th e

72

earth

T h e Zetetic's

Open

Column.

The questions in this coltimn are open for Zetetics to rejjly to.
Our line o f sight is always half way up
Questions unanswered, Kos, 2 and 3.
our circle o f vision, and in projxirtion to
A n s w e r (4). Because by the opera­
the height of the line of sight, so is thetion of the natural law of perspective, distance greater to the horizon. Whenassociated with the peculiar construction ships and other objects are beyond theof the eye, objects ie/ow the line of sight observer’s horizon, the lower parts areascend to the level of the eye line, while hidden, therefore to see them, it requires
olijects ahove appear to descend to the a higher line of sight, obtained by as­eye line. A t the junction of the lines an cending to a greater elevation from where
acute angle is formed, beyond which we also obtain a more distant horizon.
objects cannot be further discerned with­ In perspective, receding lines appear toout a greater optica! power, or an in­ converge to the point o f sight, which iscrease of altitude which gives a propor­
level with the eye of the observer.
tionate increase o f angle.
See E. R.,
T h o m a s W h it t l e ,No. 4, p. 1 to 4.
J. A t k i n s o n .
Q u e s t i o n (5).
How is it that when
, A n sw e r (4). When a person goes up there is a lunar eclipse the shadow isa mountain, or up in a balloon, the line always round ?
of sight really rises, but the horizon, orQ ubst Ion (6). How is day and nightboundary line, only seems io rise higher formed if the world is not a globe ?
and higher, and as the height increases,
C. R. E.
the horizon becomes more distant.

\i

P R A C T IC A L F A C T S v. MODERN ASTRO N O M Y.
Evidently we have not got at the bottom of the matter yet ! In August, 1890,■
the C Manoeuvre Fleet signalled with search lights to colliers seventy miles away.
This was some 500 miles south of the Azores, and on a fairly clear night; and theinformation comes from Mr. F. T. Jane, the artist who was on board at the tuue.
Pearson's Weekly, December 29, 1894.
A

L U R C H IN G

Q U ESTIO N .

Does the leaving of the Globe in the lurch ofcause it to be in .1 difficult
position. If not, what hinders it from lurching over to 90®?

H IS F A T H E R H ELPED .
Whilst walking down a street the other day, I overheard the following conversation
between two urchins :“ I tell yer Bill, yer dttnno nothin’ about it,” said the first; the world goes rovmd
and round on its axle just like the wheels of a cart, and it’s worked by the blokes iii
the prisons where they have to tread big wheels to make it go round. ”‘ ‘ Garn! Who yer getting at ? ” cried the second,“ I tell yer it’s truth,” repUed the first, in a virtuously indignant tone at havinjJ
his testimony disbelieved. “ I reckon I ougiit to know when my father’s been
there.”I

THE

l^EVIEW.

E/I1^TP-not a globe.^E Y IE W .
When the majestic fo rm o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster, E rror, hangs its head in silence.

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.
N o. 4 (N e w S e r i e s ).

J U L Y , 1895.

P r ic e

2 ^'T H E EARTH AN IRREGULAR PLANE.
By W IL L IA M TH O M AS W ISEM A N , F .R .G .S ., etc.
The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds,
tides, earthquakes, etc., is perfectly level. The sense of sight proves this to
every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. Can any so-called scientist, who teaches
that the Earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round,and so make rotundity ? He cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to provethat an Ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through“ space” at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.
When a youth, I stood upon the Dover shore of the English Channel, andwas told to watch a departing ship. “ Seel There she goes; down, down,
down ! The hull has disappeared ! She is out of sight! Now, my boy, youhave had an occular demonstration that the world is round (meaning globular
in shape) A N D S E E IN G IS B E L IE V IN G .” I walked up to an “ old salt”
who had a telescope, and said : “ Can you see that big ship through your glass
that’s gone down the Channel, and is now out’ of sight?” “ Yes, my son,I^ook !” The big ship immediately came into view again, as I peered throughthe old sailor’ s glass ! “ Why ! my -----told me the Earth was round, becausethat ship I can now see had turned down over the horizon!’’ “ A ha! aha!
sonny, I know they all says it ! Now, I have been all over the world, but I
never believed it. But, then, I have no learning, only my senses to rely upon,and I says SE EIN G IS B E L IE V IN G .”I now, after many years, endorse the old sailor’s e.xperience, that the world is
not a globe, and I have never found the man who could prove by any practicaldemonstration that he, or I, are living on a whirling ball of Earth and water !
How is it that the atmosphere goes round with it ? By what law does the detise
Earth and the rare air rush around together? Declare, ye scientists, IF YOU
KN O W ! The Scriptures of God’s inspired Prophets contradicts the unreason­
able, illogical, unscientific delusion, and false philosophy, that the jixed Earthis a hollow fireball with several motions !
There is an old adage, hy which you can Jix them,
There i^ not one lie true, no, not i f yoit pick them.^^B IB LIC A L COSMOGRAPHY v. TECH N IC A L EDUCATION.
74

BIBLICALTH E

EA RTHCOSM O GRAPH Y v. T E C H N IC A L
EDUCATION.

Me. H o p e , D e a r S i r , — Having just read the account in last week’s South­
ampton Observer of your sermon on the previous Sunday, wherein you guarantee£,200 for “ one single portion of Scripture ” in support of Sunday Observance, youwill excuse me if I venture to offer you the same amount for one verse that willshow you are justified in teaching (as a Bible truth) the man-made theory of theearth being a revolving globe.
You will, I think, agree with me in saying that ministers of any denomination
who profess to believe the truth, ought to be careful to avoid those theories ofagnostics and others which directly contradict the plain statements of God’s Word.
The danger of the course usually followed is seen in the recent declaration ofT. H. Huxley, who, as a believer in the globular form of the earth, declares the
Scriptural statement of the deluge to be a “ pure fiction and a physicalimpossibility. ’ ’
Is it surprising that many are openly denying the Scriptural account of theCreation ?
All who refuse the light which God has given them are, asyouhaveso often
remarked, preferring the traditions of men which make void the Word of Truth.
Trusting you will further study this subject without prejudice.
Yours Respectfully,
J. F . S h e p p a r d .
( M r . H o p e ’ s re p l)'.)D e a r M r . S h e p p a r d , — Your letter offering me £'2.oa for a text of Scripture
which says the earth is round, came to me in due time. If I were a betting man
I might with as much reason offer you the same amount for a text which says it isflat, for the Bible is obviously silent upon such points. You are mistaken in sayingthat I teach “ as a Bible truth ” that the earth is a globe. That is a geographicalfact, not a “ Bible truth ; ” for the Bible is not a text book of science, but it deals
with our manner of life, and is God’s revelation of His will to us to make us wise
unto salvation, which distinction you do not seem to comprehend.
Whether a man thinks the earth to be round, or square, or flat, or any othershape, is merely a matter of technical education in physical geography, and has
little to do with his moral integrity. You say the globular idea is “ man-made.”
What of that ? So is the house I live in, and nearly all things with which I haveto do. It is quite right they should be, for God wants men to use the intelligence
He has given them. This is also true of all scientific knowledge. The circulationof the blood for instance is a “ man-made theory,” but it is none the less true forthat. Would you respect me any more if I went about offering ;^200 for a text
which says so, and then because no such text exists, repudiate the whole thing as
a “ man-made theory?” God wishes us to study His works and find out things
pertaining to them not revealed in His written Word. The works of God declare
the Gospel as much as the Bible , what we learn from the one is science, andfrom the other “ Bible Truths.” and both of course are in harmony, for both are
the Word of God.
Now about some of the expressions upon which you rely for your ideas. The
Bible was written for common people, and its language is such as is generally
understood and used by the people, so we have such idioms as the sun rising, themoon giving her light, the stars falling, hearts breaking, &c. These were given
as well understood expressions, and not as bold statements of scientific facts, norll75

