paris, in the year
1849.”
I n gilt letters so runs the above legend at the South Kensington
Museum, to professedly explain the presumed use of the Arrangement
under consideration; the Authorities, unfortunately, have omitted togive publicity to records of the failure of the T hin g in non-demon­

I' I

strating what they say it does, and ni which it demonstrates agaim t
T h e Globular Theory.
In the early part of the year 1889, I, in company with my respected
friend, the late John Hampden, paid a visit to the Museum for the
special purpose of closely examining this mechanical arrangement,
known as Foucault’s Pendulum, which is placed there presumably (bya beneficent Government at the instigation of the Scientific (?) Pro­
fessors, and at our expense) to enlighten (?) the British Public gener­
ally, and the Rising Generation in particular, in that branch of Modern
Theoreitical Science (so-called) which professes to teach the supposed
flashing motions of T h e World (assumed a globe) through what is very
glibly called “ Space.”
Exercising our right as taxpayers, we requested the obliging attend­
ant to start the motionless Pendulum into motion, reminding him we
wished to see it performed in the correct manner, v i z : severing by
ignition, the thread which holds the bulb of the pendulum ; thus re­leasing it to proceed on its momentous course without bias (you’ll
kindly bear in mind, the World is supposed to be flashing on andaround in various ways throughout these unbiassed operations); thisdone, John Hampden and myself took up our positions, and after
patiently watching the Thing for the better part of an hour, we wereagain compelled to verify what has been repeatedly acknowledged, withregard to this so-called proof of T h e W orld’s movements, that is, its
absolute worthlessness for the puipose intended; in fact, to put it
mildly, it is nothing but a downright piece of gammon to say it proves
anything as 'stated. W e then closely questioned the attendant on
several points, regarding the Thing, until the poor man had to can­didly own his ignorance on the crucial points, and respectfully advised

T H E P E N D U L U M T R IC K E X P O S E D .

S3

us to refer our (Zetetic) questions to Professor Somebody (with a lotof letters at the end of his name), who would, he thought, explain andanswer any questions to our satisfaction; but, having had some P ro ­fessional assistance ( 1 ) before on this and kindred matters, we knew
better than waste valuable time, money and breath perhaps, on such anerrand.
During the cross-examination, an interested audience hadgathered round (us and the Thing), to whom John Hampden explainedin a few pithy sentences, the gross absurdity of the whole affair, leaving
them wondering, and, we hoped, thinking too. Several times since,
visits have been made to the Thing with the same abortive results, andI’ve since wondered how much longer the Authorities intend to hoax
the Public, or how long the Public will allow themselves to b e hum­bugged by such a down-right piece of brazen-gammon. T h e absurdityof the affair is made more apparent by the position in which theThing is placed— viz., where it is acted upon by strong cross currentsof air, quite suflScient to upset the exact working of a delicately sus­pended oscillating body. Whether or no, this is used as a subterfuge
to explain the erratic action of the Thing, I cannot say, but there
it is.
L et any sensible person imagine or conceive how a delicately sus­pended pendulum would be bound to act were it in a building whichstood (?) on a globe whirling, twirling, and flashing (through some­where or something, called Space), with numerous motions approxi­
mating from 14 to 19 miles per second, irrespective of conflicting cur­rents of air, conducted up the well-hole of a staircase; and then ask
himself the question, whether the British public, in tolerating such fi
fraud, does not still deserve to carry Thomas Carlyle’s censure of“ mostly fools,” by continuing to uphold a Thin g which, being used as
it is, can only deceive and gull th em ; yet on it goes, much to thewonder and flabbergastering of parties of country cousins, school-fullsof children, and thousands of adults, who very often pride themselves
as being intelligent and reasonable Human beings.
T h e )so-called Pendulum Proof of T h e W orld’s assumed rotation
was obliged to be renounced years ago as worthless, by those who werein the best possible position to judge it, as these few of numerous ex­
tracts plainly show.
“ T h e French, English, and European continental journals havegiven publicity to an experiment made in Paris with a pendulum ; which
experiment is said to have had the same results when made elsewhere.
T o the facts set forth no contradiction has been given, and it is, there­
fore, to be hoped that they are true. T he correctness of the inferences
drawn, however, from the facts is another matter, T h e first position

54

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

of these theorists is, that in a complete vacuum, beyond the sphereof the earth’s atmosphere, a pendulum will continue to oscillate in one
and the same original plane. Oni that supposition their whole theory
IS founded. In making this supposition the fact is overlooked that
there is no vibratory motion unless through atmospheric resistance, or
by force opposing impulse. Perpetual progress in rectilinear motion
may be im agined, as in the corpuscular theory of lig h t; circular motion
may be also found in the planetary system s; and parabolic and hyper­
bolic motions in those of com ets; but vibration is artificial and oflimited duration. N o body in nature returns the same road it went,
unless artificially constrained to do so. T h e supposition of a permanent
vibratory motion, such as is presumed in the theory advanced is u n ­founded in fa ct and absurd in id ea; and the whole affair of thisproclaimed discovery falls to the ground.”“ T .”“ Liverpool Mercury,” May 23rd.
Again, in the same month, appears the follow ing: —I

A scientific gentleman in Dundee, recently tried the pendulum ex­periment, and concludes by saying, “ T h at the pendulum is capable ofshowing the earth’s motion, I regard as a gross delusion............. .”Again, another asserts : “ Pie and others had made many pendu­
lum experiments, and had discovered that the plane of vibration had
nothing whatever to do with the meridian longitude, nor with theearth’s motion.................”
In many instances experiments have however not even shown achange in the plane of,oscillation of the pendulum ; in others the alter­
ation has been in the wrong direction; in fact, in numerous instances,
the rates and directions have been altogether opposite to that which
the theory indicated; a notable illustration of this was given publicly
by the Rev. H . H . Jones, F .R .A .S ., in 1851, at the Library H all of
the Manchester Athenaeum, where the diurnal rotation of the earth was
to be attempted to be demonstrated by a delicately adjusted Penduluni;
after giving, at length, a minute description of the arrangements andapparatus, we come to the admission, that the pendulum, on being
released, travelled over a measured space in seven minutes, whereas,according to the theor)', it ought to have taken fifteen minutes, or
more, to accomplish the distance; and remember, this great difference^^as made without any allowance being made for the resistance of theair, which would be considerable. Anyone can verify this account byreferring to the “ Manchester Examiner Supplement ” of May 24th,1851.
By referring to “ The Figure of T h e Earth,” by J. V on Gumpach,
2nd edit., 1862, on pp. 229 to 244, results will be seen of Sixty-sevenTHE

PEN D U LU M

T R IC K

EXPO SED .

SS

with the Pendulum, made i n every latitude North, andSouth of the Equator, by Captains Foster and Kayter,and General Sabine, all of which are admitted to be absolutely worth­less for proving anything regarding the assumed motion of T h e Worlde x p e r im e n ts

T w e n ty -n in e

through space.
If such testimony is not enough to make Pendulum-proof worship­pers think, they must either be as bigoted as it is possible to conceive,or as thick in the cranium as their globe.
When the original experiment with the Pendulum was first brought
to the notice of the Scientific world (to qucrte “ Parallax ”), “ T h e prideand exultation of Astronomers became almost unbounded, and heed­
less of restraint. But, after a time, their clamorous triumph over all
who had doubted the truthfulness of the Newtonian system suddenly
ceased. T h e blinding meteor had fallen into the sea and become ex­tinguished. A deceptive theory had allured them into a morass offalse and illogical reasoning. T h ey had long before assumed that theearth had diurnal rotation; and now, instead of honestly admitting
the simple fact that the Pendulum, under certain conditions, did not
maintain its original plane of vibration, they again, contrary to every
principle of justice and reason, recklessly dared to assume that it was
not the pendulum at all, but the earth underneath it which “ parted
company and moved away to the West.” Like drowning men they catch
not only at straws, but even shadows in their frantic attempts to bol­ster up thieir darling gigantic Globular Fraud.
“ T h e motion of the earth was first assumed to exist; and when
there still was no visible sign of motion, they again assumed that theirfirst assumption was right, and affirmed that that which really andvisibly moved could not be moving, because that which could not
be seen, or proved to move, must be in motion according to their
theory, or first assumption! T h e Pendulum, as though a living creature,
conscious of unbearable defamation, subsequently became so irregularin its behaviour that the astronomers did, and were glad to disown it
as an ally or friend of their calumnious philosophy. T h ey struggled
fiercely to retain its peculiarities as a proof of their groundless assump­
tions, but the battle was short and decisive. T h e Pendulum ignored
the connection; and the Scientific world was compelled to submit toa divorce, and to acknowledge defeat. Their reasoning had been dex­
terous, but false and devious. A greater violation of the laws of in­vestigation was never perpetrated.
Y et after all this ignom­
inious collapse and acknowledged defeat, the present Authorities havethe ignorance, or impudence, to keep the Thin g dangling-on at theSouth Kensington Museum, and to advertise a most deliberate false-

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

56

hood in gilt letters; not only axe T h ey monopolising valuable Public
space, but, what is far worse, are in effect, insidiously poisoning theniind of the Public at large, and posing at the same time as Scientistsof the first grade of this much belauded, highly-enlightened (?) age.
Whenever anyone quotes the “ Pendulum T r ic k ” as p ro o f of the Rota­tion of the World, you can safely label the proposer as being quite
ignorant of the matter, or of wilful misrepresentation amounting to‘F ahehood!
IC O N O C L A S T .

-T H E -HARTH'NOTa G L O B E -R E VIE W
S IX)t>\ W ~{f“ OBJECT LESSONS,” W H A T T H E Y TEACH.
a pleasant school it was at Lincoln. Miss Newton was such akind teacher, and the children all loved her for her patience. She
could always discern between real difficulties and idleness, and was sokind in explaining a hard lesson.
W hat

Grace K epler was sitting one day, with her book before her, witha very puzzled face. Miss Newton called her up. “ W hat is the matter,G race?” she asked kindly. “ Oh, please, Miss Newton, it is so diffi­
cult. M y book says the sun does n o t move, and I have s e e n it m ove!
Y es, I’m certain sure I’ve seen it move. W hy the other night I saw
It go right down until it was quite gone out of sight.” A nd Grace’s
face looked grave and troubled.
Miss Newton put her arm round the child, and explained that the
movement we see is the earth’s movement, not the sun’s.
A t thisGrace’s eyes of>ened still wider, “ Because,” she said, “ I never f e l t
the earth m ove!”
So M iss Newton thought it was time for a -practical lesson in
Astronomy. She called up the whole class, and with the aid of a
globe and an orange, she made the matter clear to Grace and theothers.
T h e above I trust will show Mr Beaston and others H O W un­
suspecting children’s reasoning faculties are stultified and their minds
literally stunted by being crammed from books, or, the pre-crammed
minds of so-called teachers.
School teachers, in most cases unconsciously, teach children as
truth that which is absolutely false, consequently when grown up they
deny the evidence of their senses.
Vttrchow once said, “ W E O U G H T N O T T O T E A C H T O
L I T T L E C H IL D R E N , A S A known F A C T , T H A T W H IC H IS
not A known F A C T .”W e believe he spoke the Truth.
LEO CASTLE.

M I L E S .

the Surface of W ater to be Horizontal.

'I'tL ly . U f 3^ / / S W \ .
SOM ETHING T H A T ENGLAND'^DARES NOTATTEM PT!
W it h all her big guns, with all her armies and navies, all her costly schoolboards, all her public and private educational establishments, all her literaryand scientific professorships, with all her journalistic pre-eminence and theo­
logical learning, with all her university extension schemes, she dare not openly
discuss in the presence of any one honest and intelligent opponent, the basis
upon which the globular or Newtonian theory is founded, or show that it Is
agreeable to Scripture, to reason, to fact, or to sound philosophy!

T he idea of living on a globular and revolving W orld, turning upside down
every twenty-four hours, spinning through space at the rate of over one thousand
miles a minute, and never knowing whether we are standing on our heads or
our heels, is a disgrace not only to our pretended civilisation, but to humanity
itself, and debases us far below the brute instinct of the ox and the a s s ! Ought
not, then, every schoolmaster in the kingdom to be regarded as an enemy to
all knowledge for enforcing upon our sons and daughters such execrable super­
stitions, a thousand times more God-dishonouring and fraudulent than any­
thing fortune tellers ever were or could be guilty of?
The lesson we would especially urge, from a consideration of the above
remarks, is the utter depth of degradation and abasement into which individuals
and nations will be suffered to fall when they depart one hair's breadth from thespirit and teaching of inspired tru th ; and that the beasts of the fields are living
far neairer to the mind and will of their Creator than men who impiously
attempt to improve upon what divine infallibility has most clearly revealed.
The abandonment of its false, spurious science, will, undoubtedly, cost
England a much greater degree of chagrin and humiliation than having tosurrendefT the keys o l her capital to a foreign foe. B ut this indignity she has
yet to submit to, m common with every other so-called civilised nation in theworld.
Those who w ill continue to wipe out this national reproach, or, at all
events, resent the imposition of these fictions on their children, are requested to»id m supporting this publication which is devoted to a consderation of theseessential and too long neglected subjects.

Z E T E T I C Q U E S T IO N S A N D A N S W E R S .
TH E EARTH

S8R E V IE W .

H e commanded and I T S T O O D F A S T .

Can n on balls have been fired perpendicularly and they have fallen

again in to and near th e ca n n o n ;L ady

B lo u n t,thus practically confirm ing th e ^ i 'dence o f our senses th at th e earth does n ot rotate at all.

F .B .P ., E t c .

To those who assert that “ the Bible was not given to teach science^' weearnestly commend the follow ing Questions and Answers to their prayerfulconsideration, and be it retnembered that the Scripture quotations are not thewords o f men, but the Holy Spirit. E d .

To what may we liken the Earth?

W e may liken it t o a vast f l a t and floating vessel fast«ned by its
as with an anchor.

fo u n d a tio n s“ For H e hath founded it upon the sea, and established it upon
the floods.” Ps. xxiv. 2.
W hat did God make on the fourth day?

