f^ 0tr 0n 0tng anb the §xhk
RECONCILED.
A

PLAIN
UPON

DISCOURSETHE

S U B JE C T

OF

THE

EARTH,
SUN,

MOON

AND

STARS;SHOWING TH E POSITION THE EA ETH OCCUPIES IN

CREATION.

vox.
A UTHO n OFr ‘‘ AC H B IS T IA N

H IS T O m C A L

POEM :Q U EEN

V IC T O R IA :')EXTRACTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS FROM

“ PA R A LL A X ,”
AND

OTHER

WRITERS.

NEW EDITION.

IL Jj JASTRONOMY AND T H E BIBLE
RECONCILED.
“ !Firm stands the footThat treads the solid ground of Scripture.”I t is really m agnificent to contemplate w ith w hat despatch
God does H is work.
In the beginning of creation H e has
a m ultitude of glorious thoughts in H is mind, and a hostof things to do w ith H is h a n d s; H e sets to work, and insix days all is finish ed !

DIALOGUE.
A .—Sir, I have been taught from my earliest days thatthe earth is a globe—a planet—rotating upon its own axis, andtravelling round the sun at an enormous rate ;* that tlie sun is
the centre of the solar system, itself stationary, while all
the planets and other heavenly bodies are moving in theirorbits round it. But, as I aui told you object to all this, I
shall be glad to hear your objections and have your opinions.
B .—Before entering upon this interesting subject, then,
I inquire—Do you accept the Bible as Divine authority ? For
that is my royal warrant and sheet-anchor.
A .—I profess to do so.
B .—Well then, formerly I believed as you do, and withno better reason than th at which you render—namely, because
I was in th at way taught.
Nevertheless, theoretic astronomy
has always presented an insurmountable difficulty to my implicit
reception of it, on account of its total inability to reconcile its
conclusions with the revealed Word of God. This it was that
ultimately determined me to lay aside all preconceptions, andto form my judgment anew from the plain statements madeupon the subject of the Creation in the inspired writings.
Sceptics make the daring assertion th at “ the Bible is not true,
because (they say) it contradicts science.” To this it may ba
replied that a reputed science presuming to contradict theWord of God is, in reality, not science at all, but is “ falsely
so called.” For brilliant ideas I admit that modern astronomy
is a splendid system. Notwithstanding, if it be not really true,
then it is but a “ splendid lie ” palmed upon poor, credulous
mankind.
A .—Allow me here to ask you a question, although you
may justly consider it somewhat aside from the subject before us.
* 600 m iles per hour is the supposed velocity in the latitude of England.

4

ASTRONOMY AND THE BIBLE RECONCILED.

ASTKONOMY AND THE BIBLE EECONCILED.

B .—Certainly. Yet it is advisable to keep to the point asmuch as possible. W hat is the question ?

according to Psalm cxxxix. ; b u t I mean, the Spirit, within an
inner circle only, moved with creative energy. F o r where H e
did not move, darkness remained.
Thus we are told, in
Job xxxviii., 9, th at “ thick darkness is a swaddling band forthe sea.” And God, co-operating with the Spirit, divides thelight from the darkness.

A .—Have you obtained from the Scriptures any reasonableidea as to when God created the angels ?

I

B .—The Bible does not give what may be called creative
dates. Yet we may learn from its contents that when the Almighty,
in the eternal counsels, had decreed creation, H e created all things.
Let us then begin with the statement that God created “ the deep,”which is th e opening scene for th e operations of the Creator,
described in Genesis i. , 1, thus :— ‘ ‘ In the beginning God createdthe heaven and the earth.” And I would suggest to you that theheaven here spoken of is not the same as th a t mentioned in v. 8,
for the reason that this was created “ In the beginning,” and thatwas made on the second day. The heaven in v. 1, then, I conceive
to be the third heaven, or Paradise, with all its living hosts.* In
Nehemiah ix., 5—6, we read :— “ Blessed be Thy glorious name,which is exalted above all blessing and praise. Thou, even Thou,art Lord alone ; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens,with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, theseas and all that there is therein, and Thou preservest them all ;and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee. ” The host here referred
to is evidently a host of intelligent beings — angels, capable ofworshipping Jehovah. This brings me to your question as to“ when God created the angels ? ” The answer, inferentially, is—at, or “ in the beginning” of H is work of creation.
A .—I imagine there was a long duration between thecreation of the third heaven and the creation of the earth,although these distinct creations are stated in one short verse.

M

B .—Indeed it may be so, for the Spirit of God in His
narrative passes on very rapidly, and to say much in a few words
is a scriptural characteristic. I would now at once call yourattention to Genesis i., 2—5, and ask you to get in your own
mind, a clear, distinct idea of the “ deep ” there spoken of. The
great, vast deep. I t is a historical fact th at the actual positionof the earth, at its first stage of creation, was beneath the surfaceof the waters ; created in the womb of the “ deep,” and awaiting
the full time to be brought forth.
A . —And its primeval condition was— ?
B .—Well, as to its shape, so to speak, it was shapeless ; achaos, unfit, as it was and where it was, for organic life, animalor vegetable. I t contained no “ fulness ; ” th at is, it was empty—“ without form and void.” Darkness was upon the “ deep,” andthe Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God
said, “ Let there be light, and there was light.” Now, it is acircumstance worthy of notice that the darkness is not all
dissipated ; but just where the Spirit moved, there light was
created, and only there. The idea is, an inner circle of light andan outer circle of darkness. Of course, God is over the darkness
as well, to the utmost limit of creation. H e is omnipresent*
That there are three heavens is evident, for P aul sayscaught up to the third heaven.”—II . Corinthians xii., 2.