REVIEW .
are they to be judged by the modern refinements of astronomy. To string a lot ofsuch statements together, especially taken from the poetical books, and to dub
them “ Bible Astronomy ” is to my mind wresting the Word of God.
Why not be consistent and study all branches of knowledge that way?
Anatomy for instance. There is an old gentleman here who believes that a man
thinks with his heart, and not with his head, for he says the Bible says so. No
doubts he would give you £'21X1 to produce a text which says a man thinks withhis brains, and as you cannot, to be consistent you certainly ought to reject such
an abominable man-made theory. Then you could go on with your study ofphysiology and learn the startling piece of medical information that a clever man’sheart is on tVie right side, but a foolish man’s on the left (Eccles. x, 2), andthat some men have a double heart like the Dugong (i Chron. xii, 33), andthat in certain countries the heart melts (Josh, xiv, v. 8), and upon one occasion
The heart you would also
David’s heart up and struck him (I Sam. xxiv, 15).
find is the real organ of speech, and often the skin of the teeth would be aninteresting field for scientific research. So you might go on, ad. lib., and one
could spend a lifetime on this one biblical membrane, and putting all these ex­pressions together in a leaflet, call it “ Bible Physiology,” and with it go on a
warfare against all other man-made medical theories. On the same lines you
could get up a very interesting tract upon “ Bible Botany.” But what would it all
be? Just a ridiculous juggle of words and play upon idioms, and you would
certainly be making a very wrong use of the word of God, and would receive nolife from it. In the little tract you sent me called “ Bible Astronomy,” you haveprecisely the same thing.
I think we often mistake what truth is. We get the idea that it is some state­ment of facts or dogma or creed, whereas the truth is only the Life of Jesus.
He is the truth, and the man who knows Jesus knows the truth, irrespective of his
knowledge of other facts, and he who does not know Jesus does not know thetruth, even though he has a knowledge of every other fact, and is well posted andsound on all points of the faith (or the creed). The great mistake we are always
making, and which Satan would have us make, is gloating over some wretchedlittle quibble and thinking so much of it that it oversteps all else and becomes to
us “ the truth.” It is so with this flat earth craze, and as far as my experience
goes, it has hurt everyone who has taken it up, and led some directly out of thethird angel’s message. By their fruits ye shall know them, and I would rather
steer clear of anything that I see leads away from God. There is no harm in any
one believing that the earth is flat, but when that person gets the idea that it is“ thetruth,” and must be accepted in order to be saved, then it becomes a deadly
thing for it is in the place of Jesus.
Yours very Truly,
F r a n c is H o p e .
(M r . S h e p p a r d ’ s

reply.)

D e a r M r . H o p e , — Your reply to my letter received with thanks.
It will not
be necessary for me to take up either your time or mine in carrying on a lengthy
discussion upon the subject forming the basis of our correspondence, but I should
like, briefly, to notice a few of the arguments advanced with the object of showingthat I am mistaken in my opinions upon a certain question which you appear toregard as one of minor importance, although the opinions you hold upon it are
entirely contradictory to the plain statements of the Inspired Word of God.
Having yourself guaranteed ;^'200 if a certain text could be found, I felt justi­
fied in offering you the same amount for one Bible text in support of the theory

76

TH E

EA R T H

REVIEW .

that the earth is a “ revolving globe.” In response, you make the observation,that “ if you were a betting man ” you might with as much reason offer me thesame amount for a text which says it is “ flat.”
Now I do not suppose that when yon offered or advertised a reward of £200
for a text which you felt assured could not be found, that you were in danger ofbeing regarded as “ a betting man,” and I know you won’t suspect me as being
one of the “ betting fraternity ” because I have followed your.example at least in
one respect. It is quite true that the earth is not “ flat ” as you are pleased toexpress it. I have never said it was. No sane man could believe the earth to be“ flat” in the literal sense of the term. Why you should import the word
“ flat ” in connection with this discussion you may best be able to decide. The
hills, the valleys, the mountains, the earth itself— being, as the Bible expresses it,
standing out of the water, and in the water,” 2 Pet. iii., S, the foundations beinglaid that it should not be mmed for ever Psalm civ., 5, R . V . , established andit abideth or standeth Psalm cxix, 90, margin. These and many other passages
are sufficient to show that the earth is not “ flat,” and by your introduction of thephrase you are apparently attempting to make much ado about nothing.
The Bible is not “ obviously silent ” upon certain facts that are clear enoughto any unprejudiced mind ; facts which clearly define the true, in contradistinction
to the false theories w h i c h you was taught in your school-days. You profess tohave discarded the teachings of men who have turned from the truth and believed
fables, and you embrace every opportunity in public of showing how many ofthese fables have found their way into “ the Church,” Why then do you returnand teach one of the most unreasonable-of these fables? viz., Modern Astronomy— a theory which has undermined or shaken the faith of multitudes in the scrip­
tural account of the creation ?
You proceed, however, to deny that you teach as a “ Bible truth,” that theearth is “ a globe.” You say it is “ a geographical fact,” not “ a Bible truth,”for “ the Bible is not a text book of science,” &c. But if I a m “ mistaken,” asyou say, in saying that you regard yaur opinions on these matters as “ Biljle
truths,” the mistake, such as it is, rests (in a sense) upon your own shoulders ;for you have repeatedly declared in public that you preached nothing contrary to
the teachings of God’s Word, and I was therefore fully justified, when hearing
you declare at a Sunday afternoon meeting that the earth was “ a globe,” re­volving round its axis every 24 hours— I was justified in believing that you con­sidered yotir opinions on the subject to be in harmony with the Word of God.
You admit that the ix>pular idea about “ the globe,” is «o/a Bible truth, but
simply a “ geographical fact.” Well, if you feel called upon to support “ geo­
graphical facts ” which directly contradict “ Biblical facts,” you should be willingto acknowledge that there is great danger in following such a course. Our “ faithshould not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” — i Cot. ii, 5.
You say “ the Bible is not a text book of science.” It is certainly not a text
book of that science falsely so-called, against which the Apostle warns us : that“ science,” the teachings of which has caused many to err from the faith.
1 Tim. vi, 20, 21.
Is it not a pity that you should prefer the “ traditions of Imen.” who, by theiradvocacy of the “ globular,” or “ revolving” globe theory, openly deny the
Mosaic account of Creation, and the possibility of the deluge? An extract from apaper called the Present Day Atheist reads as follows :— “ If Moses can be shewn
to be caught red-handed in ignorance or error, what shall we think of the Christ
who quoted and referred to him as an authority ? ” Let me ask you, Mr. Hope,to consider the motive and the meaning underlying those words.

1 11

'

BIBLIC A L COSMOGRAPHY v T E C :iX IC A L EDUCATION.

77

You contend that whether a man thinks the earth to be roimd or square or flat,or any other shape, ■is merely a matter of technical education in physical geo­
graphy and has little to do with his “ moral integrity.”
The subject of “ moral integrity ” has not been introduced by me, and yourobservation upon this point is therefore entirely uncalled for ; but “ moral in­
tegrity” from its highest and noblest ideal will not allow “ geographical fact,”
so-called, or “ technical education ” to nullify the Word of God.
In reply to my assertion that the “ globular ” theory is “ man-made,” you ask
me “ what of that ? ” If it originated in the mind of man it is a “ man-madetheory ; ” and as the vain imaginations of men contradict the statements of Scrip­
ture, and you are a candid and an honest enquirer for truth, and believe in the
superiority of the geographical laws that emanate from divine wisdom, you will
unhesitatingly accept the divine ruling, and will not allow the reasonings of“ scientific” men to assist in the spread of agnosticism or any other “ ism ” ofsimilar origin.
You proceed in your line of argument by the adoption of a “ similey” which
certainly is a little amusing. You say, “ so is the house I live in man-made.”
True ; but God gave man the intelligence which enabled him to understand build­ing houses. But when God created the earth, when He commanded and it stood
fast, Psalm xxxiii, 9, the Creator did not need the “ intelligence” or the help ofman, and the comparison you draw, between what was pre-eminently the work of
God and that which God intended to be the work of man, is hard.y to the point.
The next statement is to the effect that “ the circulation of the blood ” is a manmade theory, but it is none the less true for that!
Now considering the fact that the organism of the human body and the circula­tion of the blood must have originated in no other than the mind of God (“ inwhom we live, and move, and have our being,” ) it is simply inconceivable howyou, sir, can without hesitation, declare it to be a “ man-made theory.” Whenthe circulation of the blood was supposed to be first discovered, it was undoubtedly
regarded as a very wonderful discovery indeed, but the fact was known by an all­wise Creator from the beginning. We learn from the Youths' Instructor, Jan.
12, 1893, that the originator of the theory that the earth is round (not flat) was
probably Thales of Miletus, about 640 B .C . Will Mr. Hope venture to say “ it isnone the less true for all that ? ” It is not difficult to discern tbe fact that thetheory of “ Thales ” has been very favourably received by wise men of later ages.
Next you say, “ God wishes us to study his works and find out things pertaining
la'Caan not revealed in H is Word." You will remember that when Zophar re­proved Job for justifying himself, the question was asked “ can’st thou by search­
ing find out God ? Job xi, 7. Some men are endeavouring not to search out
God, but to dig out, from the maze of man-made mysteries, as many “ theories ”
of human knowledge that will aid them in exalting the wisdom of men above thatof their maker.
Again you say “ the works of God declare the Gospel as much as the Bible ;what we learn from the one is science, and from the other Bible truths, and bothare of course in harmony, for both are the Word of God.” It is certainly truethat God’s word and works harmonize absolutely ; but it is an incontrovertible
fact that what so-called science teaches to-day, is to an alarming extent under­
mining and lessening faith in the supremacy of the Word of God !
In my former letter I called your attention to an expression from a volume byProfessor T. H. Huxley entitled Science and Hebrew Tradition, I will now quote
it verbatim ;— “ The origin of the present state of the heavens and the earth is a