W as there a time when the world was not?

Y es, for we re a d : “ Before the mountains were settled, before thehills was I brought forth ; while as yet H e had not made the Earth,nor the field s” (open plains, margin.) Prov. viii. 25.
H ow did God create the world?

“ T h e Lord by wisdom founded the earth ; by understanding hathH e established the heavens.” Prov. iii. 19.
“ H e spake, and it was d on e; H e co.mmanded, and it stood fast:Ps. xxxiii. '9.
W hat did God create on the first day?

“ Light, which God called day,” and H e divided the light from thedarkness, which he called night. H ence light was made before theSun.
W hat did God make on the second day?

T h e firmament, or a strong and solid expanse overhead, made to
divide the waters which were above the firmament, from the waterswhich were below the firmament.
W hat proof is there that the “ firmament ” has this meaning, and Job de­scribes it as sky, which is “ strong and as a molten looking glass.” Job xxxvii. 18.

Its purpose also' shows this as it has to support the waters whichare “ above ” the firmament.
A t the tim e of the Flood some of these waters cam e down upon
the earth for the windows (margin lettering, bags) of heaven were re­opened.
W hat did God make on the third day?

H e gathered the waters together unto one place, which H ecalled “ seas,” and made dry land appear, which H e called “ earth,”and the grass, the herbs, and the trees all yielding fruit after theirkind.

T h e Sun and the Moon and the Stars to divide the day from thenight, and to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.”
These are smaller “ lights ” only and are all intended for this world.
God sa id ; “ L et there be lights in the firmament of the heav&ns
to give light upon the E arth: and it was so.” Gen. i. 14-15.
Have the Stars ever been used by man?

Yes, prophets and wise men of old understood them and wereguided by them, at the birth of Jesus.
W e are also told that the stars shall fall from heaven and the Sun
be turned into darkness before the great day of judgment. Joel ii.
10-31.
O f what shape is the Earth and Sea taken together?

On the surface it appears to be round— not spherical— forread :“ It is H e that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth, and the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretched out the heavens as a curtain,
and spreadeth them out as a tent to ‘ dwell in.’ ” Isa. xl. 22.
Again, “ H e that created the heavens and itrttched them out, He
tprend forth the E arth." Isa. xlii. 5.
(Then it must be a plane and not “ this terrestrial b a ll” as
Christians sing to God on Sundays.— E d.)
In how many days were all things created?

In six literal days of 24 hours each. F or in six days the Lord
made heaven and earth, the sea, and A L L that are in them and rested
the Seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Seventh day. Ex.
XX. r i .

T he Sabbath was a literal day of 24 hours, so also must the otherdays have been literal days of 24 hours each.
What power holds substances together?

T hus the land only is called “ Earth ” in the Bible.

The power of G od!

D id God create the Earth as a moveable or rotating Planet?

N o ; H e laid its “ foundations” that I T should not be moved for
ever, or untO the ages.
“ T h e world aJso is established that it cannot be moved.”
xciii. I.

Ps. xxxiii 9.

W hat experiments have been tried to prove the Earth it st«,tie»ary?

Z E T E T I C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
By

59

P».

Heb. i. 3 ; Jer. x. 12, and li. 15.

T h e Scientists call it “ oobesion,” but this is only a sort of coninring word, for what is “ co-hesion ?”6o

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

If this power which holds substances together were to cease to operate,
what would be the result?

T his is beyond the comprehension of man, but according to humanjudgment all substances would be decomposed into elements of which
they are composed, the earth would crumble to pieces, water would
disappear into gases, and likewise all created things would perish for“ In God we live, and move, and have our being.”
D id Newton profess to have discovered the nature of this wonderful“ power of God ” which holds substances together?

r

Z E T E T IC

Spirit.
Is Modern Science consistent with the dictates of common sense?

N o ; they are like oil and vinegar, they will not mingle, for com­
mon sense gains by experience and soon uproots shallow and specu­
lative fancies.
It chanced one day two notables
Well versed in mystic lore,“ Experience " and “ Science —Both rested on Time's shore.
The noble Earl, “ Lord Science " named
Deigned courtesy to show.
A n d thus addressed “ Experience"'■'All thcU you see— I know."

How and when did Newton introduce his teaching?

Newton was born A .D . 1642. H e introduced his teaching tiy
way of hypotheses.
n e law o f gravitation lay smothered.
A n d was discovered—
Not through the Church,
N or through the chapel.
But an apple !
So we're taugh in the schools by the seers.

Is it possible for modern astronomers to prove that their description of
the world corresponds with that given in the Bible?

No, and many of them openly assert that the B ible errs on thissubject, and they set up Newton as a greater authority than Moses or
Christ, as the following quotation p roves: —“ We must protest against the admixture of so grave a suggestion
as that of giving God the lie.
“ Moses has given his.crude ideas ( !!) as to the age of the worid,but modern philosophers and scientists have clearly an equal right t )give their deductions and opinions, especially as they p rod jce evidence
m which department Moses was very much at a disadvantage.” “ TheMuses,” D ec., ’95.
But it may be remarked that they who deny Moses also denyJesus Christ, according to His own authority, and we cannot consistently
accept N .T . teachmg while denying or rejecting the O ld Testament

6,1

t e a c h i n g , for holy men of old spake as they were moved (lit. guided) by
the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ spake and acted by the same H oly

Y e s ; and he termed it the “ law of Gravitation,” but this phrase
does not give any information, for if we ask, “ W hat -s Gravitation ?”we are only told that it is some power which causes all bodies ;oattract one another! Besides it is not true that all bodies do attract
each oth er! Iron does not attract wood, stubble does not attract gold.

The earth, they say,Was fortned by this notion.
A n d p u t in motion.
By crystalizaiion and w ild revolution.
With some evolution—
While gravity helpedfo r millions o f years.

Q U E S T IO N S A N D A N SW fe R S“ The K n ig h tE x p e r ie n c e '' replied,“ My Lord F ll own you've read.
A n d studied hard from youth to age.
From birth to hoary head.
Yet while you're prematurely old.
Therms this tw ixt you and me,
I now can boast in youth and health.
More than you “ know ” I see.
Is it rea»onable for a man to believe a “ science

which he does notunderstand?

N o ; it is not only unreasonable, but it is impossible, if the sourceof teaching is from his fellow-man.
But it is otherwise with G od’s dealings that man can neither solve
nor determine the eternal purposes of God further than the Alm ighty
has revealed in the H oly Scripture as is generally admitted.
Thus all men can study nature or natural phenomena as it con­tains nothing of a private nature, the young are taught both the Bibleand science.
T h e Globular theory contradicts the Bible and common sjnse. A
good proportion of children (even of tender years) would discover thisdiscrepancy, were they not befogged with t»*.tlandish and self-stultify­
ing terms, figures, and buffoonery, invented by shrewd i-pt^.ulators andlong-headed scientists, false to the Word of G od and with calm demeanquote their strange exploits. T h at the earth is a stationary plane, wasthe belief of mankind for over 5,500 years.
T h e most ancient writings in the universe describes the Earth asa plane, surrounded by a gigantic ocean as a circumference.
Thus it is as possible to circumnavigate the Earth as it is to sailaround an island.

Z E T E T IC Q U E S T IO N S A N D A N S W E R S .
6263

T H E E A R t H R E V IE W .
D o all the Nations new accept the G lobulai thaory?

N o ; India, and China do not generally accept it, and thousandsof in telligent E u ropean s utterly reject it.

W hat causes a stone when thrown in the air to fall to the ground?

Its own weight. There are accountable reasons, or laws, whyflics on the ceiling, feathers, light substances, birds, balloons, etc., in
the air do not faU as they ought to were the “ law of Gravitation"
actually in operation.
Referring to the first chapter of H eb., verse 3, it would be well
to note the literal rendering of verse 2 as it throws a light respecting
the word “ worlds,” which is found in no other passage, but whichshould be translated (see verse 2): “ In the last of these days spoke
unto us, by a Son, whom H e hath appointed heir of all things, on
uccount of whom also H e constituted ‘ the ages. ” (Emphatic Dialglot.)
H ow is it that when sailing due East or W est we come round to thes«me place?

T his would b e an impossibility on a globe, if (as Globulists believe)
due E ast and W est were straight lines.
But we can sail around the whole earth in the same way that we
can sail around an island.
T he mariner’s compass points to the north centre, and as a vessel
sails around a great circle, the instrument is ever directed to the same
point while it also lies horizontal— which it could not do on a Globe—
hence, in the behaviour of the mariner’s compass we have a good proofof the plane teaching.
Does not the Sun’s asserted rising E .S .E . and setting W .S .W . in New
Zealand during their summer months disprove the plane teaching?

N o ; for the motion of the heavenly bodies has nothing to dowith the surface shape of the Earth, no more than a chandelier has
to do with the shape of a room, or a floor.
Is not the Plane teaching principally upheld through a persistent belief
in the literal English in the Bible texts?

Neither the holy men of old, nor the Apostles and Prophets, were
influenced by the literal English of our translation, yet they, in the
power of Inspiration, taught that the earth was a motipnless Plane, andthe ancient languages agree therewith.
Is it not logical to proffer argumentatively in upholding the Globular
theory that as many Of the Bible expressions are symbolic, perhaps those favour­
ing the Plane Earth teaching may also be symbolic?

A s all Scripture statements are not symbolic, it ought, in common
honesty, to be shown that those Scriptures, teaching that the earth isa motionless Plane, are only figurative.
Besides we k n o v the earth is a plane from the fact that the sur­face of all w*,t9r at rest is level, horizontal, flat.

Thus we rest not our belief in this on the Scriptures alone, thoughthese o f themselves are sufficient for a true Christian.
D o not the theories of Modern Astronomy discredit the account c fcreation ?

Y e s ; they contradict the teaching of Moses (which Christ endorsed)
in saying that the Stars are “ worlds.”
T h e Bible never speaks of but one world, or cosmos j Jind it call*the stars mere “ lights,” and the Sun a “ greater light,” and the Moon
another and independent light. N ow it is absurd to make a “ light,"
or a lamp, one million four hundred and nine thousand and four
hundred times the size of the place to be ligh ted !
Astronomy also contradicts the Word of God in calling the Moo)ian opaque dark body in itself, for the Bible clearly states that God
made two “ great lights,” the Sun and Moon, while Astronomy affirmsthat the Moon is only a reflector of the Sun’s lig h t!
Besides, moonshine is very different in its nature to sunshine, andthe Moon has been seen shining with a dull red glow even whentotally eclipsed.
H ow should we look upon human wisdom when it conflicts with B iyine?

W ith distrust; for theoretical “ Science ” is merely speculation.
T h e Creator is surely wiser than the Creature; and “ the wisdomof this world is foolishness with God.” i Cor. iii. 19.
W hat then should we do?

Reverently study H is Works, and His Word, so that we may gain
wisdom and learn to trust H im better, and obtain that Eternal L ife
which H e has promised through the Messiah to all them that love
Him. Read Ps. iii.
W ould it not be a hard task for Geologists, Globularists, and Commen­
tators to reconcile their theories with Gen. i . ; Job xxviii., e tc .; Pss. xxiv.,
cxxxvi., civ., and Pet. iii. 5, ii.?

There are few Scientists who dare attempt any reconciliation.
the most part they scornfully ignore Genesis.

For

Commentators are mostly silent, and when driven into a comer
they uphold Newton, otherwise it is a notable fact that they pass overall passages relating to true cosmogony without comment.
W hy attach so much importance to this question oi the Earth’s shape?

Because it proves the Bible to be true; because the endless life whica
God promises is to be spent with Christ (when he returns) upon the
renewed earth. Matt. v. 5 ; vi. 1 0 ; and R ev. v. 10.
fi,
approaching the shore are seen before
the hull any proof that the Earth is a Globe?

N one whatever; because this is explainable by the laws of perspec­tive. and after the ship has wholly disappeared from the vision of

64

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

the naked eye, it caii in calm weather often be restored to view by agood telescope.
Where is the end of light and darkness?

A t the great Southern circumference— ^where the “ waters ara com­passed with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” See
Job xxvi. lo .
O f what do these boundaries of the Southern Seas consist?

T h ey are solid walls of ice— even great cliffs which the Almighty
set as “ bars and doors ”— and said to the sea “ hitherto shall thou come,but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.” Job xxxviii.
1 1 ; and here Job also says, “ T h e face of the deep is frozen.” Verse 30.
W hat is the general form of the Universe according to the H oly Scrip­
tures?

W e are told in the H oly Writings, as also we verily know from ob­
servation, that the earth, or land, rests upon the waters of the greatdeep—
A n d the Heavens are spread out as a canopy above—
Job, in speaking of the mighty works of God, said: “ W ho shutup the sea with doors when it break forth, and when I made the clouds
a garment thereof— and thick darkness a swaddling band for it.” Job.
xxxviii. 9, 10.
Does the Sun’ s light travel in straight lines?

ri

N o ; it converges, and by the refrangibility of the whole bulk of
its rays it circles the earth.
T h e cause of this disposition to refraction is attributable to therays passing through media of different density in the atmosphere whichis said to be greater in the South and less in the North.
H ow is the astral phenomena explained?

Some think it due to reflection, chiefly emanating from the central
point or North centre; say rather that the stars were made by theCreator to go in their courses to lighten and influence different partsof the (earth.
But it is quite possible to know the shape of the earth without un­derstanding all about Star motions, some of which are very intricate.
See Jud. v. 20, and Deut. iv. 19.
H ow is it that when there is a lunar eclipse the shadow is always round?

T h e so-called shadow is not always round. It was once noticedof a triangular shape. But a straight object will give a curved shadow
upon a sphere, as you may see by holding a straight edge before anapple by gas-light.
But it has never been shown that the Earth could possibly cast asha'^ow on the moon. I f the earth cut off the light from the moon.

Z E T E T IC

q u e s t io n s

AND A N SW ERS.