5

A .—Some philosophers think that light proceeds from apoint, while others believe it is an undulating ether.
B .—Yes ; “ so many men, so many opinions.” B ut observe,
if you please, the order of creation thus far : F irst, the third
heaven ; secondly, the earth ; and thirdly, light.
A .—I perceive th a t natural lig h t— th a t is, daylight—iscreated before the sun, as a vessel of light, exists.
B .—I t is so. B u t let us be brief. The work of the firstday is finished, and we come to the second. “ And God said, letthere be a firmament.” * That is, the air we breathe, and upward.
And mark, where does God make the firmament, or, as we shallcall it, the first heaven ? Is it made above the “ deep ” ? No, but
in the middle of it—“ in the midst of th e waters.” I n thinkingof this passage, the action of God seems to be, th at H e puts
H is almighty arms deep down into the waters, and raises the upper
half of the great deep, and places it a long way off over our heads.
And with this material H e appears to shape the sky, whichbecomes, in the words of Jo b xxxvii., 1 8 , “ strong, and as amolten looking-glass.” And the sky is, I suggest, the second
heaven, and the framework of all the luminaries.
I t may bethat those waters are the source of the “ fruitful rain fromheaven.” I t is, however, admitted th at vapours arise from thewaters below, and from the earth, and descend again in the formof rain. I may be told th at this is speculative, and I allow it
is. But, passing over this instance, it is my aim, in this discourse,
to deal more with matters of fact.
A .—Do the Scriptures anywhere state th a t there arewaters above ?
B .—Y es; in Jerem iah x., 1 3 , it is written, “ There is amultitude of waters in the heavens.” F urther observe, th at bymeans of the “ expansion” God divides the waters imder thefirmament from the waters above the firmament. And God called
the expansion “ Heaven ; and the evening and the morning were
the second day.”
A .—Am I to understand you to mean th a t th e earth
was created below the surface of the “ d e e p ? ”
B .—Exactly so, for God divided the“ midst,” and yet the earth was not visible.

waters in the

A .—Proceed, I am attentive,
B .—God’s next work appears to be to separate the waters
th a t were before mingled and mixed. H e, as it were, passes
through, or by the way of, the paths of the “ deep,” and, in

H ewas* Hebrew, an expansion.

ASTRONOMT AND THE BIBLE EECONCILED,ASTRONOMT AND THE BIBLE RECONCILED.

the appropriate language of -Ps*lm xxxiii., 7, “ H e layeth up
the deep in storehouses
or, as some translate, “ in bags’’—and,shall I say, localises the salt water and the fresh, and we havegiven them names. And, mark, sir, it is now for the first timethat the earth is seen, when God says, “ Let the dry land
appear.” And thus “ H e bringeth forth the hidden things ofdarkness.”

firm earth on which we “ live, move, and have our b eing” reallyrests in, or on, th e waters ; and beneath th e gigantic weight ofwhich, with all its rocks, mountains, hills, plains, and valleys, thegreat deep “ couches as a lion.” In proof of this assertion we cite
Psalm xxiv., 1, 2 : “ The earth is the Lord’s ; H e hath founded
it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” Again, in
Deuteronomy v., 8 :—“ Thou shalt not make thee any graven
image, or any likeness of anything th at is in heaven above, orthat is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath theearth.”
And again we read : O give thanks to Him “ thatstretcheth out the earth above the w aters” (Psalm cxxxri., 6).

6

A .—The earth, you say then, appears on or in the waters ?
B .—I do. I t is stretched out upon th e deep.*
the position the earth occupies in the Creation.

T hat isA .—^It ju st occurs to my memory th a t somewhere in
Scripture it says, “ H e hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

A .—You say, then, th a t the earth does not roll in an orbit
round the sun?

B .—Yes, it is in Job xxvi., 7 ; but they who are learned saythat it is an incorrect rendering. Dr. Adam Clarke, for instance,in his commentary on this passage says, the literal translation is :“ H e layeth the earth upon the waters, nothing sustaining it.”A nd this reading, you will perceive, harmonizes with th e passages
already quoted.

B .—In my opinion—an opinion arrived at after years ofcareful study of the Word of God, on this and other subjects—thetrue figure of the earth is th a t of a plane, without axial or orbital
motion. I t is iixed, or has only a slight fluctuation, a slow sinking
and rising in the waters, thereby causing the tides to ebb and flow.
Whereas, the sun is not fixed but actually travels ; as the sweet
psalmist of Israel sang: “ I t is as a bridegroom coming out of
his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. H isgoing forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto theends of it ” (Psalm xix., 5—6).
On one occasion the Lord
permitted His servant Joshua to arrest its course. Joshua said,in the sight of Israel, “ Sun, stand thou still upon G ibeon; andthe sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to
go down about a whole d a y ” (Joshua x., 12, 13). On another,
the Lord himself, without the agency of man, turned the sunback again in its own path ; which thing was indicated by the
shadow returning ten degrees in the sundial of Ahaz.
(Isaiah xxxviii., 8.)

A .—I think in the Book o f Gommon Prayer there is theexpression “ the round world.”
B .—There is. B ut then, as you know, the Book of Common
Prayer is not the Bible, and it is tliat we have to face. Now, by avery simple illustration, I think you will perceive that the doctrineof the rotundity of the earth is at variance with, and curiously
inconsistent with, the general language of the Prophets andApostles. I will suppose that I have an orange in my hand, andam engaged in. describing its shape. Would you not deem thelanguage inconsistent with the object described were I to speakof its length, breadth, and ends ?
A .—I should think you would choose the words“ circumference ” and “ diameter ” as more properly applying.
i7

B .—Certainly. And tell me, is not the Holy Spirit, thinkyou. consistent in the choice of words ?
A .—That is not to be questioned.
B .—The Bible, as a m atter of fact, never uses the words“ circumference ” and “ diameter ” in speaking of the earth. I t does,
however, speak of the “ length, breadth, and ends of the earth.”
I n short, the assertion th a t the earth is a sphere is a mere assump­tion, worse than useless in a Scriptural sense ; it is a stumbling-blockto many who desire to be rightly guided. Both th e Bible andsound common sense point equally in the opposite direction. The
popular idea that, in the “ Land of Topsy-turveydom,” as it iscalled, the Antipodes are walking with their feet opposite to ours,
or, in other words, with their heads downwards, is ridiculous in
the extrem e; and the law of gravitation is an unsatisfactory
explanation of the supposed phenomenon. I t is beyond doubt
scientifically demonstrable, as well as scripturally evident, that this* Not SB represented on our globes, but stretched out without reference
to it bsing a spherical body.