B IB LIC A L COSMOGRAPHY v. TECH N IC A L EDUCATION.
78

THE

EA RTHREVIEW .

problem which lies strictly within the province of physical science. Whether theearth moves round the sun or the contrary— all these are purely scientific questions,and to all of them the Canonical S c r i p t u r e s t o give true answers. Not only
do I hold it to be proven that the story of the deluge is a pure fiction, but I haveno hesitation in affirming the same thing of the story of the creation. The deluge
as described is a physical impossibility ! ” Now you, Mr. Hope, will I am sureadmit that such an affirmation (absolutely void of any proof !— E d .) as the one
just quoted, cannot fail to have the effect of throwing very serious reflections upon
the accuracy and inspiration of Holy Writ. There are many truth seekers in thepresent day who are beset with doubts and difficulties that they would gladly havedispelled , but if you or any other professing C h ristian persist in preferring certain
theories of men (in any way whatever) which are at variance with the testimonyof Scripture, such a course of procedure cannot but tend to assist in the spread ofthose principles which will inevitably lead to doubt and unbelief.
Again, in referring to the works and word of God, you believe that ‘ ‘ what welearn from the one is science, and from the other Bible truths, and that both are
in harmony. ” This is a statement easily made, but it m aybe easily misunder­stood. From man’ s definition of the works o f God, contradictory deductions are
frequently drawn. As a matter of fact, no individual could more effectually assist
in the spread of the conflicthig vagaries of “ modern science ” than the man who,
while acknowledging the Bible as the only standard of appeal, practically denies
it by his appeal to a standard of human authority for the confirming of certain preconcieved notions which he is determined to retain.
You proceed to say “ the Bible was written for common people, and the lan­
guage is such as is generally understood and used by the people, so we have suchidioms as the sun rising, the moon giving her light, the stars falling, hearts break­ing, &c. W hy you should refer to such familiar Bible expressions as “ idioms”
is by no means clear. The sun actually rises, it really moves (although globularists deny it), and on a certain memorable occasion Joshua ordered IT to STAN DST IL L. The advocates and adherents of the •“ revolving globe ” theory deny theliteral fneaning o f this Bible fact, and prefer a. scientific “ invention," whichaccording to an authority previously quoted, originated in the mind of “ Thales ”
640 B.C. ! An interesting piece of information appeared in the columns of the
London Echo, March, 19, 1895, to the effect that “ most people are aware that theearth makes one complete revolution round its axis once in 24 hours, but probably
many are ignorant as to the high rate of speed in accomplishing the feat. The
highest velocity ever attained by a cannon ball has been estimated at something
like 1600 feet per second. The earth in making one revolution in 24 hours mustturn with a velocity nearly equal to that of a cannon ball. ” !
A still more incomprehensible tale is reported in Present Truth, February 7th,
1895, which reads as follows :— “ Owing to the non-coincidence of the earth’s poleof rotation with its geodetic pole and the shifting about of the former, it is pointed
out that the frontier between the United States and Canada being marked out in
two parts,— there is a strip of land only 60 feet wide it is true, but large enough inarea to embrace 100 big farms which come alternately under the jurisdiction ofboth countries. During April and May, 1890, and May, 1891, it was Canadianby rights ; in November, 1890, and December. 1891, It was American ! ! .' But
another paragraph which appeared in the same paper, Jan. 31, 1895, is one far
more deserving serious and thoughtful reflection than the sensational tale which
has just been repeated, and ;you would do well to “ read, mark, learn and in­wardly digest ” the truth contained in 'the extract which is as follows :— “ People
who are too incredulous to accept the reasonable statements of God’s word are79

always credulous enough to accept the most absurb and unreasoneble theories
that originate in the minds of man.” (R. W. Clayden, M.A.) Another con­tributor to the same journal (G. B. Thompson) assures us that “ T H E BIBLE
m e a n s w h a t i t s a y s A N D IT N E V E R M EANS A N Y T H IN G E L S E ;so if we know what it say.s, we know what it means.”
But to return ; the “ idioms ” referred to. include that of “ the stars falling.”
jjow you, Mr._ Hope, believe ithat a meteoric display of falling stars has been
more than once witnessed, but if you 'believe, as, many scientists teach, that thestars are inhabited worlds, you would be confronted with a new difficulty which
would certainly need explanation. The London Echo, Dec. 22nd. 1894, informed
its readers that “ up to now astronomers have not been able to estimate withexactitude the size of the planetoids, those diminuitive worlds of which we know
more than 390 to. day ” Canon Durst in the course of his sermon on Christmas
Day, 1894, said, “ we see the poweis of God manifested in the stars above us,
many of which are inhabited worlds ! ” We should, however, be content withthe knowledge wliich God has revealed concerning His purpose with regard to
the stars. He set them in the firmament to give light upon the earth, Gen. 17.
The word of God contains no reference whatever to the “ unfallen or inhabitedworlds ” that are supposed to exist.
You say that the “ well understood ” expressions which, you term “ idioms,”a r e not to be judged by the “ modern refinements of astronomy.”
Upon this■point we are agreed. Modern astronomers are credited with a full share ofmental capabilities, and are supposed to be fully acquainted with intellectual or
astronomical “ refinements.” and the impressions they have left upon your mind
have evidently not been effaced.
. ,With the letter I sent you, a small leaflet, entitled, “ Bible Astronomy” wasenclosed, which contained 30 or 40 Texts from the Scriptures in support of thetruth against which you are so strongly opposed. You say that “ to string a lotof such statements ” together, especially taken from the poetical books, and duhthem “ Bible Astronomy ” is to your mind wresting the word of God ! ! I denythat it is so ; it is trusting not wresting the wordj of God. You have given theexpression of your “ mind ” in a somewhat abrupt and hasty manner, but if theplacing together of such a large number of Bible passages to prove a truth thatyou are unwilling to acknowledge, I beg to say that you have made an unjustifiable
and undeserved insinuation against Bible students who are at least as honest as
yourself. Such an action is unworthy of you, and an unmistakeable proof of the
weakness of your arguments.
After giving vent to your feelings in such a way that proves j^our “ animivs”
against those who dare to place these “ statements ” together for such a purf^bse,
you ask “ .Why not be consistent and study all branches of knowledge that way ?'’Anatomy for instance. You then introduce an “ old gentlemen” as one who
would “ no doubt” give me ;^200 for a text which says that a man “ thinks withhis brains,” but because I cannot find the words to suit him, I must reject such
“ an abominable man made theory.’ " You then suggest that I should go on witha study of “ phj^siology ” and learn the “ startling piece of information ” that aclever man’ s heart is on the right side, but a foolish man’s on the left— (Eccles. x.
2.) You think “ the skin of the teeth” would be an interesting field for“ scientific research.” I will, however, not weary you with a recapitulation ofyour very kind suggestions. Such an elaborate line of argument I admit is quite
beyond me ; I won’t attempt to follow it up. You could perhaps do so in such a
way that would be satisfactory to yourself, but it is hardly probable that you would
be able to find a man who could assist you in the unravelling of such mysteries.

So

TH E

EA RTHREVIEW .