6S

the moon ought to be quite dark during the eclipse, but it is not dark,
its light shines through the supposed shadow ! “ Parallax ” thoughtthat a semi-opaque but dark moon came between us and the luminous
moon, and so caused the lunar eclipse.
Astronomers admit that there are dark bodies in the sky.
T h e moon’s “ eclip se” may be caused by its getting into a massof “ thick darkness ” which revolves around and over the earth in “ op­position ” to the sun.
This thick, dry, foggy atmosphere would obscure the moon’s rays,
but does not obliterate them. Whatever explanation is accepted wecannot admit the idea of the earth’s shadow, because sun and moon
have both been seen above the horizon during the eclipse of the moon,
and we know from other sources that these bodies circle over a plane
earth.
How is day and night caused if the world is not a Globe?

D ay and night are caused by the revolution of the sun over andaround the earth. T h e sun is neither high *nough nor large enoughto shine over all the earth, but only over about half of it at once, theatmosphere deflecting the sun’s rays from the earth when they fallvery obliquely, so that darkness follows in those parts until the suncomes round again and nearer.
W hat proof is there that water is “ horizontal?”" P a r a lla x ” proved again and again that the surface water of ihe
Bedford Canal is absolutely level.
H ow far off can ships be seen at sea?

From 10 to 20 miles, according to the height of the observers an J
tlij clearness of the atmosphere.
Lights have been seen further off than that. T h e flame of the
Clare Island light can be seen in clear weather, a distance of 31 statute
miles.
And the Barra H ead lighthouse is visible at a distance of 38
miles.
(See “ Admiralty L ist of Lights,” 1893.)
Is this consistent with the Globular theory?

N o ; as according to the Globular theory the “ d ip ” would prevent
such being seen.
D o the calculations which have been made by astronomers agree with the
Globular theory?

T h ey do n o t; for instance, it would be but half the distance roundthe earth 45 degrees south of the equator if the earth were a Globe.
A re appearances in favour of the Globular theory, or the F la t Earthteaching?

T h e latter, even as is acknowledged by astronomers them selves!

66

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

Ougkt we not to believe the evidence of eur senses?

Y e s ; unless we have palpable proof to the contraoy.
Is there any evidence in support of the supposed motion of the Earth?

N ot the slightest. N o practical proof of these terrible motions isever offered by the astronomers.
W ould there not be some sensible effects of the tremendous motions attri­
buted to the Earth?

C ertainly; if such motions existed. Smoke, vapour, clouds, etc.,
would undoubtedly rush to the rear, whereas they f l o a t in different
directions; or rest quite still, proving there are no such motions.
Do Navigators use a model globe to navigate with?

N o ; they used to, but now their Charts are drawn out from Mer­cator’s projection portraying the Ocean’s surface as being absolutely
h o riio n ia l!
W hy has this change been made?

Because it is proved practically to b e the best guide to steer by.
W hat is there beyond the Southern circumferential boundary?

Man has failed to penetrate beyond this boundary, as hitherto the
Alm ighty has not permitted him to do so, therefore, it is unknown
what is beyondl!

A VINDICATION OF T H E

DIVINE COSMOGONY.

B y J o h n D o v e , m .a. ( 1 7 5 7 ) .
T h a t Moses was acquainted with the most abstruse mysteries of Nature
is a truth denied by none but upstart philosophers, who would revile
him without having read or understood him.

T h e three first chapters of Genesis contain a revelation of what
otherwise would never have been known, i.e., the first principles or rudi­
ments of knowledge, natural and divine. But for th e information re­corded in those chapters, the human race had never known science oranything concerning the facts of creation. F or we were created; there
is nothing innate in us or derived from prior existences; language itself
was g^ven, not acquired. T h e philosopher who pleads for any othercause than a divine creation, simply writes himself down a fool. It isuseless for the; genuine truth seeker to expect to derive information fromthose who will need write before they have read ; or from the commen­
tators who will give every sense of the text but the true o n e ; or fromthe system-mongers who will cripple the whole Scnpture to make it
speak their sense; nor from the philosophers who believe they know
better than the inspired historians, or argue that there is no certain
standard of truth and that we were sent hither to grope in the dark or
learn wisdom from our fellow worms. Moses affirm s;— “ In the be­

A V IN D IC A T IO N O F D I V I N E C O SM O G O N Y .

6rginning God made the heavens and the e a rth ;” the philosophers main­
tain the eternity of matter, make a god of it, and bow down to the idol
they have set up, and would, like Nebuchadnezzar, put everyone in a
furnace who refuses obedience to their decrees! T o listen to theirdescription of gravity, attraction, centrifrugal and centripetal forces, itwould carry the appearance of a romance. D id any man yet ever un­derstand Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy; or will any man undertaketo prove the truth of it? H is warmest advocates have acknowledged“ they had not all that evidence of its truth that they could d esire;”
because they have rejected the revelation of God, and liave set up theyknow not what.
T hey are incorrigible and will not be corrected.
Therefore I quit them all and turn to the ecclesiastics, whose proper
business it is to study and expound the Scriptures. But I have to tellthem as well as the philosophers that in rejecting or doubting the bookof Genesis, they stumble at the very threshold of their studies, andseldom or ever after recover themselves. If they understood or believed in
Moses, they would possess more real knowledge than all their otherlearning can teach them.
It is or should be a matter granted, that God and H is works
must agree; therefore, he that fully understands any part of G od’s worksof creation, as seen in the visible world, and can find in the accountgiven of them in Moses, the Prophets or the Apostles any disagreement,
has a right, asi a rational creature to be a D e is t; but if no such disagree­
ment can be found, instead of a rational Deist, he must oe a fool. And
since it is a truth, that philosophy and divinity are closely connected,
and that an error in the former cannot fail in producing an error in thelatter; and since no system of philosophy, in any age, hitherto pro­
posed to mankind, besides that of Moses, was ever pretended to agreewith Scripture,— it is not very extraordinary that no philosopher who pre­tended to have any respect for the Scriptures, has ever attempted tounderstand and compare the philosophy of Moses with the real anddemonstrable facts of nature? Can it be for want of ability, or thatthey wilfully prefer falsehood to truth, in the hope or belief that others
would do the same? If what Moses wrote was not the literal truth,
why have not his mistakes been honestly pointed out by our gentlemenof science? Moseis has given us a rational process of the creation,
which is more than any one else has done, and more may be said ■af
him than any other philosopher that ever lived, viz., that he has notmade one mistake in the account he has given of nature; all the others
have scarce delivered one truth concerning it! Truth and falsehood
can never be made to agree; therefore, all the experiments that themodern philosopher can make, will nevf^*- make their system agree with

68

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

truth or common sense; but they all demonstrate the truth of the Mosaic
account of Nature!
T h e revelation of God is plain, not delivered in mysterious lan­
guage, as is the modem philosophy, and, when understood, correspondswith right reason. Is it not therefore strange that so many disagree­ments of it should still subsist? For I cannot find that men in generalknow any more about it, than about the laws and language of the worldin the moon, if such a world there be.
In the two first chapters of Genesis, Moses has given a distinct andpositive statement of the mechanical laws or operations by which naturerose into being by the hands of her omnipotent Creator, and by which
her stupendous works are still carried o n ; for nature came not into
being by chance or from any pre-existing condition; nor was any factstated which is not open to the examination of every intelligent person,
but which no man yet, has been able to overthrow or improve upon.
But what a condition are we in at present? N ot one dignitary inEurope, that has learning or honesty enough to determine the truthof these divine records ! Is it possible to conceive that both Protestants
and Papists have agreed to let the people be under such delusions ?
An absolutely correct and literal translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
would present to our view one uniform system of divine, moral, andphilosophical truth, that would dispel error, as the morning dawn scattersthe darkness of the night. So, then, as all that truth which the faith ofa Christian has anything to do with, is contained in Scriptures of Moses,
the Prophets, and Apostles, whatever agrees not with those Scriptures
is to be rejected, whether it relates to divinity or philosophy. For if
in them we have false accounts of the Works of God, no man in his
senses will or ought to believe they contain a revelation of God.
W hat! shall the God of truth not give us a true account of H is own
work? Shall the God of Nature deceive our senses? God forbid!
For as we can know nothing of God but by His Works, nor of His
Works, till they are apprehended by the senses H e has given us, it isutterly inconceivable to suppose H e should have endowed us with suchsenses as are only calculated to deceive us, or by giving a false accountof the works of H is own hand.
If, in the language this revelation was originally made, our oppon­
ents can find but one philosophical mistake, we will unreservedly yield
up the whole for a cheat! T h e translators and the w h jle group ofcommentators are herein to b la m e; for they have all to a man been
blinded by a false philosophy, and have resented every attempt to, un­shackle th em ; whereby they have been bewildered in uncertainty anderror, and have left their readers in darkness and bondage ever since.

A V IN D IC A T IO N O F b l V l N E C O S M O G O N Y .

69

Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy still amongst us?
Yes, ten thousand; not only among the unleaxned, but amongst ourchurch dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers! A ll on accountof their ignorance and unbelief.
W hat will be the end of these things? I am no conjurer; but it
is easy to determine what will be, from what has already taken place.
It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people, from the
beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation ofGod, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. T h e Bible is, as
it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. T h e loss of the
Scriptures, ot swerving from, or perverting the doctrines or history con­tained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin,
and always will! And if their successors continue their resistance as
they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom in atheism,
destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood.
T h e system the philosophers would establish is founded on a quick­sand, on a spirit of falsehood and lie s; its stones unhewn— its mortar
untempered— and its joints all open to the weather; when the winds
blow, and the floods of opposition beat against it, it must tumble down
and disappoint the faith of those dup>es who trusted in its strength;
because it is not founded nor erected according to, but against, theappointment and design of the Creator. T h e Scriptures contain the
instructions of God, and show us the conditions, the ordinances, thelaws which! H e hath ordained.
I have to repeat, again and again, that the Scriptures and natureare connected, as will appear to any impartial inquirer; those who will
not take the pains to study them both, will remain fools, whether I say
so or not. T h e not attending to this connexion has been the cause ofthat contempt with which the Scripture has been treated. Suppose weview the dial plate of a watch, we see the hand point to the hour, bya mechanism to us invisible; but we find a book wherein the inward
structure of the watch or clock is described; we are at a loss whether
to believe it or n o t; we know not whether it be true or false. How
then shall we prove its truth? By taking the machine to pieces, andexamining its works; if the book and the machine exactly agree, andthe former be an accurate description of the latter, the inference mustbe, that either the maker of the machine wrote the book, or revealed
the mechanism of it to him who did. This is absolutely the case be­
tween the Bible and nature. A nd if this examination were firmly, andcandidly, and intelligently carried through, the numbers of our foolishphilosophers would soon be diainished, and their specious system utterly

70

TH E EARTHR E V IE W .

•onfounded. Moses and the Prophets never revealed the proper frame
cvf a mouse-trap or the size of a bird cage, because they knew the stargazers would not heed such trifles, nor find any credit in constructing
such things. But Moses and the Prophets did, by the inspiration anddictation of G od, reveal to mankind the framework and mechanism ofnature, which must have remained for ever inscrutable, but for suchdirect revelation; and which mode and plan of creation, when thus madeknown, appears true upon the highest demonstration the rational mind
can dem and!
N ow for a coat of mail, to defend me from the tongues of scor­
pions, and the quills of porcupines,— a. venomous serpentine brood,
who besmear and befoul every divine and scriptural truth that runs
counter to their almighty decrees. L et any man read those mysticaland philosophical expostulations between God and J o b ; or let him
read over both Testaments, and he shall find, if he reads attentively,that Scripture, all the way, makes use of nature, and hath revealed such
mysteries as are not to be found in all the philosophers; so that I fear
not to say that nature is so much the business of Scripture, that thespirit of God, in those sacred oracles, seems not only to dwell on therestitution of man in particular, but even the redemption of nature in
general, and is as jealous of the right understanding of the one as ofth e ’ other.
T o speak then of God, without nature, is more than we can do,for he is not known in this w ay; and to speak of nature without God,is more than we may d o ; for we should be robbing God of H is glory,
and attribute those effects to nature, which belong only to G od and to
H is spirit which works in nature. N o man can venture to complain
if we use Scripture to prove philosophy, and philosophy to prove
divinity; because there is no divinity without nature, nor any true philo­sophy without God. It is a union insisted on by God, however objected
to by man.
If men would but take Mr Locke’s advice, and have the modesty
to settle the limits of their understandings and determine what objects
lay beyond, and what within their reach, they would not venture sooften at things too high for th em ; or if they had the humility to consult
Moses, he would prevent much fruitless labour and correct much inex­
cusable ignorance.
R eal Christian philosophy is a pure and ennobling study, exalting
the mind, and lifting it above every sordid pursuit, above everythingthat is low, little, or mean.

7!

T H E V A N IS H IN G S H IP .

TH E

VANISHING
By

SHIP.