A . —Is there not, think you, a strong probability th a t God
spoke on these matters according to appearances and the thenignorance of men?
B .—Such a presumption is, I consider, without foundation.
No ; it has been the fashion of the time to call the earth a globe,
and men have employed their genius in foolishly deranging
nature’s plans. In fact, our sciences have deceived us and we mustturn again to the Scriptures and to first principles. E rror may,for a time, obscure tru th , b u t cannot annihilate it.
A .—I confess th a t this argument is working a revolution
in my astronomical ideas.
B .—My dear friend, let me here ask you a simple question.
If, as the Newtonians say, the sun is the centre of the solar system,and the earth revolves round the sun, what, in the name of reason,
did the earth revolve round before the sun was made ? For theearth was created “ in the beginning,” and th e sun was not madetill the fourth day !
A .—For my own part, I am at a loss to answer. The
query, indeed, seems to me to place the Newtonians in a dilemma,though doubtless their ingenuity will find a way of escape.

8

ASTRONOMY AND THE BIBLE EECONCILED.

B .—A way of escape ? Yes, some of our leading scientificmen, when they find the Holy Scriptures cross their pet theories,
have an easy way of setting the Scriptures aside altogether.
Others, not liking to do this, turn and twist their meaning tosuit their own purpose. Thus, the mind of God and the mindof man on scientific subjects — especially astronomical — takedifferent views and opposite directions. Is it ever hinted in
the Scriptures th at God, having “ founded the earth upon theseas, and established it upon the floods,” afterwards lifted itfrom its original position and threw it out into infinite space torevolve in a plane round the sun ? Or th at H e plucked thesun from its first place and dashed it into the sea in order torepulse the earth to a distance of over ninety millions of miles
away ? How is it th at there is no mention of so marvellous
a feat, if ever performed ?

J

A .—L et us now refer to the moon. Do you deny that
she is an opaque body ? That is, has no light of her own, but
is, as it is said, a reflector of the light of the sun. Do you, I
say, deny this ?
B .—If the moon were a mere reflector it is only reasonable
to conclude that she would reflect whatever she received. That
is to say, if she received heat, she would throw off h e a t; whereas
her beams are proverbially cold. Therefore, her light, which isher own, is different in its nature from that of the sun. The
moon is self-luminous, and, according to Genesis i., 16, she is“ a great light,” that, as a poet says, “ warms not but illumes.’
A .—How about the stars? Are not some of these worlds,
like our own ?
B .—Whoever holds the theory of the plurality of worlds
is undoubtedly “ wise above what is w ritte n ” in Scripture. The
plain declaration is, that God made the sun, moon and stars
lights, and “ set them in the heavens to give light on the earth.”
A .—0 , but the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to theHebrews, speaks of the plurality of worlds. For instance, “ By
whom also H e made the worlds ” (i., 2) ; and again, “ The worlds
were framed by the word of God” (xi., 3). How do you accountfor that ?

I

I !

B .—I account for it in this way. P rior to the introductionof the Copernican system of astronomy, the word in the original
Greek which is now translated by the plural noun* “ worlds ” wasthen translated in the singular number, “ world.” And it isinteresting to note that the Roman Catholics continue to render theword in the singular in their Latin Testament, as follows :—P er quem etiam mundum conditit.—Hebrews i., 2.
P er fidem intelligimus constructum fiuisse mundumverbo Dei.—Hebrews xi., 3.
And also in the French thus :—P ar lequel aussi il a fait le monde.—Hebrews i., 2.
Le monde afait par la parole de Dieu.—Hebrews
xi., 3.

ASTBONOMT AND TH E B IB LE EEOONCILED.

y

And the same word is translated by some “ age.” I t follows, then,th at the new reading was probably introduced in deference to the
new theory—a theory in which our opponents are totally mistakenin their unwarrantable assumptions. And the disgrace incurred bya partiality shown for their own conceits at the expense of truth,
and a proper regard for the w ritten Word of God, will be acutely
felt when th eir delusive theories vanish like bubbles in th e air,which they surely will do sooner or later. I t is claimed for the
Bible th at it is the grandest group of writings in the world, and itis accepted by the purest minds as Divine authority. And all, whoseminds are open, are here appealed to “ to search the Scriptures”
as to the probable shape of the earth, and its position in theuniverse ; and to accept their simple, sober teaching in preference
to the teaching of uninspired men, however learned and clever they
may be. Glad indeed are we to know th at there are Christians whoare courageous enough to reject the ingenious b ut fallacious
astronomical presentions of the age, and to accept the simple, yet
beautiful account of th e Creation given in the pages of inspiration.
There is an incommunicable secret between the heart of God andthe obedient Christian, and the latter knows that, whatever
modern astronomy, or her sister-science geology, may assert, thelight of all the sciences in the world put together is less reliable
than the teaching of th e “ good old Book.” And let the pious
student but drink in its unpolluted tru th , as it were, into the systemof the new man, and the effect must be to brace up the human soul,and make it valiant for his Master.
This little paper is w ritten with the full conviction that thealleged antagonism between the Scriptures and true science iserroneous—the discrepancies arising from a false mode of reasoning,
admitting as facts things unproved, and th at have no foundation intruth. The Zetetic* process, advocated in this pamphlet, is one
demanding th at propositions shall be proved. The statement thatthe surface of all standing water is horizontal is one th at has been
proved, and therefore it is admitted as stating a veritable fact. I tshould be remarked too, th a t the results of numerous practicalexperiments, with this mode of procedure, have confirmed all thestatements contained in the Holy Scriptures as to the earth’s
position. W ith these results before us, having the weight of proof, it
is absolutely safe to affirm, that this method is in reality th e only
known, simple, and natural way of RBCONOiLrcTG a s t e o n o m y w i t h
THE BIBLE.

Though treating this subject briefly and decisively, theauthor has been desirous to avoid the use of language, or manifest
a spirit, th a t might be considered objectionable while advancing
these opinions ; deeming it becoming to regard the educational
prejudices of our opponents with consideration and respect. Abuseand sarcasm are not the weapons we like, nor are these necessary
to the argument. We quarrel with no man, b ut with the “ methods”
and “ system s” of some, and “ thrice is he armed th at hath hia
quarrel ju st.”
* Zetetic, from the Greek verb, Zeteo, to seek, to search, to examine.