The result of such investigations would undoubtedly be a “ ridiculous jugg^leof words.”
In the course of your letter you express an opinion that “ the great mistake weare always making, and which satan would have us make, is gloating over somewretched little quibble and thinking so. much of it, that it overtops all else andbecomes to us .the truth.” This danger we certainly should avoid, bnt your“ quibbles” and doubts concerning Hhe truth of God’s word and Ilis creative]X )w er often arise through the vain inventions of men and their wonderful“ scientific or astronomical” discoveries of which we hear so much. These“ quibbles,” “ wretched,” or otherwise, do a great deal of harm ; they spread likea canker-worm and become imbedded in the minds of many who are not quitesatisfied with God’s revealed statements, and in this way “ objections” are raised
and imaginary difficulties exaggerated. The accuracy of certain Bible passages i.s
disputed, with the effect of destroying that absolute confidence in the inspired
word which we must possess if we would have that faith “ which will not shrink
though pressed by many a foe.” It is true as an ancient writer has said, “ Quirks
and quibbles have no place in the search after truth.”I am sorry that you should, in concluding your reply, refer in a somewhat
contemptuous way to what you call “ the flat earth craze ” ; such language onlyshows how bitterly you are opposed to any interference with the universally
accepted and popular notion, that this earth is a whirling globe flying through“ illimitable space. ”
With what an awful world-revolving power,
Where first the unwieldly planets launch’d along
The illimitable void.” — (Thomson’s “ Luminer.” )You say that the adoption o f this “ flat earth craze ” has hurt every one who
has taken it up, a/t/i led some directly out o f the third angels' message.
By your adoption of such an unfair and misleading term, viz.— The “ flat earthcraze,” the truth itself will not be affected. Contemptuous language does not
disprove Bible facts. I have not been “ hurt” by accepting and believing the
Scriptural account of God’s work in the Creation. I believe the truth on thissubject on the ground that it is a Bible truth. I believe that all who will accept
it will see more clearly than ever the harmony that exists between that large num­
ber of Bible texts, the meaning of which has so often been misconstrued for
obvious reasons. By believing what God’s word says, our faith will not only be
increased but intensified.
In closing, I wish to notice for a moment the last paragraph in your letter.
You s,ay, “ there is no harm in any one believing that the earth is “ flat,” butwhen that person gets the idea that it is the truth and must be accepted in order
to be saved, then it becomes a deadly thing for it is in the place of Jesus.”
If “ that person ” actually exists (which is doubtful) he is certainly making agreat mistake. A merely nominal assent to any truth will never ensure a man’ssalvation, such an idea would indeed be a deadly thing, if, as you observe, ittakes the place of Jesus.
In conclusion, let me just call your attention to an extract which appears in thisweek’ s Christian Wm'ld. The words are taken from a new book just issued,
entitled, '* Gain or Loss.” The writer says,— “ I believe with all my heart that
we have a final revelation of God’s living and redeeming purpose in Christ, sothat no improvement therein is possible or conceivable ; but in all other respects
the Bible is not a final authority, and all attempts for instance to make the scienceof the Bible tally with modern science is labour thrown away through a gigantic
misconception. There is not in all the Bible a final utterance on Science.”

B IB LIC A L COSMOGRAPHY v. T E C H N IC A L EDUCATION.

8i

1 will not comment jUpon these words, but they are suggestive and represent
pretty clearly the tone of “ ’modern belief.” The truth upon any subject should
not be considered as of no real importance; instead o f becoming a “ deadly thing ”
it will have a contrary effect. It will not lead a man away from Christ; it will
exalt Christ as the Fountain of Life and T ruth; it will glorify the works of ourFather who is in Heaven, In the words of sacred writ “ we shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make us free ; ” free from the entanglements and superstitions
and bewildering inventions of scientific men who have made void by thei.- traditions“ the word of the Lord which standeth sure.”I^et us then accept land not reject the truth which God has revealed in His
Word.
Yours respectfully,
J. F. SH EPPA R D .
D .V .— We shall in our October issue make a few remarks on Mr. Hope’s
statements, and ask him a few questions.— E d .

HOW T H E W O R LD W AS M A D E A G LO BE.
“ T h e earth o f the Newtonian theory is the mere creation o f the
fancy. Its shape has been determ ined on the ground, partly o f
imaginary, partly o f positively erroneous elem ents; and results o f
subsequent experiments and measurements have, by means o f purely
mathematical factors and tentative formulas been adapted to its
P R E -S U P P O S E D F I G U R E .—Gumpach.
IS M O D E R N A S T R O N O M Y N O N S E N S E ?
“ T h e imagined ruin o f Newton's theory did not satisfy G oethe’sdesire for completeness. H e would explore the ground o f N ew ton’serror, and show how it was that one so highly gifted could em ploy hisgifts for the enunciation and diffusion o f such unm itigated nonsense.”— Professor Tyndall on Goethe's Farbenlehre.
“ A good m any years ago a pilot in the M auiitius reported that
he had seen a vessel which turned out to be two hundred miles off.
The incident caused a good deal o f discussion in nautical circles at
the time, and strange to say a seem ingly well authenticated case o f
the same kind occurred afterwards at Aden. A pilot there announced
that he had seen from the heights the Bom bay steamer then nearlydue. H e stated precisely the direction in which he saw her, andadded that her head was not then turned towards the port. . .
Two days afterwards the missing steamer entered the port, and it was
found on enquiries that at the time mentioned by the pilot she wasexactly in the direction and position indicated by him, but about two
hundred miles away.”— Chamber's Journal, Feb. 1895, p. 32.
In the case o f both these ships the curvature would be 26,666 feet,leaving the vessels, after making a liberal allowance for the elevationof the observer, nearly five miles below the line o f sight.— (Ed. E. R.,)

TH E

82

THE

EA RTHREVIEW .

PU ZZLED

CLERIC.

By “ IC O N O C L A ST .”la: il'111.
9 ^' i;t

I-,

The PU ZZLE D C L E R IC depicted in our illustration shows the quandary
thousands of his calling, as well as many other sincere people unexpectedly findthemselves in after expending their time in schools and colleges poring over mindstaggering-literature to imbibe the numerous A SSU M PT IO N S which originate
in and ramify from M ODERN T H E O R E T IC A L SCIEN CE (so-called).
We advise all who are in this unenviable position to courageously climb back to
the M O U N TAIN S of COM M ON-SENSE and resolutely keep to the track whichleads away to the right towards T R U T H , where they will discover the solidly
constructed BRID G E of Z E T E T IC ISM , by which the A B YSS of D O U BT and
IN F ID E L IT Y can be easily overcome without fear or perplexity.
Many superficial thinkers may be inclined to doubt the position of the Puzzled
Cleric, but those who have passed through the general course of education,
especially that of the Higher Grade, will admit that it cannot be successfully
carried out without a large amount of M ODERN T H E O R E T IC A L SCIEN CE
being imbibed, and in such an insidious manner that it is almost impossible foranyone destined to become an expounder of R E V E L A T IO N to be otherwise
than biassed by his T H E O R E T IC A L SCIEN CE training; but putting aside
for the moment this particular phase of the subject and viewing it from a purely
secular point, we have good authority from one of Modern Theoretical Science’s
most admired and belauded champions, which is condemnatory of this falsely
so-called SC IE N C E , we allude to P r o f e s s o r H U X L E Y , who has candidly said,“ True science is connected knowledge; connection between its conclusions andtheir first principles imtst be capable o f demonstration, that it (True Science)differs in nothing from common knowledge, save its accuracy and constanttesting and verification, that it sees F A C T S as they are, or at anyrate without
the distortion of prejudice, and reasons from them (the FA CTS) in accordancewith the dictates of sound judgment.
T R U E S C IE N C E IS S IM P L Y
COMMON SEN SE A T I T S B E S T , that is, rigidly accurate in observation,and merciless to fallacy in logic.” To condense the above, we may say, true
SCIENCE is positive in its character. This question therefore remains for all ofus, viz. :— Is there any really positive character in M ODERN T H E O R E T IC A LSCIEN CE ? After patiently investigating in every CO SM O G RAPH ICAL,A ST R O N O M IC A L and G E O L O G IC A L direction, we are compelled to answer
in the negative, as we find and P R O V E this so-called SC IE N C E nothing morethan a mass of groundless ASSU M PTIO N and SU PPOSITIO N .
We will now take another glance at The Puzzled Cleric, and also think of thosein a like position , quibble or sophisticate as he or they may, the bridging of the
A BYSS of D O U BT and IN F ID E L IT Y , from the M ODERN T H E O R E T IC A L
S C IE N T IF IC ground, by any amount of W A R PE D IN TE R PR E T A T IO N Sor “ H IG H E R CR ITIC ISM ” so-called, is as impossible as attempting to bridge
the A T L A N T IC with a cob-web ; so called Right Reverend Fathers, Doctors of
Divinity and Theology, with Professors “ galore,” have (honestly in many cases)
attempted times out of number, to accomplish the business, with the results, thatmany have candidly owned themselves beaten outright, while others have sunkabashed into the Abyss of Doubt and Infidelity ; and yet with all this, to as muchas hint dissent from the original and generally accepted T H E O R E T IC A L
PR EM ISS (viz.
T H E G L O B U L A R IT Y O F T H E W O RLD) of Modern
Theoretical Science, is sufficient to raise a sneer in some, and make even those
who openly call themselves Christians, put their tongues in their cheeks, or at
most, secretly pity what they are pleased to call T H E IG N O R A N C E O F T H E
D I S S E N T E R S , and then complacently walk off to their various P L A C E S OFW O RSH 1P
mzxiy infallible joracles or popes, with their Bibles (whichcontain T H E T R U E S T SC IE N C E extant, but which they do not virtually
believe in) tucked tightly under their arms, and their robes of sanctity and selfsatisfaction wrapped around them, as much as to say, “ thank God we are not as
other men are ! ”
We again aixilogise to Mr. Foote for the use of his admirable suggestion.—
I con oclast.