“ S e a r c h T r u t h ."Proofs (so-called) o f the Worlds Rotundity, examined in the Light o f Facts
and Common Sense.
P r o o f i .— “ If on a clear day we take our stand on a hill above“ a seaport while ships are leaving, we shall see that the ship does not“ become dimmer and dimmer, and is so lost at last to our view, but“ that we first lose sight of the hull, then of the lower half of the masts,“ and last of all of the top masts. In the same way, if we catch upon
“ the horizon the first sign of a ship, we shall find it to be the top“ masts and top sails; then we shall next see the masts, the whole“ masts, part of the hull, and, last of all, the entire hull. In both“ cases it is as if the one ship were going down, and the other were
“ coming up, a hill. T h is is one proof that the earth is round,” i.e., aglobe. T h e above is copied from “ A Senior Geography,” by John
Markwell, M .A ., corrected down to 1882, and used by the London

University.
P r o o f E x a m i n e d .— If a good telescope be used when the hullof a vessel has disappeared very frequently the whole of the vessel will
be restored to sight, specially in calm weather. H ow then can the hullof a vessel have gone down behind a “ hill of w ater” ? One must
either believe that the telescope enabled the observer to see througha “ hill of water,” or else that there is no “ hill of water ” at all. T h ewriter has seen the whole of a vessel through a telescope when, withthe unaided eye, only the top of a mast could be seen. T h e vanishinghull trick is thus exposed as a fallacy, for it is certain that, if the ship
had gone down behind a hill of water, no telescope could restore it 10
sight again. Often, when at the seaside, the hull of a vessel has dis­appeared to one person, but to another, of longer sight, it can be seenquite plainly. T h is proves it is partly a question of optics, for if oncea vessel had gone behind a real hill of water, no difference of sight
could possibly restore it to sight again. T h e Law s of Perspective alone
are quite sufficient to account for the way ships disappear at sea, and
it is strange that in almost all geography books these laws are ignored,as the following sentence clearly show s: “ T h e ship does not become
dimmer and dimmer.” This is untrue, and is supporting a T H E O R Y
at the expense of F A C T S . L e t the reader "watch for himself, and hewill find that a receding vessel appears to become both smaller and moreindistinct, until first the hull vanishes from sight and afterwards themasts, which gradually Appear to grow less as the distance increases.

T h e hull vanishes first partly because it is in and upon the water which

1*

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

forms a dark background to the observer. T h e following diagram will
illustrate the Law of Perspective, and show that it is quite in accordancewith those laws for the hull to disappear first upon a plane surface.

73

R E YN O L D S A G A IN !

REYNOLDSAGAIN!

A/'.S.— A l l the follow ing letters have been refused insertion by the Editor o f
Reynolds's Newspaper, therefore we print them ourselves.

[T o THE E d i t o r

1 I

h igh ; E the line of sight 5 feet above the surface of the water B D.
T h e horizon will be formed at V , where the sea appears to meet theline of sight E V . T h e hull C B will appear to vanish gradually andequally until it is lost at V , because its higher and lolwer parts are equi­distant from the line of sight E V ; but the mast which rises 20 feethigher will not vanish at the same time, but will do so at a greater dis­
tance on the line E V . Thus, besides being against a clearer back­ground, it will be evident that in such a position the hull must disappear
first, and the mast afterward, by the laws of perspective alone. Because
a hull would disappear if it actually went behind a “ hill ” it is concluded
that the world is a glo b e; but if the earth were a globe a ship’s hull
could never be restored to sight. A s this can happen on a fiat surface,it can only be regarded that the earth and sea form a vast plane. It
can, however, b e demonstrated and practically proved in other waysthat the sea is a vast extended plane, and that the world is not a globe.

Z E T E T I C NOTIFICATIONS.
PICMC to atk for “ The E sith — not a Globe— R eriew ,” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls. T o be had direct from the Hon. Sec.,
post free, to any addresi in the postal union for i i per year, in adyance.
^ 1 monies for the Society must be paid direct to the Hon. Seoretary, John
W illiam s. Post OfiSce Orders to be made payable at Nottingham.
T H E R E C E I P T O F A C O P Y O F T H IS J O U R N A L IS A N I N V I T A ­T IO N T O S U B S C R IB E T O IT .
W ill friends please notice that if this space () contains a B L U E P E N C I L
C R O S S , it ii an indication that Y O U R S U B S C R IP T I O N IS D U E . A R E D
P E N C I L C R O S S indicates that your subscription w ill 6« d n t hefor* the next
issue.
W ill friends in ordering books please notice that only those which are quoted
on the coyer of the lagt issued Journal are those in stock.
A s our object is to make this Journal a text book, we must request thatfriendi quoting extracts of any kind, will please to quote their source. Unfore­
seen circumstancss has caused the delay of this issue. W ill friends kindly makea note of our change of addresi.

of“ R e y n o l d s ’ s N e w s p a p e r .]S i r , — I beg leave again to write you a few lines concerning a pro­blem which, outside of religion and politics, stands foremost in the ranksof discussion— viz., the true shape of the; earth. “Reynold’s Newspaper”
has the character wherever it is known, now and in past years, of beinga radical paper; and, as such, it seems appropriate that so large amatter as the one in question should not receive a mere raking of thesoil that surrounds it, but a vigorous and determined handling by aneditor like yourself—-one who will give the people their rights so far
as pen! and press can bestow them. Candidly, from the close experienceof a third of a century, nothing has been wanting to bring the Zetetic
philosophy into the prominence it deserves, but an uncompromising loveof truth on the part of some well-known editor of a people’s paper.
Small uninfluential papers in America, England, and elsewhere, are floor­
ing all their opponents in a desultory fashion, and it only remains for
one vigorous medium to raise a storm about the ears of our Scientists
that must eventually and before long enable the public— the people—
to discern the fact that truth admits of no prevarication, no supposition,
no hypothesis, no theory, no speculation, of which every page of moilein
astronomy consists, but of a God-given centainty in which the>e canbe no error. Thanking you for speaking out in your issue of the 14th
ultimo', I sincerely hope that you may be the bold one who will withstanda little obloquy at the outset so that a glorious harvest may be reapedin the not very distant future.

For truth alone, yours,
WM. C A R P E N T E R .
1316 N . Cefitral Ave.,
Baltimore, Maryland, U .S .A .,M ay 19th, 1895.
W e have received T he E a rth (not a Globe) Review, in which a small
band of zealots have the courage to maintain that the earth is flat without, w
far as we have observed, explaining how a flat world can flounder through sp ace;
and as they deny gravitation, why the people on the under siae don’t fall off.—“ Reynolds’s Newspaper,” M ay loth, 1896,

74

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

S i r — In your issue of the lo th I notice in the remarks on “ T he
Earth— not a G lobe— R e view ” some very strong assumptions— viz.,the (assumed) floundering of the World through (assumed) space; theassuption of Universal Gravitation (not gravity), and consequently, the(assumed) impossible position of all things Teirestrial hanging upsidedown on the underneath of an assumed Whirling G lo b e ; don’t you think
it is about time that some of these (so-called Scietific) assumptions
should either be proved or else thrown on the literary rubbish-heap ?
W hv not write the secretary of the U .Z.S. for information before ex­ecuting more intellectual floundering which only obfuscates the under­
standing of many of your readers, if not your own? for there is no“ people on the under side ” of this “ flat world,” therefore, they cannot“ fall off!”
H . D ’A R C H Y A D A M .
P.S.— I enclose a ;£ io o o challenge for a proof of earth curvature.

There are always enough faddists in this country to afford an unfailingsource of amusement. Have we not the Theosophists and the Zetetic Society?
The laitter body claim to have discovered that the earth is a motionless and cir­cular plane over which the sun and moon and stars revolve at moderate dis­
tances above it. I t would be unnecessary to take notice of this preposterous
theory except to lament that any person 'of intelligence should waste his timeupon so gross an absurdity. The capability of the members of this Society
for scientific demonstration may be guessed when I say that they ta k e , theirscience from the Bible. Now the Old Testament is full of the most elementaryand glaring scientific inaccuracies. Modern science has proved oyer and overagain that the writers of the Old Testament knew nothing about the physicalcondition of the earth, and certainly nothing of heaven, which, indeed, is not
mentioned.— “ Reynolds’ s Newspaper,” M ay 17th, 1896.

S i r , — I fear you are not acquainted with that body of thinkers
who, in your issue of May 17th, are criticised by you in such an off­
handed manner. W hat is their crime, that they are with editorial ven­geance cursed before your readers? D o you think Modem Astronomy
will be advanced, or its glaring inconsistencies and falsehoods coveredby your spleenish comparison of them to Theosophists? Mrs Besantin her lecture at St. George’s Hall, Sept. n t h , 1891, said, “ Y ou mustbelieve on hearsay, or personal investigation; the majoritv believe onhearsay alone.” (“ D aily Chronicle,” Sept. 12th, 1891.) A s a personal
investigator, may I ask, which of the two classes you belong to? Tf
you belong to the personal investigators, why not open your columns
to us (for a short time) who are investigators of Nature, and let thepeople hear fairly what we have to say about this “ Motionless Circular
Plane,” then you could invite an able Scientist to defend Modem A s­tronomy, and, my word for it, sir, we will soon show who has “ wasted
their time on a gross absurdity,” and who it is that holds a “ preposter­ous theory,”

I,
. i'
\ i'

R E Y N O L D S A G A IN !

75

Small wonder that “ the greatest lights of society, both at home andabroad, are Theosophists— ^vi^., Professor Crookes, editor of the“ Chemical R e v ie w ;” Professor Alfred Russell Wallace, F .R .S ., andmany others too numerous to mention. Even M r Gladstone was so
far satisfied with many of their ‘‘ ingenious schem es” that he said, ‘ I
hold the attitude of a student who has no reason to doubt your pre­tentions.”— “ T heosophy: T h e N ew Religion,” p. 12. Now, sir, theselights (according to your statements) are “ Faddists! 1” May I ask you
to insert this letter in your next issue, and so let your readers see that
“ faddists” are those who “ believe on hearsay,” that they exist on a
Dutch-cheese-shaped W obbling-Globe, with the consolation that when
they “ depart this life,” as “ there is neither u p nor down in space ”
they cannot go u p to heaven above, and as there is “ no u p on the
globe,” they of necessity, will have to go down to— well— to— O dearme, where to!— O ! I remember— ^to the “ occult P la n e”— viz., theback of the Himalaya M ountains; and evolve into Globular Mahatmas. *Yours respectfully,
LEO CASTLE.
M ay 19th, 1896.
*
I would here say that as we are prepared to discuss the subject of the
Earth’s shape apart from the statements of “ The B ible,” the editor of “ R ey­
nolds’s Newspaper ” has manifested crass ignorance both with regard to ourposition and our “ capabilities for scientific demonstrations! ! ” — Ed.

In the same issue we read, “ It is written: ‘ ye cannot serve God
and Mammon,’ but apparently this does not apply to ”— the editor of th.;newspaper which professedly “ advocates the widest possible measuresof reform !” Surely there are more than one kind of “ toadies ” as hecalls certain persons in “ T h e World ?”W e also notice the editorial article is headed— A W A Y W IT H
T H I E V E S ! and " L e t us have done with cant.” W e add our hearty
Am en; and we truly believe that “ if there was a spark of manhoodleft in the people they would make it impossible for any “ Scientist to
appear in public on any occasion without giving an account of his
share in the plunder of the public,” by teaching, at the Nation’s expense,
the absurd falsehood that we live on the outside of a whirling seaearth, Dutch-cheese-shaped G lobe with “ more than 10 different
motions!” (Invention, 25th April, 1896., p, 266.) Could any “ thesis ”
be more preposterously absurd ? N o wonder the editor of “ Reynold’s ”
says, “ A ss e s! T h e y ............. are only laughing at your contemptible
simplicity in trusting then^! ! ! ”
T o this letter the following appeared : —“ L eo Castle.— W e have more important matters to attend to thin abarren discussion on the absurd thesis, ‘ Is the W orld F la t or Round?’ ”

76

T H E EARTHR E V IE W .

T H E E F F E C T S OF EVOLUTION EXPOSED.
I> :!
i;

BY

“ A F O O L IS H T H I N G O F T H I S W O R L D .”
Part

I I

II.

G o d ’ s account in Genesis not only tells us of “ special organic creation,"it also informs us of “ special inorganic creation,” and instructs us thatthe organic creation were afterwards to propagate every one after IT S
K IN D . A nd the facts which prove this are as numerous as thecreatures which have been born to life. F or as every creature coming
into being conies according to its kind, every creature by its existence
is an evidence that species were originated by special and distinct crea­
tions. Facts thus numerous ajs the creatures that have lived and died,or that are now living, prove beyond all reasonable doubt the truth of
special creation. In saying this I am confirmed by nO' less an authority
than Professor H uxley, who says, “ Our acceptance of the Darwinian
hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evi­
dence is w anting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly
produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile, andtheir progeny are fertile one with another, that link will be wanting.’(Evidences o f M a n ’s P la ce in N ature, p. 107, 1864.) Again he writes,“ A fter much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against M r Dar­
win’s views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it
is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters
exhibited by species in nature, has ever been originated by selection,
whether artificial or natural.” {Lay Sermons, p. 295.) “ It cannot
escape the attention of anyone that Mr Darwin, Mr Wallace, Professor
Huxley, and all the other advocates or defenders of Darwinism, do notpretend to prove anything more than that species M A Y be originatedby selection.” (yVhat i* Darwinism? p. 74.)

Scientists who reject God’s Word have no science regarding crestion, but merely the vaguest speculations and ideas of their own manu
facture. “ I f we receive the evidence of men, the evidence of G od isgreater,” and therefore the more worthy of credence. If the Scripturalaccount of creation is to be accepted, Evolution in every fo rm must
be entirely rejected, for it necessarily im plied u n b elief in the
S crip tu ra l account, and he who thinks he can hold both shows he hasthought very little of either, for the one modus operandi necessarily
nullifies the other. If, therefore, Christians desire to be loyal to Go<?

TTHE

E F F E C T S O F E V O L U T IO NEXPO SED .