10

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

ASTRONOMY OR TH E BIBLE 3
If error is opposed to truth, if darkness is opposed to light,
then it may be easily shown that, in letter and in spirit. Astronomy
and the Bible are strangely opposed to each other. The Infidel knows
tliis as a fact, and plumes himseK upon it. Yet it may be logicallymaintained th at the truths of science, if pursued upon purely
zetetic principles—th a t is, the method of simple inquiry—and thecreatorial truths of the Bible, do not controvert each other, but,side by side, like telegraph wires, they run in parallel lines. I t isutterly impossible to reconcile th e hypotheses of Newton with the
Bible. Let the sciences be pursued without the admission of
fanciful data, facts proved, and nothing assumed “ for the sake ofargument,” then mountains of difficulties will be removed, andthe path made easy to the understanding of each, with due honour
to both. B ut our opponents ask—“ W hat has astronomy to dowith the Bible, or vice versd ? ” This seemingly extraordinary
question may be answered thus : Inasmuch as astronomy treatsof God’s creation, by so much the Bible justly claims the right tocriticise astronomical teaching. The book of Genesis vmequivocallystates, that the earth was iirst created in the “ deep ; ” that after­wards, it was “ founded upon the seas, and established upon thefloods.” Psalm civ. declares it “ should not be removed ; ” and theII. Peter, iii,, 5, speaks of the earth “ standing out of thewater and in the w ater,” as it were, like a ship a t anchor. On
the contrary, the Newtonians conceive the earth a globe, andhurl it out into infinite space, there to travel round the sun at a
rate of over 1,000 miles a minute. * Now, since these twoclasses of ideas are contradictory of each other, they cannot
both be true. And Satan uses these conflicting statements todamage simple souls, to agitate the minds of Biblical students, todiminish the comfort of believers, and shake, if not destroy, theiraccustomed confidence in the Word of Gad. Is it not surprising
th a t really pious and intelligent Christians should be so mistaken
as to countenance a theory, a declared ignorance of which has been
made the subject of an attack upon the personal divinity of ourblessed Lord Himself ? In a lecture, delivered before a large
audience, in the Masonic Hall, Birmingham, and reported in the
Bi'i'mingham Daily Gazette, May 2nd, 1871, the Rev. 0. Voysey
said: “ A being so necessarily unacquainted with the laws ofnature as Christ was could not have been the Lord of Nature ;and one th a t did not even know the earth was a globe could
scarcely have been its omnipotent Creator.” Such sentTments asthese, uttered by a professedly religious teacher, in total disregardof th e assurance of Job xxxvi., 4, th a t “ H e is perfect inknowledge,” to say the least, shock the sensibilities of th at divine
nature which every true Christian possesses. Christians feel keenly
th e insults oifered, in this too scientific age, to the memory of
Christ, whose heart they know to have been the truest andtenderest that ever throbbed, and his mind the most comprehensive,
and the purest of the pure. Jesus Christ once, speaking of heaven,calls it “ God’s throne, and the earth God’s footstool.” Would*

The earth travels at the rate of 68,000 m iles an hour.— Chambers’

Information for the People, vol. I., p. 12.

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

11

he have used this language of th e earth if it had been a globe
rolling away in space?* Certainly not. We say, with the good
M. St. Pierre, th at “ we respect Newton for his genius and virtues,
but we respect tru th much more. The Bible contains ideas of amuch sounder philosophy. ” B ut it is refreshing to be assured that
all erroneous ideas will ultimately give place to truth, according
to the word of Jesus when H e said : “ Every plant, which myheavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” Truly thelanguage of Scripture is inconsistent with the notion of the earth
being a revolving globe, but it is quite consistent with the idea ofits being a nearly motionless plane. Which then, gentle reader,
will you decide for—N ewtonian A steonomy oe the B ib ie ?
Mr. Gladstone has lately added his weighty testimony to thesad truthfulness of our statement, that some of our sciences andno little of our current literature have done much to bring theHoly Scriptures into contempt in the popular mind.
That
distinguished author, in an article in Good W ords,f says that, “ theconclusions of science, as to natural objects, have shaken or
destroyed the assertions of the early Scriptures.”W HY DOES A S H IP ’S H U LL D ISA PPEA R
BEFO RE TH E MAST?
This is simply explained by the natural and everywherevisible law of perspective. I n a case, such as the one referred toin Job xxxvii., 10., when “ by the breath of God frost is given,and the breadth of the waters is straightened,” the icy surface
would undoubtedly be horizontal, not convex.
*'
In a work on “ The Lighthouses of the W orld,” there is
the following remark :—“ The light on the Spurn Point Lighthouse,at the mouth of the Humber, has been seen thirty miles off.”
Now, according to the theory of curvature, the light would be,allowing for all deductions, 323 feet below the horizon ! A still
more startling statement appeared in the St. James’s Gazette ofJuly, 1886. “ A nearly extinct volcano which, capped with eternalsnow, towers over Teheran, may be seen at a distance of 200
miles ! ” I t is almost superfluous to state that these accounts areutterly at variance with the globular theory.
In the Girls’ Omi Paper, February 13th, 1886, under theheading “ Educational,” the Editor notices a paper sent to him by
an “ Enquirer ” unknown to us, “ calling in question the sphericalshape of the earth,” The Editor, apparently a little pufled up
by a fancied possession of a superior knowledge, says: “ If thistract had not been professedly Christian, and our correspondent
one who would appeal to the divinely-inspired Scriptures, weshould take no notice of either. B ut as one simple text, in supportof the facts above named, is not supposed by the writer to exist in
the Bible, we must refer him to Isaiah xl., 22, ‘ I t is he th a t sitteth*“ The earth’s orbit is 514,800,000 miles. Its speed is therefore 1 8 ^miles per second: forty-five tim es that of a cannon ball. The sun is 1%
m illion tim es the size of the earth. ” These are some of the inconceivable,
bewildering figures of modern astronomy.
t April, 1890.