THE

S4

EARTH

Z E T E T IC

R EVIEW .

REFRACTION,

B y James Naylor.
In our previous paper it will be remembered that we were entirely
concerned with rays o f light passing obliquely through media o fvarying density. W e now propose to consider their behaviour when
passing obliquely through media whose density is practically thesame. N ow here the ordinary teaching is that the path described
will be a right line, and change o f directions take place on ly when
the ray enters or emerges from the medium in question. But how
can this be ? I f we think but for a moment we shall see that a rayo f light when passing obliquely even through a medium o f equal
density must perforce describe a curve in the direction o f the line o fleast resistance and for the following reason. A ray of light has adefinite area and in passing obliquely through any medium theundulations on one side o f the ray must always have a greaternumber o f particles offered to their progress than the corresponding
undulations on the other side a'nd, therefore, will move less rapidly.
This we can easily see from the diagram in our form er paper which
is here reproduced.

Z E T E T IC

R EFRA CTIO N .

85

the path taken would not be unlike the form assumed by a spiral
spring when unequally pressed upon one side more than anotherwhere we may know experimentally that the side most pressed would
assume a concave form as contrasted with the convex one takenby the side under the least pressure.
B ut this conclusion though a self-evident deduction from known
and demonstrable premisses, is quite opposed to current teaching foras we have already stated that teaching is, that an oblique ray passing
through a medium o f equal density will describe a path which isapproximately a right line. W e must, therefore, strengthen our con­clusion by illustrations and references that will leave no room for
doubt as to its correctness.
N ow it is admitted on all hands that in the atmosphere refraction
takes place when a ray o f light passes from an object placed relatively
at a lower elevation than a spectator some distance away. It is also
admitted that the effect o f this refraction is to cause the pathdescribed to partake o f the nature o f a curve whose concave side istowards the earth with the result that the object appears to thespectator higher than it really is. N ow this behaviour o f the ray
is precisely in accordance with the conclusion we have reached andwith the reasons which justify it. T h e undulations on the lower orconcave side next to the earth have o f necessity a greater number ofparticles o f the atmosphere opposed to them at the same moment oftime than their corresponding undulations on the upper side. T h is
being so their rate o f m ovem ent must be slower and hence follows
the resulting curve o f actual fact and knowledge.
I t will be no avail to urge against our reasoning that the relative
difference in the number o f particles between the upper and underside o f the ray is so small as to be practically o f no account. For
one instant o f time this may be considered as true, but not when theelement o f time is fully allowed for. Then we have to reckon notfor some slight difference at one instant o f time, but for the sum o fmany slight differences added together.

I f we lo o k at the oblique ray D E vve shall see that all theundulations on the G ' side of the ray are further from the surface
at which they emerge than the corresponding undulations on theother or F i side. As the G ' undulations have therefore relatively
more force opposed to their progress than the F , undulations, theirm ovem ent must o f necessity be slower, and being slower cause thepath of the ray to be not along a right line, but along a course whose
concave side is towards the upper or G ^ side of the ray. In short.

N either will it avail to urge the ordinary explanation that the
curve we have referred to is due to differences in the density o f theatmosphere between the portions occupied by the ob ject and the oneheld by the spectator. T h at any such differences exist is not only
an assumption, but is in the main incapable o f proof and contrary toknown atmospheric conditions.
I f any one will take up somerecent work on M eteorology such as M odern M eteorology, by
F. W aldo, they will soon see that the ordinary teaching o f nice andeven atm ospheric strata beautifully superimi>osed one upon anotherand getting less dense in proportion to their distance from

86

TH E

EA RTHREVIEW .
ZETETIC REFRACTION.

the earth is a m>th which has no counterpart in nature. From sucha work as the one m entioned above it will be learnt that different
atmospheric densities may and do exist in every conceivable direction

I ll

1

from the horizontal to the vertical. T h a t in fact it is quite a common
thing for air o f different densities to be either ascending or descendingin planes both vertical to the earth and parallel with each other.
T his effectually disposes of the ordinary explanation by showing it
does not agree with the facts. But the cause we have pointed out is
one permanently operating and is both indifferent to and independento f either varying density or the direction which the density takes.
But a more conclusive illustration o f the correctness o f ourdeduction may be seen in the phenomena o f the prismatic spectrum.
There we know that if a ray o f light is passed through an ordinaryprism it will on being projected upon a suitable screen be decom posed
into its com ponent colours. N ow ordinary teaching has hitherto
contented itself with merely recording the fact without attem pting toassign a cause for jit. A n d yet the cause is evidently the one wehave pointed out a.s may be seen by the follow ing diagram.

I

I

.8 7

will be found on examination that the cause we have assigned isthe only one which offers a rational, scientific and self-evident
explanation.
H aving fairly justified our position, it will be in order to now
point out some important consequences o f the conclusions reached.
T h e first o f these that we will point out is that a ray o f lightcom ing from objects higher than the observer cannot describe acurve whose concave side is towards the earth or tend to theperpendicular as ordinary teaching expresses it. I f it did so it
would be turning in the direction o f the most, and not that o f theleast resistance. A s we said before, a ray o f light has a definite
area, and if one is com ing down obliquely through the atmosphere toan observer then it is clear the upper undulations would have at thesame instant o f time more particles o f the air resisting them thantheir corresponding lower ones and deviation from a right line pathmust therefore be away from and not to the perpendicular as
ordinarily taught. Further, as a consequence o f thi.s, the effect of
the refraction o f light from an object higher than the spectator is to.seemingly depress and not elevate the observed object. This con­sequence is so important and contrary to received opinion that
before concluding the present paper we will submit a diagram tomake our reasoning on atmospheric refraction perfectly clear.
L et the lines A B represent a portion o f the atmosphere o f equal
distance throughout from the surface o f the earth. L et C and D be

J

L et A be a prism through which a ray o f light B is passing. N ow
it is evident that the undulations on the upper or G side o f the ray
have m ore particles o f the glass opposing their progress than thoseon the under or F side consequently the path o f the ray will be a
curve whose concave side is towards the upper part of the prism. It
is also evident that if the ray describes such a curve the upper
undulations when they emerge from the prisms will do so at adifferent tangent o f the curve than the under ones, and on being
continued to the screen these different undulations will therefore ofnecessity travel along paths which are continually becom ing moredivergent as they proceed and produce at the screen the beautiful
phenomena o f the prismatic colours. A n d the prism is not the only
practical illustration o f our contention. Lenses, bubbles and any
objects which present a greater number o f obstacles to the progresso f some undulations as com pared with others in the same ray willproduce similar phenomena as the prism. N ow in all these cases it

ui Lvvu oujecLb, one auove ana tiie other below the
spectator stationed at E, F and G rays proceeding from the objects.
Now it is evident that if a straight line were drawn from 2 in the
ray F from the lower object to 3 on the upper limit o f the assumed
portion o f the atmosphere, it would be longer than a similar line

HOW O LD IS T H E E A R T H .

TH E EA RTH REVIEW.

parallel to it, but starting from i in the ray and proceeding to 4 on
the upper line consequently the lower line representing a longer
distance would contain more particles o f air than the upper and thus
present a greater resistance to the progress of the ray on the lower
side as com pared with the upper. T his would cause the ray F totend towards the horizontal in .exact accordance with the observed
facts of nature. So far our argument cannot be denied. N ow apply
the same reasoning to the ray G from the higher object and it is seen
to be inevitabls that this ray would also bend towards the horizontalm ot to the perpendicular as ordinarily taught) thus causing theobject to appear lower and as if it were in position at H just as theformer ray appeared to raise the object to I. A straight line from 5
in ray G to 6 on the lower limits o f the atmosphere is plainly longer
than one from 7 to 8, and necessarily the same consequences follow
as before only in a contrary direction.
But the further issues of this important matter we must defer to afuture paper.