77

and H is Word, they must reject Evolution in all its forms as a blind,u n s c i e n t i f i c , unphilosophical and God-dishonouring guess.
Here let me draw attention to what some other Professors havesaid on this subject.
Professor Kblliker, in his critical essay upon
“ The D arw inian Theory,” says, “ N o transitional forms between ex­
isting ■species are ,'known; and known varieties, whether selected or
spontaneous, never go so far as to establish new species, and no transi­
tional forms of animals are met with among the organic remains olearlier epochs.” Professor H uxley is reported in L u x (Nov. 8th, 1893,)
to have said, “ U ntil selective breeding is definitely proved to giverise to varieties infertile with one another, the logical foundation of
the theory of natural selection is incomplete,”— i.e., not proven !
“ A t first, protoplasm could have had no proclivities to one or otherarr*igements of parts; unless, indeed, a purely mechanical proclivity
towards a spherical form when suspended in a liquid. A t the outset
it must have been passive. In respect of its passivity, primitive organic
matter must have been like inorganic matter. N o such thing as spon­taneous variation could have occurred in i t ; for variation implies some
habitual course of change from which it is a divergence, and is therefore
excluded where there is no habitual course of change. In the absenceof that cyclical series of metamorphoses which even the simplest living
thing now shows us, as a result of its inherited constitution, there could
be no p oint d’a p p u i for natural selection.”“ H O W , T H E N , D ID

O R G A N IC

E V O L U T IO N

B E G IN ?”Herbert Spencer, N ineteenth Century, May, 1886.
Here let me draw your attention to the fact, that Evolution teaches
that death is an absolute necessity! Professor Alfred Russell Wallace,
F .R .G .S., etc., says, “ Given the necessity of death and reproduction,
and without them there could have been no progressive developmentof the organic world, and it is difficult to imagine a system by which agreater balance of happiness could have been secured.” This quotationis, with approval, cited by Professor Drummond in his “ Lowell Lectureson The Ascent o f M a n.”
Here, then, it is tacitly acknowledged that death is the executioner
to carry out the behest of “ natural selection ” or “ progress.” But for
death, the “ first foims of li f e ” would have remained “ form s” for ever.
Only for death man could not have been evolved, for as. he is the beau
ideal of the “ process ” of “ protoplasm,” he of necessity must be tlie
“ survival of the fittest” to live. Therefore, the Evolutionist has no

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

78

T H E SH APE OF T H E EARTH .

right to complain of death, for it is the absolute essential of the “ pro­
cess ” spoken of by Professor Stok es!

|.'l

It is simply useless, or worse, to tell us that we must take comfort
from the reflection that the terrible struggle for existence tends to final
good, and that the suffering of the ancestor is paid for by the increased
perfection of the “ fittest.”

THE

SHAPE

OF

THE

B y L ie u t e n a n t M id d l e t o n ,A

79

EARTH.
R .N .

S E R IE S O F L E T T E R S W R I T T E N

IN

1871.

N o. III.
S ir ,— Globular scorn and

Death, according to the Scriptuies of Truth, is an enemy, and an
enemy that is to b e “ destroyed.” i Cor. xv. 26; Rev. xx. 14. Surely
the acceptance of the hypothesis of Evolution must of necessity shakeour confidence in the Scriptures. Yea, it would cause any thinking
man who is not rooted, grounded, and established in “ the faith once
for all delivered unto the saints,” to reject the B ible in toto.

L E T T E R S TO T H E EDITOR.
D e a r S ir ,In an article on “ Scientific Falsehoods ” in “ Earth Review,”
October, 1893, you quote Mr W . Winckler, C .E ., as sa y in g:— “ A s a“ engineer of many yeais experience, I say that this absurd allowance“ (for curvature) is only permitted in school books. N o engineer would“ dream of allowing anything of the kind............................ College“ Astronomers have made the student engineer to think that in his“ method of levelling what is known as the ‘ backsight ’ cancels any“ curvature by his ‘ foresight,’ ” and so on. “ I t is only a theory. . . ’
A s an uncompromising Zetetic may I ask you to kindly state thetitle, etc., of the work by Mr W inckler in which this quotation appears?
For lack of this I have found the value and convincing force of quota­
tions seriously diminished, and often disbelieved by opponents.
Yours, etc.,
JO H NBRADLEY.

T o “ A Hottentot,”

mental blindness.

D e a r S ir ,I am unable to say where I got the quotation from, but as
Mr Winckler is a subscriber to your journal he will doubtless forward
you the desired information as to where it can be found.
Yours truly,A
T o Ed., E:.B.

apathetic indifference may perhaps havecontorted themselves into conflueiitly small-poxed dimples of derision,that such a self-evident matter as that of there being a perpendicularshould have been matter of doubt, wonder and amazement, but, strange
though it may appear, this subject of the perpendicular is one which thesupporters of the Globe theory cannot admit! and one which, as amatter of two parallel perpendiculars, they must perforce deny, and I
believe I am fully justified in stating, they have already denied! O fcourse I knew this when writing my last, and I did pause and reflect as
to whether I should be so cruel as not to hint at the deceptive natureof the position; but being aware of the innate stolidity and sources ofrefuge of the Globular form in nature, I thought it advisable and per­fectly fair to allow the blind mole-like nature of obstinate perversionof truth to quietly entrap itself by allowing the fa ct of the perpendicular;
and doubtless during the week the fact has been pretty well realised bythose most interested in denying that the earth is a plane; and thatwithout the faintest suspicion on their part that they were really admit­ting which is perfectly fatal to their theory, and what has been deniedby those, who, through thick and thin, are determined that during their
lifetime the said Earth shall be such shape as shall best suit their poc­
kets, and save them from the exposure of being but a very small
remove from idiocy. O f course I allude to the professional supportersof the Globe theory— men whose attention has been thoroughly aroused
to the fallacy of their doctrines during a term of thirty years, and who
have persistently chosen to shut their eyes to truths 'which are evident
to the capacity of a schoolboy. T h e reality that the earth is a plane
is a most crucial test of the ability of these professors; not only so,
but of ability itse lf; showing that true ability must be allied to honesty
and truth, without which a mere power o f audacity leads to most fatal

H OTTENTOT.

W ith regard to the perpendiculars, the Globe-ites are, perforce,
obliged to insist that the “ plumb-line is perpendicular,” not only to thecircumference, or any artificial surface, but “ to ’t he centre of the Earth,”and consequently they must also insist that there can be no such thing
as two -perpendiculars p a ra llel to each other! A carriage wheel offersa good illustration of the subject, the spokes representing the different
perpendiculars to or from the centre, no two of which would be per-fi ■!

T H E SH A PE OF T H E EARTH.

80

T H E E A R T H ! R E V IE W .

pendiculars parallel to each other if prolonged through the circumfer­ence of the wheel. The principle of a thing is that by which it muststand or fa ll; for perpendiculars are not e l a s t i c , but most r ig id —distressingly rigid as regards astronomers in this case. Assum ing acircumference of the earth, its immense size would in no way alter theaction of the principle: it would be impossible to have
two perpendiculars opposite to each other; not only so, butevery human being would be at an angle to every other humanbeing, and a true perpendicular could not exist at all relatively to a m an;
for as both the man and the perpendicular would be vertical to theassumed centre of the earth, each would, perforce, represent a plumbline prolonged from the centre outside the circumference, and would
therefore be at an angle to the other. But now I have simply to shift
the application of the perpendicular from the surface of the water tohouse building, and it will become apparent to any intelligent house­
holder or lodger that on the G lobe theory of curvature it is simply im­
possible to build a hou se! for a house is A M A SS O F P A R A L L E L
P E R P E N D I C U L A R S !! But what shall we say of a terrace? of astreet ? of a city stretching over miles ? of a number of cities stretchingover hundreds of miles? T heir perpendiculars a r e parallel to one
another! nay, not only their perpendiculars, but those in Calcutta mustbe, perforce, parallel to those in London, though the height of theirrespective planes may differ. It is extraordinary that any man of soundsense can cast his eyes around one of the London squares (where thehouses are symmetrically buiJt), and remain for one moment in doubt
as to the true shape of the earth: tfte level tops o f the houses telltheir own tale tru th fu lly . T o say that the houses are erected on alevel fo u nd a tion will not mend matters at a ll; for, firstly, as above
stated, the plumb-line (allowing curvature) must fall towards the centreof the earth, and would, perforce, be at an enormous angle to the level
foundation; enormous because practice demands a nave, and a nave
limits the number of radii: further all errors must he working errors;but, secondly, if this line of defence is set u p ; then it is plain thatthe circumference of the earth is any shape man chooses to make it;level where he chooses to build, but curved elsewhere!* (See note p. 81.)

'I/,

Poor wobbling W orld! poor Universe, a cannon-ball with the top
shaved off, nay, sliced on all sides T (evidently our friend was thinkingof the “ many sided plane figure ” which he had to swallow to obtainhis certificate o f qualification!— Ed., E .B .)— w h a x w o u l d b e c o m e o f
THE t r a j e c t o r y ? I am very much afraid that all the astronomers
would fail in making such a chipped affair go straight through space, or
correctly throu gh any shaped orbit. Would a prize-shooting rifleman
allow his bullets to b e nicked ab o u t? A n dtJ.ip earth must either

8l

be flat, or a terribly nicked-about bullet. If anyone sh uld imagine
that the radiation from the earth’s centre would not be sufliicient toutterly distort the perpendiculars of the architect, let him erect a pole
80 feet high, throwing the base of such pole the smallest ^jracift'caZ
angle out of the vertical line, and then let him observe the increas^
error at the summit of his po le; he will find that the least practicaldeviation at the base makes an immense difference at the top— one
utterly im practicable as far as house building is concerned! T alk ofterrific shakings! Why, if each dweller in brick, stone, or othermasonry, could b e sufficiently excited to take a calm realisation that
his house might possibly split in two from curvature— convulsing per­pendiculars— he wouldn’t shake, quiver, nor rattle with amazement! hi)
unjoint.— unjoint with trajectory— terror: initial toes, conoidal shanks,
untwisted thighs, would make a deadly race with— ^\vith— ah !— theshelled remainder. Again, as I hinted in my last, the circle of curva­
ture of the ocean will certainly N O T c o i n c i d e wi'th the circle of cur­vature o f the land ! therefcrL-, for a cum pltte circle of curvature theastronomers will have to search Hades, and perhaps they will stay there,
when they are about it. This matter of circles of curvaaire overlap­
ping circles of curvature is a most deadly thrust in the astronomicalarmour. These funny measurers of earth are even now pretentiously
about to inform mankind of the exact curvature; arcs of which I saw
advertised as being measured 'here and there, everywhere, o v e r t h e
LAND, of course.
Ha, ha! shrieks, yells, convulsions: mankind, tie
your rib s! belay your laughing organs! crank your shrieking windlass!
or beware of sudden dissolution: O V E R T H E L A N D , o f course; inwhich case the said c i r c l e w ill N O T T O U C H T H E O C E A N A T
A L L !!!
*
This is the trick of deception played upon our sailors for they are taughtthat “ in P l a n e Sailing, the portion of the earth traversed is considered to bea P L A N E S U R F A C E , the meridians being trepresented as parallel to each other,and the parallels of latitude as straight lines crossing them at right angles. ’“ Navigation,” by Rev. W . T . Read, M .A ., Headmaster Thames Nautical Train­
ing College, page 19. On page 51, under the heading, Greajt Circle Sailing,
we read “ resource is had to approxim ate great circle sa iling.” W hat is the“ resource ” ? W hy— well there, T ea d it for yourself, a n d call it what you like—“ the vessel may be said tb sail upon the sides of a many sided plan e figure(a polygon).” Y e t our sailors are given a Mercator’s Chart to practically sailtheir ships b y ! an d the same book, page 32, laying down “ the prnci])les ” ofthe chart, crams the sailor with the following— showing clearly that they aresailing their ships on a Flat, Level, Horizontal surface, when, we ask will thesemen honestly own the true shape of the W orld?— “ the equator has now becomea straight line.” W e pause here to ask if that is a true statement of natural
phenomena? “ the meridians have become straight lines at right angles to it,
an d parallel to each other.” W h a t! on a Globe? No, mv friends, the dis­honesty of the thing is exposed by its e lf; for they have just had to unroll thechart “ in to a Plane surface ” !! ! I 'h e n it continues, “ And the parallels oflatitude also straight lines everywhere equal to the equator.” Certainly thev
ca n put everything straight a n d yet curved. Could “ learning,” so-called, go
to greater lengths in deceiving people? Is not the source, aim and results ofsuch “ learnin g” apparent to every one who loves to practice truth?— E d., E .E .

(T o he continued.)82

TH E EARTHR E V IE W .

A N SW E R S TO CORRESPONDENTS.

■' 'I

A ll Letters to the Editor must be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side of thepaper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed. A ll letters inu»t be prepaid and addressed to
M r J. w i l l i a m s ,96 A r k w r i g h t S t r e e t , N o t t i n g h a m .

L a d y B l o u n t a n d o t h e r F r i e n d s .— Pray accept out hearty thanks

for the loaa of the “ Flam ing Sword,” with which is incorporated “ The
Salvator and Scientist," for last May. W e have not received any since
A pril last, and consequently was absolutely ignorant that the editor of
the latter had made any challenge to u s ! Th is is all the more strange
seeing that we are under an agreement for the exchange of our period­
icals 1W e prefer not to express any opinion on the editorial replies madeto your questions in, the latter, but certainly we perceive therein— as
we suppose you do— ^that he teaches some parts of the Globular suppotition, suited doubtless to the Koreshan, science— so-called.
In; reply to your second question we are of opinion that K oresh has
blinded him either with his anti-Christian religion or his pseudo science,or perhaps both. Our reason for this opinion will be seen in the fol­lowing rem arks:
H e says, “ In the past we have referred to the work of Parallax. .
. . . . from some experiments which he conducted, he concluded
that the surface of water is flat, and therefore that the general form of
the earth is a comparatively flat surface— a circular p l a n e . .......................
His followers are called Zetetics............................ some of them have
deemed it wise to stop with his conclusions, and to stubbornly defend
vhem against all progress and all demonstrations contrary to* the opinions
w'hich they hold.
T his is absolutely false, and as a reader of— if he does read it—“ T h e Earth— not a Globe— Review,” he ought to know it.
But, continues our critic, “ It is really provoking to observe facts
contrary to trrontout theories (observe the words I have italicized,
please.— E d ., E .B .) advocated in the world and then be unable to in­duce the advocates of the fallacies to even consider the facts
observed!”
And now mark what follow s: “ A nd this is somewhat the basisof a charge of inconsistency that we have to bring against the editor of

A N S W E R S T O C O R R E S P O N D E N T S.

83

the journal advocating the so-called Zetetic Philosophy. H e does not likethe character of our demonstrations, and promptly manifests the factthat he does not............................ ”
W e take it for granted that every reasonable man reaches con­clusions by the application of the principles of logic— reasoning from aknown premise; a Zetetic, especially, should take extra precautions
not to violate his reasoning faculties by jumping at conclusions. W e
ask for the known prem ise of conclusion that the Rectilineator does
not demonstrate the earth’s concavity, and consequently does not over­throw the idea of the earth’s flatness. W e promptly challenge the“ Earth R e view ” to meet the issue.”
And the “ E arth R eview ” promptly and triumphantly replies "nthe power of logic, our “ K now n premise of conclusion that the R ecti­
lineator does N O T demonstrate the earth’s concavity," is found in thefact of our critic’s own statement-^viz., “ W e accept T H E F A C T thatthe surface of all water at rest is horizontal!!” Ergo. W ere all thewater in the world of Seas, Rivers, etc., at rest, they would be horizon­tal, level, flat, consequently the world is proved to be a plane and there­
fore not concave.
N o engineer ever allowed for concavity any more than he does
for convexity, but always works to a datum horizontal line, which isboth a flat and a level line.
And now we charge the editor of the “ Salvator and Scientist ”
with gross inconsistency.
First, in that he admits that the surface of a ll water at rest to
be horizontal, and yet contradicts that fa ct by teaching the earth to beconcave. Logic in fits, no one thing can be concave at the rate of 8
inches to the mile, and at the same time be horizontal!
T h e Bedford Canal is about 2 0 miles long, and its water is at
rest, therefore horizontal, level, flat, consequently not concave. Is
it not logical to expect that if the earth was concave it should be seen
there? But if the Koreshan Rectilineator was taken there it would not
and could not, show the earth to be concave, for the fact admitted byour critic is, that “ all water at rest is horizontal,” therefore, that 20 milesof water, miming in almost a straight line, proves the Rectilineator to
be utterly useless to prove the surface shape of the earth. Thus do
we answer his challenge for the grounds of our denial of the evidences
embraced in the demonstrations of the Rectilineator and the whole
scientific staff of the Koreshan U nity of which he is the head. And
thus does the F A C T of the horizontality of water’s surface dash inpieces the halo of earth’s concavity with which he and Koresh have

84

T H E EARTH

thought to crown themselves! O f course, when anyone asserts thatthey “ accept the fact that the surface of all water at rest is horizontal,
but defy us to show that water’s surface is flat,” we confess ourselvesbeaten for we cannot answer a question so glaringly absurd and con­tradictory, but nevertheless absolutely necessary for the holding togetherof their E clectic E gg-G lobe theory.
In our critic’s language we reply, let the “ Salvator and Scientist ”
again review the earth— ^and do something or keep quiet and non-comb a tiv e !”C. H a r p u r .— ^Thanks for the pamphlet, “ Remarks on the Immov­
ability of the Earth, etc.” W e hope to quote from it some time in thisjournal. W e simply smile at such slander as that in the “ Labour
Leader ” by “ Jim Connell.” H e can read about himself in the Bible.
See Titus i. 12,
E.
J. L o w t h r o p .— W e will try and answer the schoolmaster’squestions to you on some future occasion. Hand him a copy of thisissue.
M r M a c K a y .— L et our traducers write to the Royal Observatory,
Greenwich, or the Observatory, Cambridge, and ask their own author­
ities if it is “ a liei that Jupiter was seen through the M oon when occulted
by i t ; ” also, if stars of the seventh magnitude have not been seen
through the Moon. If they will send us the reply they receive we will
print it in this journal.

IN

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

R E V IE W .

M E M O R I A M .

W e regret to record the death of J a m e s H e v w o o d , Esq., M .A ..
F .R .S ., etc., on October 17th, 1897, at his residence 26
Kensington Palace Gardens, in his 88th year. Although
the deceased gentleman was not a member of ‘ The Universal
Zetetic Society,” yet owing to his generous and liberalminded character, the Society had for years been greatly
assisted in gaining information on the latest Theories in
the Scientific (?J World, which would have been difficult toobtain otherwise, without an expenditure in excess of themeans of the Society.
W e also deeply regret the death of M r H e n r y G e o r g e , whodied at New York, October 29th, 1897, valiantly fighting to
the last for “ peace on earth, goodwill towards all men.”“ T'AeiV waris do follmu ikcm."

thealteredt r a n s la t io n
By B.

of

Gen. ii., 5.

W. Newton.

“ It seems needful that attention should be directed to the translation o f Genesis
ii 5, as given by the Revisers in their new English version. It is a translation
which is not without its advocates, both in ancient and modern days. But it is a
t r a n s l a t i o n greatly to be deplored ; or perhaps I ought rather to say— denounced.
It is pregnant with evil ; because it sets the statements of the first of Genesis in
direct opposition to those of the second chapter. Such contrarities Neology delights
in because it knows that Scripture becomes by such means a doubted and suspected!)Ook.
There is, however, no real authority for the altered translation. It is one
that is unquestionably erroneous. . . . T he translation of the revisers contra­
dicts all that the first chapter of Genesis taught, and nullifies its most prominent
declaration. . . .
In the history of Christianity there have been few things more painful or (I mightsay) more terrifying to witness, than the facility with which belief in the truthfulnessof the commencing chapters of Genesis has been abandoned by persons who still
profess to revere the Scriptures, and to receive it as veritably the Word of God. Suchabandonment there must be, if we consent to receive the dogmas of any present
school of geological science. W ith those dogmas the statements of Scripture, as
given either at Sinai or in Genesis, cannot be reconciled. A gulf that cannot bs
jjassed yawns betwixt the declarations of the Bible and the assertions of Geology.
Elijah and the prophets of Baal were not separated by a more impassable barrier.
Woe be to those who seek to unite things that God his sundered. . , . T he accre­
dited statements of Geology nullify Scripture. W e cannot follow both ; and if weabandon Scripture we abandon God. . . . Geology, like Astronomy, or any othersuch science, whilst it employs itself in the ascertainment of facts is innocent, anduseful for the purposes of life ; but the moment it quits this comparatively lowly pathand is tempted, instead of collecting and registering facts, to substitute conjecturesand hypothesis for facts, and endeavour to account for its facts by unproved theo­ries, it abandons the sphere of inductive science, and becomes the slave and dupe ofvain, empty, deceiving speculativeness. One has to seek among the sophists ofAthens, or the Gnostics of Alexandria for parallels to the grandiloquent self-com­
placency displayed by those who have been. . . magnifying their discoveries offlint spear-heads, and arrow-heads, and bones of pre-Adamic men. . . Nor are theyagreed as to their facts. One might smile (if the subject were not too solemn) to
see how the statements of one week by one writer, are set aside the next week byanother. Y e t both alike are positive. A re we to humble and abase the banner ofGod’ s Truth in the prerence of men like these ” ?
[Every Zetetic answers no, decidedly not. W e regret that the writer of these ex­cellent extracts believes that he lives on a “ terraqueous globe.” T he globular
theory of Sir Isaac Newton is as anti-scriptural as the Geology taught at the present
moment. And not only so, but it is the foundation of it, as also of Evolution.—
Ed. E. R .]

T H E “ E A R T H R E V I E W ” A D V E R T IZ E R .
T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

a

P O P UL A R

c ^ a llo f tli^ar

F A L L A C IE S .
I h ilo s o p h ^ i”

It is a common mistake to accept theoretical explanations of certain conditions
as being satisfactory when such are directly opposed to Scripture, common sense,
reason, and practical experience.
O ld Isaac sat under his apple tree,
Quaffing his good old wine.
H e eyed his decanter right merrily •And lauded the fruit of the vine.

T o suppose that when the hull of a ship is lost to vision it is behind thecurvature of water, when such a condition can be explained by the natural law ofperspective.

Ho ! bring me another full bottle,” he cried,“ And carry the ‘ empties’ away ;" For wine aids reflection when fitly applied,“ And I would be pensive to-day.

T o suppose water can assume a spherical fomi, when its surface is known to be
horizontal and level.

H e drank and he studied, he studied and drank,
U ntil he could study no more !
Then into a slumber he quietly sank,And varied his thoughts with a snore ;T o suppose, no matter how great the magnitude of the earth, that men can exist
at the “ Antipodes,” with heads hanging down to the sky.

But a breeze shook the tree under which he reclined,
And, alas ! broke the good man’s repose,
For an apple dislodged by the troublesome wind—Struck him full on the bridge of the nose.

T o supix)se that the earth can revolve at th\ rate o f over one thousand miles perhour at the equator, and the effect of such motion not be apparent on the surface.
T o suppose that because a certain belief is ix>pular, it must necessarily becorrect.
i

T o suppose the sun to be “ immovable,” when the Bible and every day observa­
tion declares that luminary to be in motion.
T o suppose that scientists are better qualified than the Creator to describe thecreation and sha[>e of the earth.
T o suppose that Scripture is no authority on such a subject when there is satis­
factory evidence in nature relative to the self-same thing.

H e searched in the garden, he searched in the house,H e searched in the neighbouring lanes ;And he swore if he found him he’d certainly douse
The rogue in the pond for his pains.
But useless his search, he returned and sat down ;Another full bottle was brought;
But still on his face sat a terrible frown.
A s the key to the myst’ry he sought.

T o suppose there is no necessity for discussing the subject when the popularbelief is leading many to doubt the accuracy of Bible testimony.

The wind blew more fierce, and the ripe apples fell
In multitudes, thickly around ;T ill another one lodged on his organ of smell.
Rebounded, and rolled on the ground.

T o believe that Scripture should not be associated with secular research when the
Bible is allowed to be the only court of appeal, and the only arbiter in many otherthings.

“ Eureka,” he cried, I ’ve discovered the cause,“ And value the pain not a straw,“ Since ’ tis so, ’twill teach me in future to pause,“ Ere hasty conclusions I draw .”To believe a certain branch of “ science ” to be correct which makes God a liar,,
without any proof being offered.

He ponder’ d long time, and he drank deep and oft,
And looked most remarkably wise ;A s he peered on the ground, then gazed up aloft,
W ith wisdom and wine in his eyes.

To suppose that the earth has a curvature of eight inches to the mile increasing asthe square of the distance when all the railway stations in England are practically( n the same level, with the exception of occasional and' stated gradients, no allow­
ance having been made for curvature in. their construction.

“ W hat causes the apples to fall to the ground,“ And why do they first strike my nose,“ And why does the garden appear to turn round,“ Can any the reasons disclose ? ”]. A T IC IK S O K -mThen up started Isaac, his face all aglow
A t the insult he thought he’d received.
And quickly looked round for his impudent foe,
But in vain, as may well be believed.

T H E “ E A K T H R E V I E W ” A D V E R T IZ E R .
Triumphant he paused, but as no one was by
T o answer his several questions,
W hy no one, of course, could affirm or deny
T he truth o f his laboured suggestions.
“ I’v e h it it,” said he, as he brought down his hand.
On his thigh with astonishing force ;“ The mystery’s solved, I the whole understand,“ 'T is plain as the daylight, of course.
“ The earth’s moving round— I can see it myself—“ (It’ s motion is making me queer.)
H o ! fetch me more wine from the lowermost shelf ;“ Quick ! sirrah, and bring it me here.
“ Y es, the earth’ s going round, I am certain of that
(I wish for a while ’twould be still)“ Therefore, as it goes rouna, it cannot be f l a t ;“ Therefore must be as round as a pill.
And what causes the apples to fall on my nose
And from thence to the surface of earth,“ Where, their motion suspended, they lay in repose,“ T o what do these forces give birth ? ”
He thought on it deeply, he pondered it long.
Ideas in his brain tried to enter,
One entered at last. “ Y es I cannot be wrong,“ Attraction draws all to the ( s ) center.
“ I ’ll write me a book, my scheme I ’ll evolve,“ — A book to astonish the nation—“ And with two learned words every question I ’ ll solve“ Attraction, and— ah !— Gravitation.
Round went the orchard as old Isaac mused ;T ill giddy he fell to the ground,
And there as he lay, with his senses confused,
Our sage even felt it go round.
H is faithful man-servant at last sought him out.
And carried him quickly to bed.
“ Yes. ’ tis certainly rolling, of that there’s no d o u b t; ”
W as all the philosopher said.

“r -I T E R A ItY

la A I U .”A Q U A R T E R L Y P U B L I C A T I O N devoted to the contributions of its subscribers
and to the furtherance of their literary interests generally.
(1 6 pages crown quarto ivith Cover.)

Edited by A l f r e d W a t s o n .

Subscription 1/6 per annum, post free, from the Publisher : G e o r g e E t h e r i d g e ,Fincdon, near Wellingborough.
S p e c im e n C o p y, to g e tiie r w i t h o th e r m a tte r o f in te r e s t to th o se of a li t e r a r y tu r n of mind
w i l l be se n t b y t l. e E d i i o r fo r th r e e I d . stam p s. A d d r e s s : A u b k d W a t s o n , W a s h in g t o n , E.B.O .,Co. D u r h a in .

TH E

H IC xH E R

C R IT IC IS M

EXPLODED.

A most essential addition to any Scholars Library.
W e heartily commend it.
T o be had from Hon. Secretary, post free, i% d .
F or L is t o f Zetetic Publications, see cover o f last issue.

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

A Z E T E T I C HYMN.
“ Workman of God, O lose not heart,
But learn what G od is lik e ;A nd in the darkest battle-fieldT h ou shalt know where to strike.
Thrice blest is he to whom is given
T h e instinct that can tell,
T h at G od is on the field when H e
Is most invisible.
Blest too is he who can divine
W here real right doth lie,A n d dares to take the side that seems
W rong to man’s blindfold eye.
G od’s glory is a wondrous thing.
M ost strange in all its w a ys;
And, o f all things on earth, least likeW hat men agree to praise.
M use on H is justice, downcast soul,Muse, and take better h ea rt;
B ack with thine angel to the fieldA n d bravely do thy part.
For right is right,* since G od is G o d ;A nd right f the day must win ;T o doubt would be disloyalty,
T o falter would be sin.”‘ Hymns that have helped ” 1 19. Collected by W . T . Stead. 51. “ The Penny Poets.”* Read Truth is Truth.