NOTES AND BXTRAOTS.

on the circle of the earth.’ ” Did the learned Editor really thinkwe were ignorant of this passage ? Why did he not also quote
V. 28 of the same chapter?
“ The Lord, the Creator of the endsof the earth.” Evidently it was because he knew any reference tothe “ ends of the earth ” would spoil his own scientific interpretationof V. 22, for a circle has no ‘ ‘ ends. ” I t did not strike the Editor thata circle is not necessarily a globe ! The luminaries describe circles
in the heavens, the rainbow too, though we rarely see more thanan arc of it. The sun’s motion also, being concentric with thepolar centre, describes a circle upon the earth beneath. Judging
from the context, the meaning of the text quoted is more—He is
the supreme sovereign ruler of the earth, possessing attributes
th at cannot be adequately represented. The Editor then, over­flowing with wit, “ recommends his friends to take a few voyages
round the world, and observe the constellations above themchanging, and reappearing as they return to each starting point.”
B ut his argument proves nothing, because it is well known thatsimilar appearances would occur upon a plane ! H e next inquires
for “ what the Yankees call the jumping-off place.”
Now, theadventurous Editor may find a convement spot for a “ jumping-off ”
experiment in the Antarctic Ocean, called “ Termination Land.”
There is nothing hurtful in his criticism ; in fact, it is a little
amusing.

after the first thousand miles. * The following table will show,
at a glance, the amount of curvature, in round numbers, indifferent distances up to 1,000 miles ;—■Curvature in 1 statute mile, 8 inches.
32
2
11
6 feet.
3
•5
10 ii
4
)>
16 11
5
))
24 11
6
))
32 11
7
>>
42 11
8
);
54 11
9
11
66 11
10
11
20
266 11})30
600 11
1140
11 1,066 1150
11 1,666 1160
2,400 11))70
11 3,266 11
80f ) 4,266 11
90>) 5,400 11100
11 6,666 11
Many instances could be given of lights being visible atsea for distances which would be impossible upon a globular
surface of 25,000 miles in circumference. The following is one
exam ple;—The coal fire (which was once used) on the SpurnPoint Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which wasconstructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen thirty
miles off.
Allowing 16 feet for the altitude of the observer (which
is more than is considered necessary,! 10 feet being the standard ;but 6 feet may be added for the height of the eye above thedeck), 5 miles must be taken from the 30 miles, as the distanceof the horizon. The square of 5 miles, multiplied by 8 inches,
gives 416 feet ; deducting the altitude of the light (93 feet), we
have 323 feet as the amount this light should be hdow tlie horizon.
The above calculation is made on the supposition th at statute
miles are intended, but it is very probable that nautical measureis understood, and if so, the light would be depressed fully
600 feet (pp. 29, 30).
The completion of the great ship canal, which connects theMediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez, on the Red Sea, furnishes
another instance of entire discrepancy between the earth’s rotundity
and the results of practical engineering. The canal is 100 English
statute mUes in length, and is entirely without locks ; so that thewater within it is really a continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to
the Red Sea.
“ The average level of the Mediterranean is six
inches above the Red Sea; but the flood tides in the Bed Sea risefour feet above the highest, and its ebbs fall nearly three feet below
the lowest, in the Mediterranean. ” The datum line is twenty-six feetbelow the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally

The antediluvian earth was considered by the ancients tohave been a smooth, uniform plane, without mountains. Whether
this was the case or not, it is remarkable th at no mountains are
spoken of till the time of the Flood. This even plane, they say,
was broken into pieces at the Deluge, and sank into the abyss,when “ all the fountains of the great deep were opened.” Further,that when the earth, in its altered form, again rose to the surface,it had its present deformities and incommodiousness. And thesewill remain, subject to volcanic eruptions, till the great conflagration(II. Peter, iii., 10) that will precede the “ consummation devoutly
to be wished ”—the bringing in of another and happier order ofthings—“ new heavens and a new earth.” Christ, little esteemed
now in the world, will then be “ the joy of the whole earth.”A-

13

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

12

The zetetic process—which means, inquiry before conclusion,and is the only course that can lead to simple, unalterable tru th —is ably set forth in a remarkable book w ritten by a gentleman andscholar under the non de plume of “ Parallax,” a copy of whichshould be in every Public Library.
The work is entitled—“ EA RTH NOT A GLOBE.”
„
/
.

.

.

-Iii ■i ‘' .

EXTRACTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS FROM
“ P A R A L L A X ” AND O THER WRITERS,“ P arallax ” says: If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000
English statute miles in circumstance, the surface of all standing
water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must
be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will
exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile.
In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches ; in the third 72 inches,or six feet. In every mile, after the first, the curvature downwards
from the summit of an arc increases as the square of the distancemultiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified* A n y work on geometry or geodesy will furnish proofs of this declination.
t B y all the figures given is m eant the minimum distance from which
the ligh t can be seen in clear weather from a height of 10 feet above
the sea level.—Lighthouses of the World, pp. 9 and 32. Laurie, London.

14

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

from one sea to the other ; and throughout the whole length of thework the surface of the water runs parallel with this datum, as
shown in the following section, published by the authorities.

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

15

The hull of a ship is nearer to the water—the surface on
which it moves—than the mast-head ;Ergo, the hull of an outward-bound ship, must be thefirst to disappear.
This wiU be seen mathematically in the following diagram—
F ig. 3.

A A A , is the surface of the canal, passing through several
lakes, from one sea to the other ; D D, the bed of the canal, or
horizontal datum line to which the various elevations of land, &c.,
are referred, but parallel to which stands the surface of the water
throughout the entire length of the can al; thus proving that thehalf-tide level of the Red Sea, the 100 miles of water in the canal,
and the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, are a continuation of
one and the same horizontal line.
If the earth is globular, the water in the centre of the canal,
being fifty miles from each end, would be the summit of an arc of acircle, and would stand at more than 1,600 feet above theM editerranean and Red Sea (50“ X 8 inches = 1,666 feet 8 inches),
as shown in diagram,
F ia. 2.

A, the Mediterranean Sea ; B, the Red Sea ; and A C B,
the arc of water connecting th e m ; D D, the horizontal datum
which, if the earth is globular, would really be the chord of the arc
A OB.

The line A B represents the altitude of the m ast-head;
E H , of the observer ; and 0 D, of the horizontal surface of thesea. By the law of perspective, the surface of the water appears toascend towards the eye-line, meeting it at the point H , which is thehorizon. The ship appears to ascend the inclined plane 0 H, thehull gradually becoming less until, on arriving at the horizon H, it
is apparently so small th a t its vertical depth subtends an angle, atthe eye of the observer, of less than one minute of a degree, and it istherefore invisible ; whilst the angle subtended by the space between
the mast-head and the surface of the water is considerably morethan one minute, and therefore, although the hull has disappearedin the horizon as the vanishing point, the mast-head is still visible
above the horizon. B ut the vessel continuing to sail, the mast­
head gradually descends in the direction of the line A W, until at
length it forms the same angle of one minute at the eye of theobserver, and then becomes invisible.
The following outline sketch represents a contracted sectionof the London and N orth-W estern Railway from London to
Liverpool, through Birmingham.
F iq . 4.