HOW

OLD

IS T H E

EARTH?

B y A lex . M clnnes.
A scjuabWe over the earth’s age lately broke out between Lord
K elvin, styled by Earl Salisbury, “ the greatest o f livin g scientists,”
and a Professor Perry, who disputed the infallibility o f his chief.
T h e scientific lord, form erly W illiam Thom son, assumed, or as usual
supposed, that the earth is a “ homogeneous body,” coolin g at a fixed
and uniform rate; therefore that its age is somewhere between 20
millions and 400 million years. H owever, the lordly dictator having
published his supposition, larded over with mystical mathematics, also
in words o f thundering sound, what m ultitudes o f sim pletons will
now gulp down the bolus without ever asking for the evidence sowholly awanting. Now, is a university professor so blind as not to
see the enormous difference between 20 millions and 400 m illions—viz., 380 millions, to count which at the rate o f 60 per minute, 12hours daily, would occupy 24 years of a man’s life? Then, why callthe vast continents making up the land or earth a body, seeing thatthey have neither head, legs, nor any such members ; and why a bodyany more than a soul ? But, if by earth is meant all the oceans andcontinents rolled together into an astronomer’s imaginary globe, land
being solid and ocean fluid, where is the homogeneity ? Enpassant,this misuse o f the words body and earth are but specimens o f thewholesale verbal jugglery practised by scientists to cause mental con­fusion and darkness. M oreover, the Glasgow professor to m ake theearth’s age what he pleases has only to assume the rate o f coolingaccordingly. Y e t the 400 m illion years being too paltry a period forthe evolution fable. Professor Perry rejects the supposition o f cooling,
and assumes that the earth’s centre is now in a highly m olten state,
and with as much confidence as if he had been down in the infernal
regions making a personal inspection, whilst Lord K elvin assumes afamiliarity with the earth’s primeveal conditions as if he had witnessed
the Creation.
Is not the fabulous chronology after all like the ocean-land-globe,
a mere heirloom o f ancient heathendom ? T h e Japanese and Chinese
to make chronology square with their abominable Buddhism suppose
3 million years for the earth’s duration, the H indoos for Brahminism
6 millions ; and now Professor Thom son to please the atheistic evo­lutionists is even willing to grant 4,000 million years as the greater
limit, thereby confessing a blunder o f 3,600 millions !
Further, the scientists can see nothing to admire beyond or above
what they call nature, that is, the visible Creation, which by theirassumption is its own C reator— having had an eternity o f ages to re­volve sun, moon, stars, oceans and continents out o f an imaginary
fiery gas— a god unaccounted for ; life out o f death, order, beauty,
light out o f darkness and c h a o s; many thousand kinds o f plants out
o f granite ; thousands o f kinds o f beasts, birds, fishes, insects, out o fcabbages, trees, &c., and man out o f no one knows which kind ofmonkey ! Still this goddess N ature is confessed to be as helpless as
the puppet o f a punch and ju d y show, being entirely dependent on
mythical laws which act with an energy too om nipotent for N ature
to resist, and she is pulled, whirled, tossed, evolved, exploded, justas these mythical laws please. Again, the laws themselves are undera necessity o f operating according to rules,' fixed how, why or when,
no one knows ; yea, unchangeable, at least, since tadpoles grew out
o f cabbages to father our ancestral apes, gorillas or baboons. B u t
whence the I N V O L U T I O N that must have p r e c e d e d the E V O L U ­T I O N is another nut too hard for scientists to c r a c k !
Is it hard with such cunning fables to deceive the m ultitudes so
debased by the lying stories and abominable idle gossip o f news­
papers and like hterature ? A n d though foolish editors may jest at
Moses, yet the Pentateuch still stands the oldest historical monu­
ment, so well authenticated and so full o f unassailable internal evi­
dence— so plainly endorsed by Jesus whose well attested Christhood
no lover o f truth can deny. W ith the date o f Creation given in
Genesis, as well as the Patriarch’s ages, along with periods o f time
given by the sacred H ebrew historians follow ing M oses, w e m ay cal­

TH E

go

EA RTHREVIEW .

SC IE N C E 'S Q U A R R E L W ITH T H E BIBLE.

culate down to the first year o f Cyrus, where we are assisted by
Josephus and G reek historians, thereafter by an unbroken chain ofliterature down to the present year, ed ip se and transit cycles confirm­
ing all. H en ce we know that about 6,000 years ago G od said “ Letthere be,” and there was.
In Dr. D ick ’s “ Natural H istory ” we have a specimen o f the G eo­
logical m ethod o f calculating. H e supposes^ o f course without any
proof whatever, that G od did not make the bed o f the Niagara, butthat that river cut for itself the passage o f six miles below the fa lls ;and further supposing the Niagara to cut one foot yearly, he concludes
it must have been so working for 31,000 years, but if it cuts, asothers suppose, one inch yearly, we have more than 300,000 years as
the present or quartary period. N ext he supposes, still without proof,that the underlying systems, the tertiary, secondary, primary, prim­
ordial rocks, represent as many antecedent periods o f time. So, the(juartary being 500 feet thick, and the tertiary 3,000 feet, we have
six times 31.000 years or six times 300,000 years to add for theearth’s duration. Again, the thickness o f the secondary rocks being
15,000 feet their period must be 30 times that o f the p resen t; whilst
the thickness o f the primary is three times, and that o f the prim­
ordial five times that o f the secondary. Therefore, the earth’s age
is somewhere between
millions and about 100 million years;
without taking into account the unknown period o f the igneousrocks. H ow ever, we know from Genesis i that G od made all thingsin six days, all the rocks on the third day, in strata according to
Job xxxviii. 5 ; therefore, granting the Niagara to cut one inch
yearly it must since the creation have worn away only 6,000 inches
or 50 feet.
■ Accordingly, shall we com pute the earth’s age by the vague andcontradictory guesses o f fellow worms called geologists, or by theauthority o f the Creator H im self ?

S C IE N C E ’S QUARREL W IT H T H E BIBLE.
E xtra cts fro m Lectures by W a l t e r

R o w to n ,Esq.

W ithout, so far as I can see, a single fact in support, it has been
assumed that man's earliest ideas o f a God, of his own origin, ofthe earth’s age and form , o f the sun, moon, and stars, originated withh im self; that the cosmogony by Moses, i f he wrote Genesis, was amere jotting down of ignorant doctrines in themselves— the residuumof speculative traditional ideas which had been afloat in the world forages ; ages whose backward reach did not terminate at Adam , but

9’svhose years in the aggregate, with their lost records o f pre-Adamicman, most probably amounted to millions.
B ut, on the other hand, there is a Book, believed to be the oldest
in existence, which distinctly ascribes a ll man’s knowledge o f God,himself, and the universe to the D ivine B e in g ; 7iot as it would seem
superstitiously, but because such was the matter-of-fact experience ofthe then good men, and among them o f those whose histories in part
this record gives.
Because the B ook o f Job happens to be one o f the books o f the
Bible, is it, as evidence worthless I Please to remember that in
Job’s day there was no Bible. Y o u must consider therefore thehistory given as it originally stood, by itself; having none of ourtheories to advocate, and none to o p p o se ; knowing, in short,nothing whatever about them.
Job's one discreet frien d , E lih u , said, “ T h e Spirit o f (io d hathmade me, and the breath o f the Alm ighty hath given me life.”{Job xxxiii. 4.) H ow did he know th at; not a line o f the Bible
being then in existence ?
Was it borrowed fro m the heathen I W e have no right to assume
that so far there had been any heathen worship, excepting o f the sunand moon.
Was the notion human 'I From its sublimity it would seem not.
The highest capability o f notions, purely human, has not at any timeshown itse lf equal to higher conceptions than the invention o f atomism,
culminating in Darwinism. W henever men have left these conceitsin search o f higher, their exploration resultless, they have had toreturn to them again. A nd the latest return was but yesterday.
Was E lihu’s notion a tradition ? Perhaps ; but its source seems
more probably G od H im self than man : for the lattter, cultivated as
he may be, whenever he gets aiuay from the gross worship o f idols,
never witnesses f o r anything more definite than an “ unknown God ; ”
a supposed, not a perceived or realised Being. Again : this, if traditionis traceable to G od rather than man ; because the world’s tendency
has ever been to prefer a god or god’s o f its own inven tion ; it has
always objected to a revealed God. A n d again : this, if tradition, is
traceable to God rather than man, because of its many subsequent
reiterations, to all appearance officially, naming H im as the Authority.
Was it to Elihu an unauthenticated tradition ? T h ere are goodreasons for thinking it was not. Rem em bering that the itihabited earth
according to the usual computation, was in existence for some 2300
years befote Moses wrote in God’s name to H is chosen people— werethese all that while left to their own notions ? W ere they without com ­munication of any kind from the Ciod they are stated to have first