+ Read Truth.— Ed.

“ T H E EAR T H W A S W I T H O U T FORM A N D VOID.”“ T h e H ebrew words in Genesis for ‘ form and void ’ are tohu vehohu, Pagnius translates them, ‘ desert and emptiness ’ ; the Samaritan
and Latin valgate, ‘ empty and void ’ ; the Septuagint, ‘ invisible andincomposed ’ ; the Syriac, ‘ desert and uncultivated ’ ; the Arabic,‘ covered with abysses.’In these explanations there is very little
difference, for they express the first state o f the earth, without animals,
vegetables, or any green h erb ; in a word, empty and void o f a ll things."
Notes and Queries, September, 1896.
Dr. Robert Young, L L D., translates them, “ A ruin, vacancy,
emptiness.” See Analytical Concordance.
F.
B. Burton says, “ N o collection o f modern words can convey anidea o f the profundity of desolution and vacuity expressed by the
Hebrew words tohu and bohu."
Evidently there is no thought whatever o f the shape o f the world,for “ T h e E a rth ” is the only element involved, and that in its s i* merged condition, ere the Divine fiat said, “ L et the dry land, lit. earth,appear.”— Ed.

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

A D V E R T IZ E R .

THE

The follow in g Pam phlets and Leaflets m ay be h ad fro m Mr Johf^
Williams, 32 Bankside, London, S,E.
Zetetic Astronomy, an Address to the Religious W orld, 6^di n n Ti — f - -1
.1 •100
Proofs ihe E arthis not a Globe,
3 Jd
The So-called “ M istakes of Moses,”
7d
T h e Suu Standing Still,
2 |dOranks,lid
The Popularity of E rror: T he U n p o p u k rity of Truth,
1/1
A n E nq u iry : Is the E arth a Globe 2
2Jd
D o the B ib le and Modern Science A gree 1
A nsw ers to Objections,..............................
Thu B ib le v. Neo-Science,...

The H igher Criticism E xploded,

No one questions the above authority.

Note carefully the following f a c t s :—“ T h e spirit-level, which is usually on the under side of the sur­veyor’s transit instrument, is used to determine a horizontal line. A
horizontal line is at right angles to a vertical. It is a level line. ’—
Robinson, p. 25.

lid
H d

6d
----

„

“ The N ew Spectrum T op appears to us to threaten serious things to theexisting theories of Colour vision. ” — Pall M all Gazette, March yth, 1895.

An “ A n alytical ” Concordance to th e Bible.
B y D r. R O B E R T YO U N G , L L .D .

Sixth and Cheap Edition, cloth, 24/=. A Large Handsom e Volume,__ __1 1 06 pages. D em y Quarto,
Othar prices according to Binding and Contents, 28/-, 30/-, 32/-, 36/-, 40/-, S2/6.
A s this w e ll kn ow n W o r k o f R eference h as h ith e rto been o u t o f reach o f m a n y B ib le StudentSi the
Pu b lish e rs resolved to issue a N e w an d Cheaper Ed itio n, R e v ise d thro ugho ut and Enlarg ed , theP r in tin g , P a p e r, an d B in d in g b eing e q u al to that o f a n y o f the p revious five E d itio n s , which were
published a t 36/- to 70/«, a ccord ing to sty les o f B in d in g a n d Contents.
T h e ab o ve w o rk has earned ( b y its completeness, a cc u ra cy , a n d serviceableness), th e w arm com­
m endation o f the most em inent Sch o la rs a n d D iv in e s o f alm ost e ve ry C h ristia n denom ination in GreatB r it a iX a n d A m e rica , I t contains a most valuab le su m m ary o f ch ie f results from recent Topographi­
cal an d A rchasolog
to-..Wth eiixillu
stratioo fb scripture.
^ ical research________ .NT
u a i.ia.b iU UnU1
t T ip C U r e .
Tf— ----------------------------------

I f you do not possess a co p y o f this in valu ab le help to an intelligent s tu d y o f H o l y W r it , write atonce to J . W i l l i a m s , 32 B an k sid e , Lo n d o n , S E . . an d g e t a co p y b y re tu rn o f p arce l post.
A H th e B ib lic a l a n d O rie n ta l W o r k s b y D r . R o b e r t Y o u n g , L L . D . , can also be obtained from him.
N . B , — A l l sup p lied o n L O W E S T term s fo r C a s h w i t h O r d e P .

N O T E S

A N D

I f it were possible to prove

convexity the above assumptions would not be found in school books.
Convexity is not and cannot be proven. It is assumed.

l|d

T u rkey and B ussia, ...

( Contributed.)“ In navigation the surface of the ocean is assumed to be spherical."

12 for 6d

Tha N ew Spectrum Top, ^'ith five other optical
illusions.

V. S P H E R I C A L A S S U M P T IO N S .

_R obin son ’s New Navigation and Surveying, p. 326.

2^d

A r e w e L iv in g on a W hirling, P h in g B a ll of Landand W a te r l

R E V IE W .

“ W e assume the convexity of the water because we know o f noother way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea.’'_-Prof. Huxley.

2^d

...

FLA T FACTS

,,

EARTH

Q U E R I E S .

A Monthly Magazine of History, F olk Lore, Legends, Science, Art, Literature:
Masonry, Mysticism, Myths ; Metaphysics, Psychics, Theosophy ; Mathematics, andRecondite Matters. It contains a large number of Odds and Ends gathered from“ Many a quaint and curious volume o f forgotten lore.” Vols. I.-X IV . {1882-1896).
each fully indexed. “ Many people know many things, no one everything.” Cii'culates in all parts of the world.
$1.00 a year, in advance.
Back Volumes andNumbers supplied. Vol. X IV . for I896. Address S. C. & L. M. Gould, Manchester,
N .H ., U S. America.

“ T h e verticle
Dictionary.

isperpendicular

to

the

horizon.” — W ebster’sW e want to show that in all instrument work, the line o f vision is atright angles to the plum b-line; hence there are no acute or obtuse
angles over which the surveyor looks when levelling. N ote the following
facts:—“ T h e intersection of the spider-lines must be in the optical axis o f
the telescope, so that the instrument when placed in the middle of astraight line will, by revolution o f the telescope, cut its extremities.
Revolve the telescope and find an object in the opposite direction which
the cross will b isect; the two objects would be exactly in line.”
Robinson, p. 26.
“ T o adjust a theodolite,m easure very carefully the distance between
two stations, and set the instrument half way between them.
Nowbring the level near to one of the stations, level it cari fully and sightthe rod. N ote the number on the rod, say six feet, and have the rodman go to the other station and place his target on the rod just six feet.
When the telescope is turned upon it the horizontal spider-line ought tojust coincide with the target, and will, if the instrument is level or in
perfect adjustment.”— RoWnson, p. 33.
T h e line o f vision between the two stations is a straight line
because the horizontal axis of the instrument forms two right angles
with the radius of the earth or with a plumb-line.
T h e above quotation says that if the instrument is level it will cut,the same altitude on the levelling-rod in opposite directions
It has been proven that the horizontal line is at a right angle to avertical. It has been proven, also, that the line o f vision is horizontal.

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

A D V E R T IZ E R .

THE

The follow in g Pam phlets and Leaflets m ay be had from Mr John
W illiams, 32 Bankside, London, S,E.

EARTH

R E V IE W .

E V O I .U 'r iO N — W H A T D O E S I T M E A N ?

PAMPHLETS.
A M ap of the W orld as a P lan e (Coloured),^(post...

100 Proofs the E arth is not a Globe,
The So-called “ Mi^^takes of Moses,”...

The Sun Standing Still,
Cranks,A Compendium of P ractical Instruction, ...

...

3 |d
7d

J»

2Jd

})

l| d

>>

1/7

The P opularity of E rr o r : The U npopularity of Truth,l/ I

A n E nquiry : Is the E arth a Globe?

2|d

))

9}

J)
JJ

D o the B ib le and Modern Science A g ree ?

...

2|d

n

Answ ers to Objections,

...

2H

)>

6/6

«

A Complete S et of Z etetic Literature,
The B ible i>. Neo-Science,...

12 for 6d

9)

per 100, 1/))

Proofs of the W orld ’s R otundity Examined,

per 100, 6d])

The Puzzled Cleric, ...

per 100, 1/

9)

7d

))

per 100, 1/nOne of the D ev il’s Masterpieces,.................

Zetetic Astronom y..............................................
Im aginary Astronom y,
Pagan Astronom y, ....

6 for 2^d})

D auntless Astronom y,

2^d

))

l^ d

M

IJd

)}

The H igher Criticism Exploded,.................

.. .

A r e w e L iv in g on a W hirlin g, F lyin g B all of Landand W ater'!
The N ew Spectrum Top, w ith five other optical
illusions,6d“ The New Spectrum Top appears to us to threaten serious things to theexisting theories of Colour vision.” — Pall M all Gazette, March 7th, 1895.

THE

THE

OREATKSTD O W N FALL

EVENT

OF

OF T H E

MODERNAGE:

ASTRONOMY.

No objections received from Greenwich or Cambridge.

FIFTY

SCIENTIFIC

FACTS

F o p Suppendep to Natupe’s Fixed Tpuths,

B y M r E.

BREACH,C . S . , Author of “ 100 Proofs of Fixed Earth andTravelling San.”

Price One Penny e a c h ; 9d pep doz.; 5s pep lOO.

One school in attemoting to bridge o'er the chasm,
In ented the germinal cellProtoplasm,”
Which was first niorganic, but afterwards seen
T o grow into ‘ Sponges ” and “ Polyps ” mirine ;From thence by Absorption, ’ ‘ 'Accretion,” and growth,
Giving birth to the ' Bivalves ’ or Molluscs,'’ or both.
These creatures by striving grew fins, tails and claws,
In spite of Dame Nature’s implacable laws.
They spro ted and turned into reptiles amphibious ;O f obstacles placed in the way quite oblivious.
Urged on by ‘ Necessity ” upwards they grew,Day by day giving; birth to some quadruped new,
Evi.lviiig- re-forming without intermission
As played upon by the surrounding condition. ’
Then ‘ Like produced «n like ” without hesitation.
Earthy atom transformed into rich vegetation.
Animalculse left their aquatic abode,And into the Forests by thousands they strode.
Frogs changed into bird-; at the voice of the Sirens,
And everything living ‘ changed with their environs.”
The Lichens from every restriction then b'oke.
And evolved both the Lepidodendron* and Oak.
’ Twas a w nderful time and a wonderful sight.
T o see how each day brought new objects to light.
The stratified rock the stran »e story relates,
How the ‘ Invertebrata ’ * begat Vertebrates ;And the Ichthyosaurus” * one night in a freak,Gave birth to the “ Mastodon’ *— (minus the beak).
While the tidy Acidian evolved from the Oyster,Emerging somewhat like a monk from his cloister
The Bear from the Mole in the past we desc.y.
W hile the Humble Bee came ‘ by descent” from the Fly.
Then the Lemur begat the grim Ape Catarrhine,
From thence came the others *' in process of time.”
Their tails being “ chaffed ” became shortened, ’till soon
W e i-rrive at the hairy-faced, tail less Baboon.
These quarrelled and fought in the Forests primeval.
Impelled by an inherent spirit of evil.
The I'entadactilians ignoring all trammels,
Produced the most carious Terrestrial Mammals ;While the I’oipoiseand Sea-Horse plunged into the deep,
Determined he.iceforw.ird to water to k;ep. ^‘ Hy the use and disuse ” of their parts, as it suited.
They wandered (to no spot particular rooted),
One half the world took with the other to strive,’ I ill naught but the ■“ Fittest ’ ' were found to “ Survive.”A t last Man appeared ; but, amazingly strange !
From 'hat moment the animals never could change.
“ L ik e ” at last “ produced like,” and the laws became fixed,
Which explains why the Species since never got mixed.
J. W. H.
From “ The Anti-Infide'.^’' March, iS&T.
* These are fossil animals and plants.

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

A D V E R T IZ E R .

The follow ing Pam phlets and Leaflets w a y be had f / o m M r

r

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

TRUTHW IL LCONQUER.

iii..

Williams, 32 Banhside, London, S.E.
[Dedicated to the Members of the Church Congress, held at Norwich,

PAMPHLETS.

18950

100 Proofs the E arth is not a Globe,

3 Jd (post7d

The So-called =‘ M i-takes of Moses,”
The Sun Standing Still,...

Cranks,...

A Compendium of P ractical Instruction, ...

2 id

„

IJd

„

The P opularity of E rr o r : The U npopularity of Truth,

1/7
1/1

,,

A n E n q u iry: Is the E arth a Globe?

...

2|d

„

Do the B ible and Modern Science A gree?

...

2 |d

„

Answ ers to Objections,

...

2H

„

A Complete Set of Zetetic Literature,

...

6/6

T h e B ible v. Neo-Sciencp,

12 for 6d...

One of the D evil’s Masterpieces,

...

,,

per 100, 1/

Proofs of the W orld ’s R otundity Examined,

per 100, 6J

The Puzzled Cleric, ...

per 100, 1/

Zetetic Astronom y, ...

7d

Im aginary Astronom y,

per 100, 1/,,„

Pagan Astronom y, ....

6 for 2^dDauntless Astronom y,

2 id

„

l|d

„

Hd

„

The H igher Criticism Exploded,

...

...

A r e we L iv in g on a W hirling, F lyin g B all of Landand W a ter?
. ...
The N ew Spectrum Top, w ith five other optical
illusions,6d“ The New Spectrum Top appears to us to threaten serious things to theexisting theories of Colour-vision.” —Mal l Gazette, March 7th, 1895.

A SFECZAL O FFEB .
A Copy o f each o f the following w ill be sent Post Free fo r 7/5 .
The First E ig h t Copies of '• T h e E a r t h

Not a Globe— R e v i e w . ”

The Bible and Science ; or, The Higher Criticism Exploded.
Are we Living on a Whirling, Flying Ball of Land and Water ?
The Bible v Neo-Science.

Cranks.

The Puzzled Cleric.

‘ A h, man !
You ate so great— too great for this small world,
P'or you have •* proved ” that Christ is all a lie !
The Gospel that H e taught us but a “ M Y T H ,”The Bible but a pack of legends, old
And false traditions— you can prove it. A y,
You are so wise. O vain, presumptions man,
You love to think the “ Word of G o d ” is false.
And hope to mar its beauty with your sneers.
Rail on ; God’s citadel shall never fall to you.
Smite as you may
A h, “ Science.” S O U R C E O F I N F ID E L I T Y ,You blazon great discoveries to the world,
Fresh wonders brought to light by such as you.
Revealing Nature’s ' laws ” (we call them God’s),
Proving all things exist by hidden sacred laws.
And, adding pride to folly, call them “ chance "F o o l! God has made those laws, and set the sun
And all the planets daily to perform
Their wondrous course, thro’ endless a;ons on.
From cycle unto.sq'cle, ne er to cease
D o ye not know that what has been shall be.
That nought is new, nought underneath the sun.
A s said the King of Wisdom —Solomon ?
But ye, the more ye search, new wonders find,And newer wonders, till the less ye love
The Wonder-Maker, A ll Creating God.
W hy is it thus? and why does Wisdom (?) turnYour heart from God, when H e A ll Wisdom is?
But ye will rave in your demented pride.
Wise in the worldly wisdom of the world.
Wise in jour darling theories— so false
T o sense, or truth, or manly, honest doubt
Y e know so much and yet one little child.
In her sweet faith, is wiser than ye all
And nearer unto God. And ye would force
Your base opinions on the ears of men.
And bid them hearken to your hollow words !
Leading the blind with your phantasmal talk,Yourselves more blind than they, more dull your sense !
False prophets, fools, to kick against the pricks
A s did the bie:ot Pharisees of old !
But ye may rave ; think ye that truth will fail ?
Think ye with puny breath to blast the RockThat has stood firm for nineteen hundred years
Against the sceptic’s scorn, the mocker’s laugh.
And borne the brunt of Infidelic sneer
Immutable, in majesty supreme?
Watching you beat yourselves to death upon it !
W e fear n o t: do your worst. Right conquers Mi^ht,
And God’s great Truth must conquer in the end ! ”
Joh n M e r r in .

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

A D V E R T IZ E R .

THE

The follow in g Pam phlets and Leaflets m ay be had from Mr John
Williams, 32 Bankside, London, S,E.

PAMPHLETS.
100 Proofs the E arth is not a Globe,
T he So-called “ M istakes of Moses,”

3 Jd (post-free).
7dii

T h e Sun Standing Still,

2JdaCranks,l| da»

T h e Popularity of E rr o r : The U npopularity of Truth,

1/7
1/1

A n E nquiry : Is the E arth a Globe 1 ^ ...

2 fd

j)

A Compendium of P ractical Instruction, ...

...

D o the B ib le and Modern Science A gree?
A n sw ers to Objections,..............................

2^d
...

A Complete Set of Zetetic Literature,T h e B ible «. Neo-Science,

j)

2^d

j>

6/6

...

12 for 6d>>

per 100, 1/

5)

Proofs of the W orld ’s R otundity Fxam ined,

per 100, 6d))

T h e Puzzled C le r ic ,...........................................

per 100, 1/

One of the D ev il’s Masterpieces,...

Z e tetic Astronom y, ...

7d

Im agin ary Astronom y,

per 100, 1/

P agan Astronom y, ....
T h e H igher Criticism Exploded,

...

n
))

6 for 2^d

))

...

>}

l|d

A r e we L iv in g on a W hirling, F lyin g B all of Landand W ater'*

...

lid

T he N ew Spectrum Top, w ith five other optical
illusions.

6d))“ I h e New Spectrum Top appears to us to threaten serious things to the

TH E

EARTH

P H I L O S O P H E R ’S A T O M .

When ask we, “ What is it? and whence did it com e?”
No answer is given ; our science is dumb.
Vet, bold in their dogma nor bolder than blind,
Soms crown it creator of matter and mind.
These sages assure us the Atom’s the cause
And ruler supreme of all natural laws.
The thinker may think that he thinks, but it’s plain’Tis merely the atom exciting his brain
Transmitting ideas through tissue and nerve,
As if it were working some purpose to serve.
Yet, facing us always, this marvel we’ve got—
The Thinker is conscious, the Atom is not.
The puppet examines itself and admires ;The wire puller knows not the trick of the wires.
This paradox funny unquestioned must go,
For science asserts it, and ‘ science must know.”
And therefore forsake we the Ruler whose eye
The secretest action or purpose can spy.
And worship the Atom, who cares not a jot
What virtues we practice or wickedness plot.
W e may trample the Decalogue under our heel,W e may murder, or libel, or covet or steal.
Y et sleep with a conscience as calm and composed
A s though the most virtuous work we had closed.
’Twould be folly to feel any sorrow or shame.
Since our dear little Atom bears ever^ the blame.
’Tis the Atom that Steals ; ’tis the Atom that slays ;’Tis the Atom that slanders, and dupes, and betrays ;’Tis the Atom, in short, that must answer for all.
W hile we, driven helpless, do nothing at all.
Oh, wonderful doctrine ! how soothing and sweet
T o the would be assassin, seducer, or cheat,
W ho conscience and scruples fir flinging away.
Determines the Atom alone to obey.
But what about him who, though poor and distressed,’Mid troubles and trials is striving his best,
In steadfast reliance on aid from above.
Himself to forget and his neighbour to love ?
T o him our philosophers surely might leave
The one single comfort here he can receive ;Through his darkness and gloom pierces one sunny ray,Is it human the heart that would take this away ?
H u g h M a c C o l l , in Spectator.

existing theories of Colour-vision. ” — Pall M all Gazette, March 7th, 1895.

A

A SFECZAL O FFEB .
A Copy o f each o f the following w ill be sent Post Free fo r 1j 3 .
The First Eight Copies of *• T h B E a r t h -Not a Globe— R e v i e w . ”
The Bible and Science : or, The Higher Criticism Exploded.
Are we Living on a Whirling, Flying Ball of Land and Water ?
T he Bible v Neo-Science.

Cranks.

The Puzzled Cleric.

R E V IE W .

L IT T L E

SER M O N .

If theologians w l l once bring themselves to look upon nature, or the materia
universB as the embodiment of the Divine Thought, and the scientific study of natureas the endeavour to discover and apprehend that thought, they will see that it is theirduty, instead of holding themselves altogether aloof from the pursuit of science, or
stopping short in the search for scientific truth, wherever it points towards a result that
seems in discordance with their preformed conceptions, to supply themselves honestly
to the study of it, as a revelation of mind and will of the D eity, which is certainly notless authoritative than that which H e has made to us through inspired men, and which
is fitted to afford its true interpretation.
D r . W m . B . C a r p e n t e r , in Echo, M ay 4, 1892.

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

T

A D V E R T IZ E R .

‘T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .”T H E " S C IE N T IF IC W A G E R .”The follow ing Pam phlets and Leaflets may be had from Mr John
W illiams, 32 Banhside, London, S.E.

PAMPHLETS.
100 Proofs the E arth is not a Globe,

3 ^d (post free),
7dn

The So-called •* M istakes of Moses,”
T h e Sun Standing Still,2dnCranks,

...

Ud

)f

A Compendium of P ractical Instruction,...

The Popularity of E rro r: The U npopularity of Truth,

1/7
1/

A n E nquiry : Is the E arth a Globe 1

2 Jd

...

D o the B ible and Modern Science A gree 1
A nsw ers to objections,.................

...

A Complete S et of Zetetic Literature,

n
>j

6/6

n

1/2

>>

The B ible v. N e o S c ie n c e ,..............................

12 for 6d

...

if

2 id

...

per 100, 1/)>

Proofs of the W orld ’s R otu n d ity Exam ined,

per 100, 6d

M

T he Puzzled C le r ic ,...

per 100, 1/nZetetic Astronom y, . . .

7d

5JIm aginary Astronom y,

per 100, 1/

Pagan A s tr o n o m y ,............................................
The H igher Criticism Exploded,

T h e se figures are true copies o f the sketches taken by Mr. Carpenter, on the 5thof March, 1870. They represent the signals (with the outlines of other objects),
as they appeared in the telescope, from each end of the six miles of the Old Bedford
Canal. The telescope was an invertiv^ instrument; consequently, the objects ap­
pear up-side downwards. The first view is that of Old Bedford Bridge, taken from
Welney j the second, is that of Welney Bridge, taken from the Old Bedford: thestaff signal and cross-hair standing in the same relative position in each view.
The following argument is taken from the report as printed in the “ Field," forMarch 26, 1870, and is considered to be sufficient and unanswerable:—“ The stations appewred, to all intents a/nd pwrposes, equidistant in the field ofvievJ, and also in a regular series; first, the distant bridge; secmidbj, the central
signal; and, thirdly, the horizontal cross-hadr nmrking the point of observation;
showing that the central disc 13/t. 4,in. high does NUT depa/rt from a straight line
taken from end to end of the six miles in any way whatever, either laterally or ver­tically. i'crr, i f so, and (as in the case of the disc 9ft. iin . high) i f it were lower ornearer the water, it would appewr, as that disc does, nea/rer to the distant bridge.
I f it were higher, it imuld appea/r in the opposite direction nearer the horizontal
cross-hair which marks the point of observation. As the disc 4ft. lower appears nearto the distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5/f. higher would have to appear stillnearer to the horizontal cross-hair of the telescope. And therefore it is shown thata straight line from one point to the other pctsses through the central po%nt in its
course, and that a cwrved surface of water has n o t been demonstrated."

))

2^d

The F irst E igh t Copies of the E arth Review,
One of the D ev il’s Masterpieces,)}

6 for 2Jd

ii
n

lid

...

A r e we L ivin g on a W hirling, F lyin g B all of Landand W a ter ?

Id............................................

»The N ew Spectrum Top, w ith five other optical
6d

illusions.

“ The New Spectrum Top appears to us to threaten serious things to theexisting theories of Colour vision.” — Pa/l M all Gazette, March 7th, 1895.

“ THE

LITERARYA Q U A R T E R L Y P U B L IC A T IO N devoted to the contributions of its subscribers
and to the furtherance of their literary interests generally.
,{16 pages crmvn quarto with Cover.)

Edited by A l f r e d W a t s o n .

Subscription, 1/6 per annum, post free, from the publisher : G e o r g e E t h e r i d g e ,Finedon, near Wellingborough.
Specim en C o p y , together w ith other m atter o f interest to those o f a lite ra ry turn o f m ind, w ill 1esent b y the E d it o r for three I d stamps. A d d re s s : A l f r e d W a t s o n , W a sh in g to n , R . S .O . , Co.
D u rh a m .

figures are also taken from the “ Field." They were printed as being what
was seen by Dr. Coulcher, Mr. Wallace’s referee, under precisely the same condi­
tions as those in connection with the other sketches. And there they staBd— theirown witnesses— without a single word ever having been said in justitication ofthem. We, again and again, denounce them as utterly false— as pictorial deceiversof the people— as illustrations of things never seen, and not possible to be seen under
the circumstances. It is almost unnecessary to state that these diagrams appear,wrongfully, to show that Mr. Wallace, and not Mr. Hampden, was the winner of
the “ Scientific Wager.” We reprint them because it is our duty, and for thatreason alone: for if Dr. Coulcher is not heartily ashamed of them, we are. They
will be found to be fully and fairly reckoned up— and such a reckoning up !— in amost ably-written pamphlet by Mr. James Naylor, of Leeds. And Mr. Hampden
thinks that he has been trifled with! — taken in, just a little!— “ swindled!” ashe calls i t :— how ridiculously absurd I
T h eseMAIL.”'

T H E “ E A R T H R E V I E W ” A D V E R T IZ E R .

N .B .— The follow ing Pamphlets and Leaflets may be had by post fro m
M r. John Williams, 32, Bankside, London, S .E . :— R E V I S E D L IS T .
Post free,Z e t e tic A stro n o m y,s.
“ Parallax.”d.

7

A C o m p en d iu m of P ra c tic a l In s tru c tio n , on the“ Laws of Nature.”> 7

T h e P o p u la rity of E rro r, and U n p o p u la rity ofT r u th , with Map of the W orld as a Plane.

I

I

o

I!

A n sw e rs to O b je c tio n s a g a in s tth e P la n a r S y s t e mof Cosmography.

Illustrated.

An E n q u iry , >S the Earth a Globe after all.
“ C ra n k s .”............................................................

A D iagram i proving that the only true base on which a Sextant
can be used is an horizontal one

2;^

T h e S u n S ta n d in g S t ill ,T h e M id n ig h t S u n . illustrated.
T h e so-called “ Mistakes of M oses.” ...

2
2

7

100 Proofs th e E a rth is n o t a G lob e,
T h e F ir s t E ig h t C o p ie s of th e E a r th —not a globe— Review.

A C o m p le te S e t of Z e t e tic L ite ra tu re , with Map of
the W orld as a Plane

6

T h e N ew E ra a t Hand •••A ll P a s t Time- Biblical Chronology proved true ...
F la t. An Ex p(5sure of Theoretical Astronomy

6
6

P A M P H L E T S F O R D IS T R IB U T IO N .

T h e B ib le v. Neo S c ie n c e .

Per doz. 6d , per 100

O ne of th e D e v il’s M a s te rp ie c e s , illustrated.
S c h o o l Pro o fs Exam in ed . No. i. illustrated.
N u ts for N e w to n ia n s to C ra ck . Per 100 ...
Im a g in a ry Astronom y- Per 100 ...
T h e S h a p e of th e World- Illustrated. Per 100
Pag a n A stro n o m y . Per Dozen
Ph o to of S e c r e ta r y , is. Cabinet size

Per 100Per

ICX5