R ight lines, running parallel w ith each other, appear to
approach in the distance.
The eye-line, and the surface of th e earth and sky, run parallelw ith each other ;Ergo, the earth and sky appear to approach in the
distance.
Lines which appear to approach in th e distance are parallellines.
The surface of the earth appears to approach the eye-line ;Ergo, the surface of th e earth is parallel with theeye-line.
The eye-line is a right line.
The surface of the earth is parallel, or equi-distant;Ergo, the surface of the earth is a right line—a plane.
That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface
upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes invisible
before the parts which are further away from such surface.

The line A B is the surface, with its various inclines andaltitudes, and 0 D is the datum line, from which all the elevations
are measured ; H is the station at Birmingham, the elevation ofwhich is 240 feet above the datum Une 0 D, wliich line is acontinuation of the level of the river Thames at D, to the level of theriver Mersey at 0. The direct length of the line is 180 miles ;and it is a right or absolutely straight line, in a vertical sense, from
London to Liverpool. Therefore, the station at Birmingham is
240 feet above the level of the Thames, continued in a right line

16

17

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

NOTES AND BXTBACTS.

throughout the -whole length of the railway. But, if the earth
is a globe, the datum line will be the chord of the arc D D D,

lead, and bend it to the form of this path ; and, after making it
straight, measure its length as compared with the parallel oflatitude between the places.
The result will fully satisfy theexperimenter th at this view of great circle sailing is contrary toknown geometrical principles. The great circle sailing is not the
shortest route possible, but merely shorter than several otherroutes which have been theoretically suggested and adopted ; andto affirm th at the results are confirmatory or demonstrative of theearth’s rotundity is in the highest degree illogical (pp. 269-284).

F ia. 5.

DATUM LINE 180 MILES.

and the summit of th e arc at D, will be 5,400 feet above thechord 0 ; added to the altitude of the station H , (240 feet), theBirmingham station (H) would be, if the earth is a globe, 5,640 feetabove the horizontal datum D D , or vertically above the Trinity
high-water mark at London Bridge.
I t is found practically, and in fact, not to be more than
240 feet ; hence, the theory of rotundity m ust be a fallacy.
Sections of all other railways will give similar proofs that the earth
is in reality a plane (p. 47).
GREAT CIRCLE SAILING.
Among landsmen a great amount of misconception prevails
as to what is really meant by the so-called “ great circle sailing,”
and notwithstanding th at the subject is very imperfectly under­stood, the “ pro ject” or hypothesis—for it is nothing more—isoften very earnestly advanced as an additional proof of the earth’s
rotundity. But, like all the other “ proofs” which have been
given, there is no necessary connection between the facts adduced
and the theory sought to be proved. Although professional
mariners are familiar with several modes of navigation, “ parallelsailing,” “ plane sailing,” “ traverse sailing,” “ middle latitude
sailing,” “ Mercator sailing,” and “ great circle sailing,”
the “ M ercator” and “ great circle” methods are now thefavourites. Many persons suppose that the words “ great circle
sailing ” simply mean th at the mariner, instead of sailing in a
direct line from one place to another, on the same latitude, takes acircuitous path to the south or north of this direct line, where thedegrees of longitude being smaller, the distance passed over,although apparently greater, is actually less. I t is then falsely
argued that, as “ the greatest distance round is the nearest path,” thedegrees of longitude mitst be smaller, and therefore th e earth
must be a globe. This is another instance of the self-deception
practised by many of the advocates of rotundity. The contraction
or convergence of the degrees of longitude beyond the equator is
unproved ; and again, if they were convergent there could not bea single inch of gain in taking a so-called great circle course
between any two places east and west of each other. Let the following
experiment be tried in proof of this statem en t:—On an artificial
globe mark out a great circle path, between, say. Cape Town
and Sydney, or Valparaiso and Cape Town. Take a strip of sheet

STATIONS AND DISTANCES
The author of “ Lessons in Elementary Astronom y” says(p. 15)—“ The most complete proof th at the earth is a globe
consists in th e fact th at travellers over the surface, whether by sea
or land, always find the distance between different stations exactly
such as agree with th e calculated distances.”
The above sentence is such a compound of childish fable,
and either unwarrantable assurance or ignorance, th at were it not
th at the author is an ardent and extensive but not a careful orover-scrupulous writer, in defence of the Newtonian astronomy, it
would really be unworthy of criticism. I t is one of those utterances
which indicate a desperate determination to support a cause at all
hazards, and without regard to any evidence b u t such as agrees
with a foregone conclusion. So great is the number of those who
advocate the earth’s rotundity, who do not hesitate to show thesame spirit, th at it is really a difficult thing to feel th at respect forthem which persons who merely differ in opinion ought at all times
to show and feel towards each other. W hat can be m.ore misleading,or illogical, or even more the reverse of fact, than to say that“ travellers always find the distance between different stations
exactly such as agree with the calculated distances, and therefore
the earth is a globe 1” A mariner at sea, coming in contact withnew land, immediately ascertains the latitude by taking the sun’s
altitude at noon, and the longitude by the local meridian time inrelation to the meridian time at Greenwich. Neither the altitudeof the sun, nor the time by chronometer, has any logical connection
with the shape of the earth. I t is true elements connected withthe supposition of the earth’s rotundity may be mixed up withthe mode of finding latitude and fixing longitude ; and anyone
may afterwards readily find the places again by sailing until the
sun’s altitude and the time by chronometer are the same as
those first published, when, of course, they must have arrived at
the same position, whether the earth is a globe or a plane. I t is
altogether wrong to say th a t places, either on land or sea, arefound by calculation, except that when places have already beenfound, and their latitudes and longitudes given, calculation—whichis merely the use of formulse resulting from previous observation—
may be used to find them again. But, primarily and essentially,
places are found by observation, and not by calculation. I f any
one will read the reports of the leading circumnavigators andtravellers of different countries, they will find many instanceswhere calculation has failed to agree with observations, and whererenewed observations have had to be made before anything likethe proper position of places in the maps could be fixed. In them ajority of instances, where calculations, even when mixed up
with some amount of observation, have been relied on, errors have

18

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

T he s u n ’s p a t h
MONTHS a l t b e n a t e l y .

expands

andc o n te a c ts

19

NOTES AND BXTEACIS.

been found. The following passage is quoted from “ South Sea
Voyages,” by Captain R oss; vol. 1., p. 2 85;—“ By noon
(March 9th, 1840) we were in latitude 64° 20' S., and longitude
164° 20' E., and therefore about seventy miles north of the land
laid down by Lieutenant Wilkes, and not far from the spot fromwhich he must have supposed he saw i t ; but having now searched
for it at a distance varying from fifty to seventy miles from it, tothe north, south, east, and west, as well as having sailed directly
over its assigned position, we were compelled to infer th a t it has noreal existence.”bahy

fo b , s ix

This is a m atter of absolute certainty,
proved by what is called, in technical language, the northernand southern declination, which is simply saying that the sun’s
path is nearest th e polar centre in summer, and farthest awayfrom it in winter. Thus, day and night, long and short days
and nights, morning and evening twilight, winter and summer,
the long periods of alternate light and darkness at the northernor polar centre of the earth, arise from the expansion andcontraction of the sun’s path ; and are all a part of one and thesame general phenomenon (pp. 108—115).
F ig . 6.