92

TH E

EA RTHOUR

REVIEW .

known in E den, and to !have thenceforward acknow ledged ? T h eevidence o f the book o f Job is, that the relations o f G od with good men
were as realisable then as a t any subsequent time o f which we haveparticulars. So on the face o f it we might infer ; otherwise it seems
impossible to account for their religion having remained wholly un­
corrupted f o r 2 ,jo o y e a r s ; Job’s religion and that connected with thegarden o f E den being as m uch one as though no interval had occurred.
Before the Christian era, the most diffi,cult thing men ever tried was
the remaining true to the unseen God. L eft for awhile to themselves,the bulk o f them invariably forsook H im f o r the worship o f idols,
and preferably idols o f their own making. Moses but forty days
absent, and down went the Israelites before a golden calf ! Repeatedly
convinced that G od was, directly H e intermitted confirming His
existence by signs and wonders, that instant men began to doubt His
being and withdraw from H is worship. Again and again shown that
Dagon fallen upon his face, his head and hands cut off, and only thestump of\D agon left to him, ( i Sam. v. 3, 4), was nothing in theworld but a sorry cheat, yet they set Dagon in his place again andbowed to him as usual. Y es ; even the children o f Israel, who inthis respect actually did worse than the heathen “ whom the L ord had
destroyed before them ” (2 Chron. xxxiii. 9) ! T hese seem to be thecommon instincts o f men— and especially o f those whose melancholy
fallings away from Aaron to Zedekiah are so m inutely recorded in theB ible— I say that the unswerving loyalty o f the unseen God's wor­
shippers f o r 2,^00 years, fro m A dam to Moses, is quite inexplicable
unless the record be tr u e ; unless G od, before a line was written in
H is name, really had the constant communications H e is stated tohave had with the elect families who professed H is service. How
was it that Job, towards the end of those 2,500 years, although tried
to the utmost o f human endurance, never once thought o f denying G o d '(H ow was it there was not a single unbeliever in G o d amongst those“ miserable comforters ” who did their best to alleviate by aggravating
his calamities ? It is impossible to account for it, except upon the
hypothesis that the B eing o f G od was, in those days, so indisputably
confirmed to H is worshippers by the habitual intercourse he is repre­
sented to have had with them, that denial of H is being was simply out
o f the question. H ad Job's religion been m erely the inorganised
superstition it is the fashion to consider it, severely tested as it was,and with nothing tangible to hold it together, surely, so empty, so
powerless, so comfortless a sham would not have retained his allegiancefor an hour.
H ow is it that those we esteem our greatest philosophers seem quite
unable to talk science without venting second-hand sarcasms at the

LETTER

liOX.

expense o f men's religious delusions I I say “ second-hand sarcasm,”
for whence gained they their superlative contem pt? E very jo t o f itfrom the B ible ! W ho has denounced the imbecil-ties of superstitious
worship with such withering scorn as the B ib le’s G od ? H e not awhit more real than the Baal he proves a myth ! So indeed they tellus ; but from such sticklers f o r lazt< we expect conclusions according toevidence, not contrary.
W hether they accept the B ible as fromheaven or o f men, this much is proved : its writers were as free fromsuperstition, and as much alive to the follies o f visionary and spurious
religions, as the most enlightened free-thinker who ever lived.
Agreeably, then, with the marvellously concurrent testimony o f theBook o f Job a.nd the Book o f Hum an N%ture, it appears that Eiihu
knew G od had made and given him life ; not o f his own knowledge,• but by reason o f that information having been G o d ’s revelation ; first,
perhaps to his ancestors, and confirmed from their day to his own.
I f this be true, there should, one would think, be contemporaneousstatements and evidences establishing that G od gave it, and how it
was given. W ell, there are such statements and evidences.
( T o be continued.)The

C o n ten ts

of ourL e tte r

Box.

To the Editor, “ Earth— not a Globe—
L e ed s.
Dear Sir,— I notice in the
Review.”tract entitled, “ Oneof the Devil’s Master­Dear Sir,— Lady Blouiit and myself pieces ” the following assertion. “ Anyhave the pleasure to inform you that our six miles of standing water can be proved
Valse, “ The Earth not a Globe, ” or “ The by practical demonstration to be horizontal
Nebular Hypothesis” * having been set to and entirely without the dip that would bemusic has been played at the Crystal required by a globe of 25,000 miles in
Palace by Godfrey’s Militarj' Band. It circumference, viz., 24 feet.”was played there again to-day, May 3rd,
On referring to Cassell's Popular[ and her ladyship had notice, and both Educator (vol. I. page 62) I find among
attended to hear it. It was well executed, other proofs of the rotundity of the Earthand as you no doubt imagine gave us great the following:— “ In 1870 a convincing
pleasure, not alone for the music, but in experiment to prove this point was madehaving the subject made so prominently by Mr. Wallace in the Bedford Level.
public.
Three signals, each 13 feet 4 inches above
We trust it will make a good impression water level, were erected at distances ofand draw attention to a matter of such three miles apart. On looking through 11
great importance.
Zetetics should ask
telescope so adjusted that the line of s'ght
Mr. Godfrey when he ne.xt plays the Valse, touched the top of the first and last poles,
enclosing P. C. for a reply.
it was found that the middle signal was
Enclosed please find to-day’s Crystal more than five feet above the line.” Can
I’alace Programme.
you reconcile these discrepanics ? andYours faithfully,
oblige, yours truly, J. E. G r e e n .
W . T. W lSEM .\N .
No, we cannot reconcile these dis­Copied from Programme.
liaudmaster— Mr. C h a s . G o d f r e y , Jun. crepancies, but w’e can speak the truth
5- Valse ... “ Earth not a Globe.”
about them.
We reproduce upon the
W . T. W isK M A N & L a d y B i .o u n t .
cover of this issue of our Journal the* See IL. P. No. 7. page 157,

94

TH E

EA R T H

REVIEW .
TH E

hull would l>e invisible at the horizon,
diagram.s which appeared in The Field!>ecause its height would measure five feetnewspaper of March 26th, 1870, and offer
below the eyeline and five feet above it.
a igift of a ;^io note to anyone who will
This would l5e, in effect, the same as if anprove the existence o f “ three ” or evenobserver were stationed midway between
two “ poles” from the diagrams of Mr.
two railway lines ten feet apart. The two
Wallace’s referee. There are many abso­lines would, if seen far enough, appear tolutely false statements made about the ex­meet at the same spot; and this spot
periment, in one before me now, I read thatwould also be the vanishing point for an
there was “ three discs rising 12 ft. above
object ten feet in length, stretching fromthe level of the surface of a piece of water
one point to the other : that is Jive feet onlarge enough to shew curvature if therecach side o f the observer's eye. This ex­
was any. ” Another account says, “ threeplains how a ship’s hull ten feet high would
boats were built specially for the purpose
disappear.
with masts that stood exactly the same
Mr. Harpur believes too much in what
height above the water. These wereothers tell him; for he says, “ several
placed on the canal, one at each end andseamen whom I have questioned, all defiy
one in the middle.” Another accountthat a telescope will bring a vanished hull
says, “ Over this canal are three bridges
back to sight.” But I can speak from ex­of like height and appearance, one atperience, and distinctly affirm that I haveeach end and one in the middle. A
many times seen a vanished hull reappear;
telescope was placed on one end bridgeand levelled,
an object was simi­ although there are certain conditions whichsometimes make such a result impossible.
larly placed on the other end bridge
Let Mr. Harpur try the experiment him­
and was seen under the middle bridge thus
self with a good telescope and a quiet sheet
shewing the centre bridge to be on a sortof water. He will then be able to seeof crest.” With such false and contra­that the “ old salts” have (unintentionallydictory assertions what does ; yea, what
Ed.) misled him.
can the wold know about the facts of the
Bedford Canal Experiment (?) of 1870?
Wm. B a t h g a t e .
A B S O L U T E L Y N O TH IN G .

Dear Sir,— In reference to my pamphlet
which you advertise in the “ E. R. ” Mr.
Harpur says, “ It is a sensible and tem­
perate work, and makes that mysterious
piece of hocus-pocus, the Zetetic law ofperspective, more plausible than I haveelsewhere seen it made. But, like other
Zetetic works, it fails to answer the ques­tion why are the lower three yards ofmast still visible when three yards of hull
have vanished?”
To this I reply, the three yards of mast
might be still visible or they might n o t!”
I cannot think for a monjent that Mr.
Harpur has 'ever tried the experiment or
he would be able to give the height of theobserver’s eye, and also the height of the
ship’s hull. These are sine-qua-non items.
If the eye were five feet above the waterand the hull ten feet high, then only theSir,— Several disparaging remarks havebeen brought to my notice regarding anarticle in the last number of the Review^
entitled, “ A Genuis on the Globe,” by acorrespondent named H. H. Scroggins,some asserting the article as being a“ species of mud-throwing,” or “ insulting”“ scurrilous,” “ foolish,” etc., etc. Now
although the article may not rise to theacme of excellence from a literary point,
yet the spirit it is written in, is not (in myopinion) a tittle too ridiculous or satiricalconsidering what is alluded to. “ Theschoolmen’ s sham-globe and fraud ” es­pecially deserves all the ridicule it ispossible to bring against it, and I trust
those who are so mercifully thin-skinned
toward* “ globeism ” by finding fault withthe article in question, will in future, re­EARTHmember that when deepseated errors areto be rooted out any reasonable methodshould be admissible.
I am, Sir,
Respectfully yours,
T. L o n g s i g h t .

R EVIE W .

Science falsely so-called is true, thoughrather severe, perhaps he believes in
the Apostolic injunction, “ rebuke them
sharply." What a pity it .’came on torain, he evidently has an idea that the fish
were made for him rather than disportingthemselves in their native element.

D e a r Sir,— Just a line to inform you
how much I have enjoyed the perusal of
our last Review. Friend Scrc^gins’ article
is very good, his scathing denunciation ofAnswers

to95

Yours truly,
G. T. 15.

Correspondents.

All letters to the Editor should be briefly and LE G IBLY written on one side of
the paper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of thewriter, as a guarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by post,
the postage must be enclosed. The Editor does not hold himself responsible
for the opinions expressed by correspondents. A ll letters mtist be prepaid andaddressed to
L eo

C astle,c/o Mr. J. W i l l i a m s ,32, Bankside, L o n d o n , S.E.
0 .A .K . AND O TH E RS. — Accept our thanks for copies of Zion's Watch Tower
for May. We may notice the Editor’s criticisms on “ Bible Astronomy,” ill
our next issue.
1. A t k i n s o n . — ^Thanks for youranswer to question 5. Through lack of space
we have been compelled to omit The Zetetic’s Open Column this issue. We
have no end of interesting and important matter that we are eager to place
before the world, but we must be assisted by Zetetics to issue our JournalMonthly before we can do so. Who will help ?

]). Y e o m a n s . —-Hearty thanks for your question which shall appear in our next.
Thanks also for subscription towards a block for a Map of the World.
Ic o n o c l a s t . — Thanks for Reynolds' Newspaper.
We hope to start a series ofPapers on Gravitation in our next issue. We commend the perusal of them to“ I)o-do ” .as we shall shew that “ the fact of Gravitation is owned by
globularists to be a ‘ Universal Nightmare ! ’ ” “ Do-do, ” watch it, and believe
what your globular schoolmen are themselves telling you, and then you willsee “ how so many persons in this country can spare time to make foolsof themselves.”
T.

W h i t t l e , — Thanks

next.

for your communication, which shall appear in our

C. H a r p u r . — We are glad to see you own that Capt. Forman pointed out a real
mistake in orthodox astronomy, viz. :— “ That on an earth which is not a
perfect sphere, plummets cannot all tend towards one single centre,” Thereis no doubt but that he utterly “ vitiates the evidence for the supposed
flattening at the poles, ” that is why we printed his article. When will you
see that the whole of “ orthodox astronomy is nothing but a tissue of
suppositions,” each supposer contradicting every other supposer’s suppose,
supposing that his suppose is not a suppose at all, but absolute truth ! Regravatation. See our reply to Iconoclast.

THE

96

EA R T H

THE

REVIEW .

T. W iN S H lP .— Thanks for TAe Cafe Magazine. We hope you will continue towrite to it on “ Natural Qfsmogony.” W e wish you God speed in the
propogation of truth. We shall be glad to see Mr. Dunn’s reply, if he
attempts to answer such practical facts as you have brought before the readersof so racy a magazine.

I(E ^ ^ ’F P - not a globe-^MYIEW .
When th i tnajestic fo rm o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster, E rror, hangs its head in silerue.

R. A l f r e y . , J. T. D i n e s , a n d o t h e r s . — We deeply regret oui inability toinsert your interesting letters on account o f lack of space. They s/nr// appear
at the earliest opportunity.

E D IT O R IA L

N O T IC E S ,Please to ask for “ The Earth— not a Globe— Review,” at a[I Newsagents,
Reading Rooms', and Railway Book.stalIs, T o be had direct from the Hon. Sec.
post free to any address in the postal union for lod. per year, in advance.
All monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local Vice-Secretaries, ordirect to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, Jno. Williams. Post Office Orders
to be made payable at Sumner Street. S. E.
M AP

SU B.SCRIPTIO N

LIST .

Mr. n . Yeomans
Mr. Levi Chilton

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.

No. 5 (N ew S e r i e s ).

O C T O B E R , 1895.

P r ic e“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION,
AS SU M PTIO N .”

A

2 d.

PURE

By L e o C a s t l e .
[Dedicated t o t h e E d i t o r of R b y n o l d ’ s H’e w s p a p h rwill s u b s c r ib e rs w h o s e s u b s c r ip tio n s are n o w tin e k in d ly fo r w a r d th e m t o th e
Hon. S e c r e ta r y w ith as lit t le d e la y a s p o s s ib le ..
A T E ST IM O N V .
T H E E A R T H — not a Globe— ^REVIEW is deserving of especial notice b)'
Scientists and Astronomers. Its contents are both convincing in evidence andlogical in conclusion. The philosophical reader of such a work is brought face toface with proof and deep investigation of all that scientists and theologians haveadvanced, and with a plausible argument shewing that the earth is not a globe.—
TAe Torch, May 1895.

“ All true interpretations of Nature must be made by suitable and proper trials
in which T H E SE N SE S judge by E X P E R IM E N T O N L
e x p e r im e n t
being the judge of Nature and Fact.” — L o r d F r a n c i s B a c o n“ Does not the foolish deference we pay
To men who lived long since our passage stay ?
What odd, prepost’rous paths at first we tread I
And learn to walk by stumbling o'er the dead.
The rev'rend sage with vast esteem we prize.
He lived long since, and must be wond’rous wise.
Good Heavens ! that man should thus himself deceive.
To learn on credit, and on trust believe ! ’
Reason, B y

W e regret to announce the death of our esteemed friend J. S t e e r
on account of his Map of the World as a Plans, wasmade a “ Fellow of the Society o f Science, Art and Literature.” Born at
Dartmouth, April 15th, 1805, fell asleep in Jesus at Morden College,
Blarkheath, December 31st, 1894, and was interred at Charlton Cemetery,
January 3rd, 1895. A stone to his memory will shortly be erected, on which

Pom fret“ The multitude will not feel so inclined to persist in worshipping an idolwhen they see it pulled down from its pedestal and degraded with impunity intheir presence. ” — Essay on Reverence.

C h r i s t o p h b r , who,

will be inscribed''/s h a ll be s atis fie d when I aw ake w ith Thy lik e n e s s .” — Ps.

xvii. 15.

Extract from Reynolds Newspaper, April 7th. 1895.
Those who believe the world is flat have a Journal of their own, called theEarth Review, which has been forwarded to me. Some people, as the lateactor, Charles Matthews, used to say, are so dogmatic as to deny that there isanother side to the moon, and the fiattists, or zetetics as they call tihemselves, will
not have it that there is such a thing as globularity. I am myself prepa re tobelieve that the world is round until somebody disproves that the law— or, I
would rather say, the fact— of gravitation is a sham and the science of astronomy