Showing the earth a plane surrounded by ice and the sun
moving over it.

The sun describes the circle A on the 21st of December
in one day, or 24 hours. Hence, in th at period, mid-day andmid-night, and morning and evening twilight, occur to every
part of the earth, except within the arctic circle, N. There it ismore or less in darkness for several months in succession, or
until the sun, by gradually coming nearer to the inner circle,
throws his light more and more over the centre. A t every
place underneath a line drawn across the circle of the sun’slight (which radiates equally in all directions) it is noonday;
and beyond the northern centre, on the same line, it is midnight.
From the 21st of December the sun’s path begins to contract
every day for six months, until the 21st of June, when it reaches
the inner circle B, and it is evident that the same extent ofsunlight as that which radiates from the outer circle A, willreach over or beyond the northern centre N, when morning,
noon, evening, and night occur as before ; but the light con­tinuing, during the daily motion of the sun, to reach over thenorthern centre, th at centre will be continually illuminated forseveral months together, as before it was in constant darkness.
T h e t e u e d i s t a n c e o f t h e s t j n may be readily and mostaccurately ascertained by the simplest possible process.
The
operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no
uncertainty, and requires no modification or allowance for probableinfluences. This method of measuring distances applies equallyto the moon and stars ; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place
it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises
are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than thesun, and th at all the visible luminaries in the firmament arecontained within a vertical distance of 1,000 statute miles.

From which it unavoidably follows that the magnitude of thesun, moon, stars, and comets is comparatively small—much smaller
than the earth from which they are measured, and to which,therefore, they must of necessity be secondary and subservient.
They cannot, indeed, be anything more than “ centres of action,”
throwing down light and chemical products upon the earth(pp. 99—104).
Q u e e y :—How is i t t h e e a e t h i s n o t
ILLUMINATED ALL OVER ITS suEFA C E ?— First, if

r

a t

a ll

tim e sno atmosphere
existed no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the wholeearth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could notexist. Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere ofmany miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases
downwards to the surface, all the rays of the light, except thosewhich are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air, arearrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent
downwards towards the earth ; and as this takes place in all
directions round the sun — equally where density and otherconditions are equal, and vice versd—the effect is a comparatively
distinct disc of sunlight (p. 123).
I t has been demonstrated th at the earth is a plane, thesurface-centre of which is immediately underneath the starcalled, “ Polarisand the extremities of the earth are bounded bya vast region of ice and water, and irregular masses of land, which

20

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

bear evidence of fiery origin and action. The whole terminates info^ and darkness, where snow and driving hail-piercing sleet andboistpous winds, howling storms, madly mounting waves, andclashing icebergs are almost constant (p. 177).
Vasco de Gama says, in his “ Voyages to the S o u th ”_
The waves rise like mountains in h e ig h t; ships are heaved up to
the clouds, and apparently precipitated by circling whirlpools tothe bed of the ocean.
The winds are piercing cold, and soboisterous th at the pilot’s voice can seldom be heard, whilst a
dismal and almost continual darkness adds greatly to the danger.”
How far in the gloom and darkness of the south thiswilderness of storm and battling elements extends there is atpresent no evidence. All that we can say is th at man, with all his
mightiest daring and power of endurance, has only succeeded inreaching the threshold of this restless, dark, and forbidding regionof the material world.
The earth rests upon and within thewaters of the “ great deep.” I t is a vast floating island, buoyed
up by the waters, and held in its place by long “ spurs ” of landshooting into the icy barriers of the southern circumference.
Geological researches demonstrate th at it was originally a stratified
structure, definite and regular in form and extent, and that all the
confused and irregular formations observable in every part haveresulted from internal convultions (pp. 179-180).
The southern region of the earth is not central, but
circum ferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, nosouth polar star, and no southern circumpolar constellations. All
statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known
facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence (p. 290).
Mr. Elliott, an American aeronaut, in a letter giving an
account of his ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of theappearance of the earth from a balloon:— “ I don’t know th at I
ever hinted heretofore that the aeronant may well be the most
sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth.
Philosophy
imposes the tru th upon us ; b ut the view of the earth from theelevation of a balloon is th at of an immense terrestrial basin, thedeeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. As we
ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede, while the horizon
gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away
farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems
to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aeronaut feels
as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue
oceanic concave above, and the equally expanded terrestrial
basin below.”
The zetetic process forbids that, because an assumption of
the earth’s rotundity and diurnal motion seem to explain certain
phenomena, therefore the assumption becomes, and must be
admitted to be, a fact. This is intolerable, even in an abstract
sense, but in practice must be unconditionally repudiated.

NOTES AND EXTBACTS.

ANALOGY IN FAVOUR OF ROTUNDITY21

CRITICISED.

To those who are not strictly logical, a favourite “ argument ”
in support of the earth’s globular form is “ th at as all theheavenly bodies are worlds, and visibly round, may not the earth
be so necessarily, seeing it is one of the same category 1 ” This is
only seemingly plausible. In reality it is a piece of self-deception.
I t must be proved th at the stars are worlds ; and to do this, or to
make it even possible th a t they are so, it must be proved thatthey are millions of miles distant from the earth, and from eachother, and hundreds or thousands of miles in diameter. By
plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured
base lines, it has been demonstrated—placed beyond all power ofdoubt—th at the sun, moon, stars, comets, and meteors of every
kind, are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from thesea level of the earth ; th at therefore they are very small objects,
therefore, not worlds, and therefore, from analogy, offer no logicalreason or pretext for concluding th at this world is globular (p. 300.)
The Copernican or Newtonian theory of astronomy is an‘ ‘ absurd composition of tru th and error ; ” and as admitted by
its founder, “ not necessarily true, nor even probable; ” thatinstead of its being a general conclusion derived from known
and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound of assumed
premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in nature.
Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance whereina phenomenon is explained, a calculation made, or a conclusion
advanced, without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption !
The very construction of a theory at all, but especially such as
the Copernican, is a complete violation of that natural andlegitimate mode of investigation to which the term “ Z etetic”
has been applied. The doctrine of the universahty of gravitation
is a pure assumption, made only in accordance with th at “ pride
and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneaththem to oifer anything less to the world than a complete andfinished system of nature.” I t was said, in effect, by Newton,
and has ever since been insisted upon by his disciples: “ Allowus, without proof, which is impossible, the existence of two
universal forces—centrifugal and centripetal, or attraction andrepulsion—and we will construct a theory which shall explain
all the leading phenomena and mysteries of nature.” An apple
falling from a tree, or a stone rolling downwards, and a pailof water tied to a string and set in motion, were assumed
to be types of the relations existing among all the bodies
in the universe. The moon was assumed to have a tendency
to fall towards the earth, and the earth and moon together towards
the sun. The same relation was assumed to exist between all thesmaller and larger luminaries in the firm am ent; and it soon became
necessary to extend these assumptions to affinity. The universe
was parcelled out into systems—co-existent and illimitable. Suns,planets, satellites, and comets were assumed to exist infinite innumber and boundless in e x te n t; and to enable the theorists to
explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, whichwere everywhere observable, these numberless and for-everextending objects were assumed to be spheres. The earth we
inhabit was called a planet, and because it was thought to bereasonable that the luminous objects in the firmament, which were23

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

NOTES AND EXTRACTS.

called planets, were spherical and had motion, so it was only
reasonable to suppose that as the earth was a planet it must also
be spherical and have motion—ergo, the earth is a globe, andmoves upon axes and in an orbit round the sun ! And as the earth
is a globe and is inhabited, so again it is only reasonable to conclude
that the planets are worlds like the earth, and are inhabited bysentient beings. W hat reasoning ! W hat shameful perversionof intellectual gifts ! The very foundation of this complicatedtheory is false, incapable of proof, and contrary to known
possibilities. The human mind cannot possibly conceive of its
tru th and application. To assume the existence of two opposite,
equal, universal forces is to seek to make true things or ideas
which are necessarily contradictory; to make black and white,
hot and cold, up and down, life and death, and tru th andfalsehood, one and the same. Can anyone by any known
possibility conceive of two opposite equal powers, acting
simultaneously, producing change of position or motion in thatwhich is thus acted upon? Do not two opposite forces, whenequal in intensity and operating at the same moment, neutralize
each other ? There is nothing in practical science to gainsay
this conclusion; and in the earliest days of the Newtonian
astronomy this contradiction was quickly perceived, but as theassumption was an essential part of the system it was not
rejected. An attem pt was made to overcome th e fatal objectionthat from two opposite equal forces, acting simultaneously on
the earth, no motion whatever could arise, by the further
assumption th a t when the earth was first made, the Creator
threw it out into space, at right angles to the two forces
which had been assumed to exist universally, and that, then the
conjoint action of attraction and repulsion, with the “ primitive
impulse,” resulted in a parabolic orbit round the sun (pp. 547—
349).

To thpse who possess a copy of “ Pjirallax ” ’s book it isj
as the author himself says, “ most important to the reader thathe should thoroughly understand the bearings of the various
explanations which have been given of the phenomena which the
Newtonian philosophers have hitherto relied on as proofs of their
hypotheses. They have assumed certain conditions to exist inorder to explain certain phenomena ; and because the explanationsof such phenomena have appeared plausible, they have thoughtthemselves justified in concluding that their assumptions must be
looked upon as veritable facts. The contrary, or Zetetic process,has necessitated that the foundations be demonstrated ; that theearth be proved by special and direct experiments to be a plane,
irrespective of all consequences, regardless of whether numerous
or any phenomena can be understood in connection with it or not.
if. jf. Wherever doubt shall exist as to the sufficiency of thephenomenal explanations offered, the mind must at once fall backupon the grand reserved proposition th at water is horizontal, and,
therefore, any want of satisfaction in explaining phenomena must
be met by further efforts in th at direction, and not by the mentallysuicidal process of denouncing a proved foundation.”22

I t will scarcely be believed th at La Place (La Place leGrand) actually entered into an elaborate calculation with a view
to determine a t what particular point the Creator held the earth
at the time of giving the grand push, and that, after a mostprofound investigation he arrived at the sublime and never-tobe-forgotten conclusion, that, when the primitive impulse was
imparted, the earth was held exactly twenty-five miles from thec e n tre; “ and hence,” quoth La Place, “ the earth revolved
upon her axis in twenty-four hours.” If she had been held alittle nearer to the centre, our days would have been longer,
and if a little further off, she would have revolved with greater
velocity, and our days would have been shorter.— Electrical
Theonj of the Universe, by T. S. Mackintosh.
F or the learning, the patience, th e perseverance, anddevotion for which philosophers have ever been examples, honour
and applause need not be withheld ; b ut their false reasoning,
the advantages they have taken of the general ignorance ofmankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and the unfoundedtheories they have advanced and defended, cannot be otherwise
than regretted, and ought to be by every possible means uprooted(p. 351).

The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, butfrom prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions,or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities.—Million o f
Facts, by Sir Richard Phillips (p. 358).
No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; andthe calculations may be made with great accuracy independent of
every theory.—Somerville’s Physical Sciences (p. 46).
The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun
moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night
when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent
invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then ; the newlaw of perspective, by which the vanishing of th e hull before themast, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it
f l a t ; all these and other things are well fitted to form excercisesin learning the elements of astronomy.
“ Parallax,” thoughconfident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those
whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience.
—Augustus de Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge
University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.B.A .S.
Athenceum Journal, October 12th, 1872.
In Christian circles it is acknowledged th at there is no real
harmony between Modern Astronomy and the Holy Scriptures,
while the “ Zetetic Philosophy” is steadily gaining favour withthe people.

TH E" j o u r n a l ” PK IN TIN G WORKS, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM.