144t h e e a r t h r e v ie w .

-T H E -!
No matter what part of the level isused-in each, the same figure is used asgiven above for each separate level,
whether the ends or the middle, noallowance for the “ curvature” said toexist is ever thought of let alone made.
The study of “ Earth not a Globe ” .,by
“ Parallax ” . sets the matter in its
profer light, In a conversation with

AN SW ERSTO

one of the Civil Engineers in this district,after some amount of argument on each ,side as to the reason why no allowancefor curvature was allowed, he said, he
aid not believe anybody would know theShape of (he earth in this life.
■ ■T . W estw o o d.

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.

CO RRESPO N DEN TS.

LEO

IEW

Yours faithfully,

I

All letters to the Editor should be briefly and LEG IB LY written on one sideof rhe paipei? only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of thewriter, as a guarantee of good faith; Where replies are requested by post, thepostage must be enclosed. The Ediior does not hold hiiiiself responsible for theopinions expressed by correspdndents.' All letters must be prepaid and addressedtoHa r t H 'N o t a g l o b e R £ Y

I
CASTLE,
c/o M r. ]. W ILLIAM S,
32, B an k sid e, L o m d o n , S. E.

V o l . I.

N o . 1 ( M o n t h ly S k r ik s ).

A P R IL , 1 8 9 6 .

PaiCK I d .

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION.”
B y L eo C a s t l e .

N o. III.
Dedicated t o T h e E d i t o r o f Reynolds's Neivspaj>tr.

C H a RPUR.—T hanks for your letter,'which we cannot insert.
II. V etterl ING, and others writing on thesubject.—When absolutely
practical measurements South of the Equator are made, we are sure that they
will be in confirmation of t i e f a c t that the .“ Earth ” is a vast irregular Plane.
It is an utter impossibility for one fact to contradict or set aside another fact.
Zetetics South of the Equator are seeking the desired information. We
accept Truth from anyone. May we suggest that your question ; in fact ALL
questions relating to the subject, “ In what direction did Mr. C. E.
Borchgrevink see the Southern Midnight Sun,” be sent direct to that gentle­
man, and his answer sent direct to us for publication. His answer should be
confirmed by the signature of the whole of the crew, for the cabin-boy’s ,•statement on such a matter is equally: as good as any Professor’s. Thanks

K'i

1
if
I,
r,

for papers sent.
], B r a d le y .—Hearty thanks for your promised help. The quotation, “ Weshall take for granted from the outset the Copernican system of the World,”
etc., will be found in Hey schel's A stron om y, p. 4, 5.
G. H. COWPER.—Thanks for your kind letter and cutting. We have no reasons
to believe that the statements made by Mr. Borchgrevink are either true or
false, anyway they do not affect jthe fact that the surface shape ofwater everywhere is LEVEL.

I............

E D IT O R IA L I N O T IC E S .

t 3” Please to ask for “ The Earth—not a Globe—Review.” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls.j To 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,
or direct to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, Jno, Williams. Post Office
Orders to be made payable at Sumner Street, S.E.

The silent admission of the impregnable position of Zeteticism leads us to believethat the Editor of Reynolds'i Newspaper has read the following or similar extracts; —“ We have any quantity of hypotheses thrust upon us as discoveries, which are
merely false knowledge that later science will have to unlearn ! As a matter of fact
the fashionable notions which are paraded as Science stand only because theiradvocates shut their eyes to realities, make assertions with little or no fact to startfrom, ignore the facts which do not suit them, refuse to meet objections, and ignore
any really scientific (that is provable) explanations which do not agree with thespecialistic facts.”—S i g m a , English Mechanic, Oct. 5th, 1894.

“ The repetition of a blunder is impertinent and ridiculous.
Toliberate oneself from an error is difficult, sometimes indeed impossible
for even the strongest and most gifted minds.
B ut to take up theerror of another, and persist in it w ith stiff-necked obstinacy, is a proofof poor qualities.
The obstinacy of a man of originality when he errs
may make us angry, but the stupidity of the copyist irritates andrenders us miserable.
A nd if, in our strife w ith (Sir Isaac) Newton,
we have sometimes passed the bounds of moderation, the whole blameis to be laid upon the school of which New ton was the head, whose
incompetence is proportional to its arrogance, whose laziness is pro­portional to its self-sufficiency, and whose virulence and love of
persecution hold each other in perfect equilibrium.”“ Through thewhole of New ton’s experiments (^) there runs a display of pedantic
accuracy, but how the matter really stands, with N ew ton’s gift ofobservation, and with his experimental aptitudes, every man possessing
eyes and senses may make himself aware.
I t may be boldly asked,
where can t h e man be found, possessing t h e extraordinary gifts oftH E

EARTH REVIEW ,BIBLE ASTRONOMY.

Newton, who would suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus pocus
if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself 1 Only
those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which
it sometioQes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the
conduct of New ton and of N ew ton’s school.
To support his unnatural
theory, Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle when hecould not convince.”— GOETHE.
Proceedings o f the R o ya l Institutiono f Gt. B ritain. Vol. ix., part iii., p. 353.5.
“ I t has, over and over again, been the hope and expectation of
intelligent and unprejudiced men that some less extravagant and more
intelligible system would, sooner or later, be found as a substitute forthe mathematical romance with which Newton has favoured theWorld. This name has been the sanction for a device which, the more
it is examined, excites the more astonishment at its adoption by men of
research and observation.”— D r. W. Friend.
From the preceding extracts we hope it will be seen and admitted
that there can be no true system of astronomy, till the laws anddemonstrable facts of terrestrial physics are thoroughly understood—
not from “ text books ” and the assumptions of Modern Professors,
but from the same practical evidence as the purchaser of an estate would
require ere he paid his money or was satisfied with his possession.
“ Muster your ivits; stand on your own defence,
Or hide your heads like cowards, and fly hence."—SHAKESPJ5
AKK.
lith .
It has been dogmatically and arrogantly asserted that ‘ no one who
understands the Newtonian theory questions its truth ; ’ so that those who question
its truth are treated as not understanding it. If this style of argument, or rather
dictation, were allowed to prevail, discussion would be suppressed, and progressin Science interdicted. The Newtonian definition of Weight is that ‘ it is the effect ofGravity [i.e., gravitation); the measure of the force of gravitation on bodies ofdifferent densities.’ I propose to show that this explanation is sheer nonsense.
Gravitation has no weight; how then can it give to something else, that which itdoes not itself possess ? I offer the following definition of Weight. “ Weight is that
inherent property o f matter which causes any body according to its density to take themost direct path possible to its level o f stability or equilibrium." This is the reason
why smoke ascends to a stratum of atmosphere where it can find its level, and why astone falls to the ground, because there only is its proper resting place. The New­tonian asserts that if it were not for the ‘attraction of Gravitation,’ ourselves and ourpossessions would fall off into space, unless indeed we took root in the soil and lostour power of locomotion ; but according to my definition of Weight, nothing could
fall oflf the earth into space, because nowhere else but on the earth could any object
so readily reach its level of equilibrium. *The Neiu Principia by N ew to n C ro sslan d .
{To be Continued)
f.*This is true when the Fact of the earth’s configuration as a vast irregular plane is acUnitted, but
not when it is considered to be a “ globe,” as it is by this authority.—Ed,]

(I

;i

BIBLE
A

DEFENCEASTRONOMY.
ANDTESTIMONY.

B y J . S m it h , E sq.

I t may lie that some readers of The E arth not a Globe— R eview -have read an article that appeare<l inWatch Tower (May 15tli,
1895), anent a small Zetetic tract entitled "■Bible Astrotwmy." Somereaders not well established in the truth may have had their minds
disturbed and unsettled by its specious reasonings. “ Z.W .T.” professes
that it will review the tract from a “ Bible standpoint and from thatstand-point O N L Y .” A careful reading of the various sections will
shew clearly that almost every assumption is of the stereotype andorthodox modern science style, and not scriptural a t a l l !
This we
will now prove.
W e are to'd that “ discoveries, deductions andsuggestions of all past time, have greatly advanced Astronomical
Science 1 . . .
. Nor should it be a matter of surprise, that while
God has been disclosing the wonders of H is grace to H is people. H e
has also been paving the way . . . for a more correct idea of H is
no less wonderful creation. ’ A nd further, “ that while it is true thatgroes error with reference to sj iritual things has marked the steps ofgreat ecclesiastics, i c .................. quite the opposite is true of Science,
Art, and Mechanics,” and the explanation is that “ spiritual things are
spiritually diEcerned.
But the great truths of nature are not solearned.”W ith the latter sentence we quite agree, but while many detailsof natural things are not made known by revelation, yet so far as God
has been pleased to reveal H is works of creation in the Bible they are
to be believed by those who hold the Bible to be the W ord of God, andreaders only need to refer to the past editions of this journal to findabundant proofs that while modern philosophers have been tracing thesteps of so called Modern Astronomical Science (?) the greatest mistakes,
inconsistencies and contradictions have marked their so-called progress t
e.g. H ave they not been ever shitting the sizes anJ distances of all theorbs of heaven, fixing the sun at ever-varying distances from 44,000
miles (Pythagoras) to 184 millions (Mayer) of miles from the earth 1
And further, have we not been asked to believe that by some assumed
process of evolution in the unknown past history of time the planet
earth was but a gaseous scintillation discharged from the sun which
gradually cooled from its gaseous condition till ultimately it condensed
into its present liquid and solid form, &c., &c., whilst the Bible plainly
tpache? us that the Heaven and Earth were first created ; and that theBIBLE ASTRONOMY.
T H E EARTH REVIEW .
S e c t io n 3 . — U p .

sun, moon, and stars were made on the 4th day : thus giving the lie tothe modern theory of a sun-begotten-planet-earth. W e have only touse our God-given intellect to know that the earth and seas constitutethe great terrestrial part of the universe inasmuch as travellers andsailors have traversed thousands of miles over its surface in several
directions, whilst the sun, moon and bt »rs are so far remov ed from close
observation that it is most likely we shall never fully know either theirsize, or their distance from us. “ Z.W .T.” presumes that if the earth
is a plane floating on the waters “ that the seas m ust in turn be sup­ported by something tangible, and that in turn by something else, ad
infinitum," A s if God had no means of supporting the earth and seas
upon foundations devised by wisdom and power upon a plan neverrev^ealed to and not to be known by us. 1 Sam. ii. 8, and Job xxxviii,
4-6, (fee., and Jer, xxxi. 37, Ps. xxiv. 2.
S e c t io n

r

f

*1
i'I'

1.

In this section we are told— (a) “ That the air envelops the earth
to a distance of about 50 miles from the surface.”* Is that a Scripture
proof, or a modern thorf tical guess ? (/') “ That it has been suggested(by whom?) and apparently % with good evidence (not produced), that
before the deluge the volume of water above the firmament or aerial
heavens was much greater than now, and that the waters belo^i’ thefirmament were correspondingly less, that the earth at that time
probably (?) had a ring of water similar to the several rings of saturn ;the theory being that the precipitation of the water of that ring pro­
duced the deluge, i5rc.”t If there be any ring of truth in all thissentence it is in describing the whole thing as a “ theory i.e. speculation^
the Scripture proof being wanting.
* We deeply regret that our critic did not look up current astronomical teaching
upon this subject, for then he would have found that this guess of 50 miles has been
supplanted by another guess which we quote for his learned consideration:—“ We
may infor that a few hundred miles embrace all the gaseous envelope of the globe."—Science SifHngs, March i8th, 1893. He might also have found that “ the heightof the atmosphere is n o t known with any certainty. There is probably no 6xed
Elementary Physiography, p. 293.—Ed.
limit to the+ Evidently the outcome of “ Vail’s Annular World ” theory taught in California.
-E d .
S e c t ig j i

2.— T h e

S ky

a S u b s t a n t ia l

V ault.

Here the “ Z.W .T.” adopts the usual style of many modern
theologians who endeavour to reconcile the Bible and Modern Science,by describing plain words o f Scripture relating to matters o f fa ct as“ highy figurative and poetic as Amos ix, 6, Job xxxvii, 18, Is, xl,
22.”

D ow n.

S u n r is e a n d S u n se t .

(a) If it were true that all pianists believe that the sun, moon, ands‘ars move in a plane above the ea rth ; “ Z.W .T.” is distinctly in error
in declaring “ such motion to be in direct opposition to their theory ?”inasmuch as both by experience and custom, and also according to
optical laws, it is quite correct to say that the sun rises or sets as it ismanifest to the senses that it does.
So in respect of the natural
horizontal datum line called the horizon, which is the rule or standard
to which all varying elevations of objects are referred, and by which
objects are said to be higher or lower as they are seen above or below
such line whether actually or perspectively.
{b) W hile the expression, “ Four corners of the Earth,” could haveuo literal signification in reference to a ponderous Sea-Earth-Globe
such as is taught by the Newtonian philosophy.
How forcible it iswhen used in respect of the Earth spread out upon the waters as
declared in the Scriptures, as Ps. xxiv. 2 ; 2 Peter iii. 5., (fee.
4.— S u n a n d S t a r s E a r t h ’s O r n a m e n t s .
“ Z.W .T.” tells us that God was not attempting to teach Astronomy(we say modern Astronomy ?) but leaving such things for mankind toinvestigate.” Can any intelligent and unbiassed reader peruse the words
recorded in Gen. i. 14-18, without being convinced that the very thingtaught is the truth in regard to the creation, and the uses of the sun,moon, and stars, and as if the Lord would place it beyond doubt orcontroversy. H e thrice repeats the special object for which they werecreated. “ Z.W .T.” says (page 118): “ Sun and stars were caused to givelight to the earth . . . and were intended to do so, but there isnothing to indicate that they could not lighten other planets.” Is that
not twisting and warping the Scriptures to give a diametrically opposite
sense to what is given in them? Gen. i. 15 distinctly says; “ I<et them
he fo r lights in the firmament of heaven TO G IV E LIG H T U P O N
THE E A R T H ; and IT W A S SO;” but to suggest that they were merely
caused to give light as a kind of secondary service, whilst their primary
service was withholden for man to discover, is too absurd to be received
even on the authority of “ Z.W .T.”
S e c t io n

S e c t io n s 5 a n d 6
needs no comment beyond simply observing the usual poetic licence in­troduced to cover up the deficiency of interpreting the true and plain
teaching of literal scriptures as to pure matters of fact.
S e c t io n

7.— S u nandM oon stood S t il l .

(Josh. x. 12-14.)

This clear and unmistakable passage of scripture, “ The Sun stoodstill,” has baffled every attempt at reconciliation with the teaching ofmodern theories, though often attempted by many good meaning men,T H E EARTH REVIEW.

BIBLE ASTRONOMY.

neither are we any nearer by the two theories suggested by “Z.W .T.”_
both of which, instead of being Bible proofs, are diametrically opposed
to its plainest teachings.
The theories suggested are—( a ) “ That bysome miraculous process the rays of the sun were refracted by clouds
specially arranged for the purpose ” j or, (d ) “ that even if the earth
was slowed up in her diurnal motion, it would be equally proper to saythat the sun hasted not to go down ” ; or, we think it is highly improperto say “ that clouds refracted the sun’s rays ” ; and equally improper tosay “ that the earth slows up, &c.”
When the Scripture repeats thefact that the “ sun went down,” “ the sun stood still,” can anything bo
more unscriptural or improper than to attribute to the “ earth which isfixed upon foundations ” a diurnal mation to get its light, when the
Scriptures declare it to be the sun that moves in its circuits to give lightupon the earth 1 W e prefer to let God be true, though all modern
philosophy be untrue.

will hardly suggest that it is possible to hang a tangible earth
upon N O T H IN G .
I t is an ambiguous sentence as it stands in
English, but just in the same way as when a person says “ I did nothing,”
lie means “ he did not do anything ” ; so this passage properly renderedshould be, “ H e doth not hang the earth upon anything.”
Ttiis thenjerfectly agrees with Y oung’s version, and confirms the other portionsof scripture as quoted under Section 8, viz., that it is not hanged upon
an y th in g , but built upon foundations, for i t is both unscriptural andunreasonable to speak of hanging any material thing upon N O TH IN G .

S e c tio n

8.— E a r t h

F oundedandI m m o v a is lk .

Z. W . T. in this section surpasses its e lf; for whilst on page 116 it
professes the “ necessity of a material earth being sustained on somethingtangible, &c., ad infinitum ” it reminds the “ intelligent and thoughtful
reader that there are other foundations than stone ones, adding, thatprinciples as well as things, have foundations.” A s for instance, “Justiceis the habitation of God’s Throne (Government).” B u t is the founda­tion of God’s Throne, viz. (the attribute of Justice), the foundation of
the material earth 1 I f not, where is the point in the argument 1 In
wisdom H e hath made all H is works, and hath appointed suitable founda­
tions for H is works, whether of a spiritual or material order.
But
while “ Justice is the foundation of H is Throne (spiritual), H e hath ap­
pointed such physical foundations for the earth and seas as it hatli
pleased Him in H is wisdom.” See Job xxxviii. 4-6, Ps. xxiv. 2, Ps.
xciii. 1, Ps. civ. 5, Jer. xxxi. 37, &c.
S e c t io n

9 .— A n

I m po rtant P assa g e O v er lo o k ed

“ i / c hangeth the earth upon nothing!'

Job xxvi. 7.

Z. W . T. says “ The advocates of the flat earth idea seem to over­look (this) the only tex t of scripture which really has to do with thesubject.” W e deeply regret to see that the Editor of “ Z.W .T.” here
confesses his ignorance of what the “ advocates of the flat earth idea ”
overlook, underlook, and look a t ! Some of his own followers can, if
they will, tell him where and when we have not overlooked this “ text ofScripture which really has to do with the subject ” to the utter
annihilation of the globular hypothesis ! W ell, things are not always
what they seem, and this is one of them, for Zetetics rejoicein the fact that such a passage
exists.
Even “ Z.W .T.’

In conclusion, while we are willing to exercise charity, yet we de­cline to allow the Word of God to be tangled and twisted to suit themere speculations of modern science so-called ; and while we believe,also, that this is not the gospel of the grace of God, yet it is part of theWord of God, and to be re ciiv ei by all who love God, whether received
or rejected by men of science. And the more we observe how much ofmodern science (so-called) is based upon “ theory and hypothesis ”— i.e.
a mere process of guessing, the more we shall receive the testimony ofGod (which is truth) rather than the doctrines of men.
“ P r o v e a l l T h in g s , h o l d f a s t to t h a t w h ic hisT r d k .”THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF THE CIRCUM­
NAVIGATION PROOF THAT THE EARTH
IS A GLOBE!
“ Circuinnavigalion in an easterly and westerly direction does not
provt the earth to he globular."“ The earth has been circumnavigated a groat many times, and it
is a common occurence for a ship to leave England, and by steering
westward all the voyage to arrive in England again without retracing
an inch of her way.
Similarly, we can journey round the globe, some­times travelling on laud, and sometimes on the sea, but eventually re­turn to the starting point without at all turning back on our course.
This would appear to be a certain proof that the earth’s surface iscurved, nevertheless it has been pointed out that circumnavigation
would be possible if the earth had a flat surface, with tbe north mag­netic pole at its centre.
A compass needle would T H E N alw ay poin t
to the centre of the surface, and so a ship might sail due east and west,
as indicated by the compass, and eventually return to the same pointby describing a circle.” Elementary Physiography, Eighth Ed., by Pro­
fessor Richard A. Gregory, F.R .A .S., etc
111 the Preface of the book wc read, “ Owing to the rapid advances of science inrecent years, text books, which formerly ranked first of their Ivind, have dropped outof date,” The above extract doubtless explains the cause for this.—Ed,T H E EARTH REVIEW.

FAITH AND SCIENCE.
B y “ B a l a a m ’s Abs.”“ A /U f the intoxication o f tAe imagination comes its prostration andrelapse."— C a n o n K i n g s l e y ’s “ Hypatia."
Should not the men of every land,
Who love the Truth and Right,
Be leagued in one paternal band,
Against all ill to fight ?
Creeds and opinions men may woo,
But love of Truth and Right
O’er all, whatever else may sue,Should all good men unite.

t i

W e have often been told that the question of the configuration of
the earth is of no importance to Christianity or mankind in general.
Indeed, the writer has been charged with “ giving up communion with
the Lord to quarrel with men about the earth’s shape.” Our object,
therefore, in this article is to demonstrate that our well-meaning friends
are utterly mistaken as to our Object, and entirely ignorant of theimportance and connection of the subject with H oly W rit. Christianfriend, will you tell me that your faith is based in the Word of God,ie., the Bible? and that that Book being the Spirit breathed, or inother words, the inspired Word of God, cannot lie ? I know youranswer is. Yes, with all my heart. I add my hearty Amen.
But, now, tell me, do you believe that the Rev. Professor Bonney,
D.S.C., F.R .S., spoke the truth at the Church Congress held at
Norwich, Oct. 1895, when in his paper, “ Is scientific progress increas­
ing the difficulties of belief in the Christian Creed ” (President, theBishop of Peterborough) he said :—“ 1 cannot deny th at the increase o f scientific knowledge has deprived
p a rts o f the earlier books o f the Bible o f the historical value which was
generally attributed to them by our forefathers. The story o f Creation in
the book Genesis, unless we p la y f a s t and loose, either ivith words or w ith
science, cannot be brought into harmony w ith ivhat tve have kdirnt fromgeology. Its ethnological statements are imperfect, i f not sometimes inaccu­
rate ; the story o f the Fall, o f the Flood, and o f the Toiver o f Babel, areincredible in their present form . These narratives are allegorical, not his­
torical; they are spiritual, not scientific truths."— Eastern D a ily Press(Supplement), Oct. 10th, 1895.
Such is the teaching emanating from the pulpits and platforms ofthis so called “ enlightened age.” The following is another specimen:—“ N o student o f science is able to believe that any such Flood as thatrecorded in th£ early chapters of Genesis ever took place in the history ofT

FA ITH AND SCIENCE.’

the human race. . . . The Flood story is a myth, not history. — The
jtev. C. P. A ked at Pembroke Chapel, Liverpool.
See ChristianWorld Pulpit, June 14th, 1893, p. 371.
Now, most Christians think that Freethinkers are a blind andignorant lot of bigotf<, but upon this subject, at anyrate, he is on a parwith the Parsoii 1 The following extract will inoontestibly prove that
this is so“ There is something in Christianity calculated to make it hostile toscience. I ts sacred books are defaced by a puerile cosmogony, and a vast
number o f physical absurdities; while its whole atmosphere, in the N eiv aswell as in the O ld Testament, is in the highest degree unscientific.
“ The Bible gives a false account o f the origin o f the w o r ld ; a fo o l­
ish account o f the origin o f man ; a ridiculous account o f the origin of
languages. I t tells us o f a universal flood which never happened. A n d
all these falsities are bound up w ith essential doctrines, such as the f a l l of
man and the atonement o f C h rist; w ith im portant moral teachings andsocial regulations. I t w as therefore imvitable that the Church, deeming
itself the divifieiy-appointed guardian o f Revelation, should oppose such
sciences as astronomy, geology, aud birlogy, which could 7iot add to theauthority o f the Scripture, but might very easily wetiken it. Falsehood wasin possession, and truth was an exile or a prisoner."— The Freethinker,
Oct. 16th, 1892.
And what is the opinion of the publ'c press (1)matter 1 Here is an extract from one :—

upon

this

“ The moat noteworthy feature of the British Association this year
is that the assembled
representing religion, science, philosophy,
and politics— have surrendered hands down to views which, if acceptedby anyone ten years ago, would be sneered at as a mark of disgrace. The
Church has had to give in because geology and biology have been too
strong for the Book o f Genesis, wh'ch is no longer to be accepted as areal account of the Creation, but merely a symbolical one. The incontestible experiments and experiences of the practical scientists have
proved that Darwin was right, and that evolution is as certain a law
as that-of gravitation. W hat a number of the ‘ learned’ books of afew years ago opposing evolution must now be ignominiously withdrawn
from circulation ? And how sm all must the controversial parson andthe lay evangelist, who would prove to you in ‘ two jiffies that science
was all bosh,’ feel at the thunders of competent scholars ! "— Reynolds's
Newspaper, Oct. 13th, 1895.

i'fow, dear Christian reader, here we have a representation of pro.
fessors of so-oallcd science, the clergy, freethinker?, and editors of the
public press, and everyone of them appear to be ignorant that to follow
any man’s conclusions, because he is considered a “ competent scholar,’is proof positive lhat they thereby become an acolyte to an igm's fatw is.
A s they all teach the same’thing, have we not an irrefutable proof thal,
the so-called sciences of modern theoretical astronomy, geology, andevolution are three unclean frogs, with wliich the Christian shoulil
have no conncction whatever?
(^Fo be Continued?)“T H EF A I T H ” v. T H E

TRUTH.

To ih t Editor o f " The Faith."h:It' t H f i F A IT li ” V. T H E T R U TH .

T H E EARTH REVIEW

D ea r S ir ,— I have read many articles in " The Faith ” with great
pleasure and profit, but that one on “ Satan and Sorrow ” in thecurrent number of “ The Faith ’’ caused me surprise and disappoint­
ment.
The writer speaks of “ our s u n ” as though there were aplurality of suns, and of several worlds besides ours,— this one.
Such
language surely must be known to be quite foreign to the Holy
Scriptures, not only being contrary, but also utterly antagonistic to theteachings of those Scriptures.
Both cannot be true. ; and these are notthe clays for half beliefs or measures, one way or the other. The“ Science," falsely so-called, which teaches and enforces this stultifyingof H oly Scripture, is modern, and, what is still worie. Infidel, and you
must admit was no part of “ The Faith once for all delivered to thesaints ” ; then why teach in you r “ Faith ” this so called science which
is made the basis of attacks on the Ancient and only True Faith, by
those who presumptuously pose as being E dtuated and capable of what
they call Higher Criticising % I f tha planets are worlds, why not thestars also? Perhaps some of your readers thinh they are, but God,through H is servant Moses, calls them all merely “ lights ! ” Again,
since the Bible speaks of only one m aterial World, by what right do we
add to the number 1 If we are allowed to play fast and loose with
God’s Word, where shall we stop 1 W hy do you not speak as the
Oracles speak ? Is this possible unless we think as they do % It
seems that much of the A rticle in question is draw n from the ivriter's(or other’s) imagination ! I t is dangerous to be wise above that whichis written, then why at* ernpt to be so ? I trust the greater part ofyour readers prefer True Wisdom to that of the W orld’s, which God
declares is “ foolishness;” by all means keep to the ^'■Ancient Faith,”or in consistency alter the title of your j eriodical, as such a title,

such Anti-Biblical matter, is to say the least of it, very periiic'ous and likely to be most misleading to many.
Trusting you will
5ieo this matter in its true light, and publish this letter in “ The Faith,”
believe me to remain,
Yours faithfully,
H . H. S.
London, Feb. 5th, 1896.
c o v e rin g

p S_— “ The Puzzled Cleric ’■ and “ The Bible and N ew Science ”
eiiclosetl.

D kar F riend ,— Y ours to hand, but I am unable to use it, as the
advocacy of the matter named forms no part ot the testimony of thejiagazine. W ishing you every blessing in the Lord, our Life, I remain,
Yours fraternally,
Feb. 5 th , 1896.

C yrus E . B ro o k s .

----------

To H. H. S.

To the Editor of “ The Faith."

D ea r S ir,— Your post card to hand.
Of course, as Editor ofwhat is called “ The Faith,” you are empowered to refuse, and, there­
fore, not insert, my letter, in which I contend for the accuracy of the
Bible account and view of Creation, as against the Modern-Astronomical
and Infidel
but when you say the subject named “ forms no partof the testimony of the magazine,” I must demur and protest, for you
have already inserted that particular article (“ Satan and Sorrow ”) I
wrote you upon, which supports the Modern view held by every disbe­
liever in the W ord of God. Had you not first made the subject amatter of testimony (on the wrong side, t o o !) in your periodical, I
should not have troubled you with my letter. I may add, I have heard
from other Zetetic Life believers, that they, too, were surprised anddisappointed by your printed testimony to this “ Modern (Infidelmaking) Astronomy,” which is undoubtedly a “ Science falsely socalled.” Trusting you may yet be led to believe completely, and there­
fore acknowledge publicly, the ancient faith and record, believe me toremain,Yours faithfully,
London, Feb. 11th, 1896.

H . H . S.

[A s “ the advocacy of the matter named ” forms part of the testi­
mony of this magazine, we print the above, trusting that the Editor of“ The Faith ” will avail himself of the opportunity of explaining himgelE in these columns: W e regret to see that the slimy, sulphurous
theory of Evolution is now being taught in “ The Faith ! ” Perhaps
the “ advocacy of the matter named does fo rm p a r t cf the testimony ofthe magazine ? ” If not, why is it there 1— Ed.]

T H E EARTH REVIEW.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

- T H E-All letters to the Editor should be briefly and le g ib ly written on one side of thepaper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed. The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions expressedby correspondents. All letters must be prepaid and addressed to
LEO CASTLE,
c/o Mr J. w i l l i a m s ,S i32, B ankside, L o n d o n , S .E .
I c o n o c l a s t . —Thanks for

The Latest Discoveries in Astronomy, also The SquareWorld. Rev. vii. i. teaches that the isarM—not the “ world ’—hath “ four cotners.” No man on that account should, or can logically assert that “ it must hesquare, or it would never have four corners.” Hath not a Rectangle, Rhombus
Rhomboid, Trapezoid, and a Diamond each four corners ? Draw them on paperand see.
The assertion that Jesus could, on his bason-earth theory, see “ all the king,doms of the world ” is equally as false as it would be if he asserted that theglobular theory were true. Is he conscious of that when he says, “ One could,
from the centre, see all the kingdoms of the world at once ” ? A person might or
he might not be able to see all the kingdoms of the world from the centre. Cer­
tainly he could not see them all at once even were it square ! What about those
kingdoms situated behind him ?
The fact is he has seized the plane earth facts, advanced, both by “ Parallax ”
and the late John Hampden, to make his theory appear a feasible one ! He hasdone the same with L a d y B l o u n t ’s Nebular Hypothesis (Earth Review, May,
1894, p. 157), and has not been honest enough to acknowledge the persons or thesource of his information ! Those who live on a “ square world ” should acton
the square, but I suppose that while the round globe world can ,'oll on in space, thesquare world requites pushing I
C. H a r p u r . —Thanks for your “ comments ” they are always amusing, especiallywhen you “ cannot understand,” and plead “ not guilty.” Our space is so very
limited we must close the controversy between you and G. M,
The evidence for the Alleghanies having been seen from Teneriffe will l)efound in Tallis’s Literary Newspaper, June iith , 1864.
We can quite understand why Professor G. H. Darwin, of Cambridge, “ re­fused to allow his answer to be sent to us.” The Professors know and realize as
no others do, the power of the Truth we wield against their suppositions. Gladto see you own that ‘• Gravitation is a name and NOTHING MORE.” But
would anyone save a fool attempt the idiotic feat of calling “ nothing” a “ law of
Nature,” and attribute to it the intelligence found only in living creatures?

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.
V ol. I l l ,M A Y , 1896.

P r ic e

Id.

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION."
B y Lp;o C .» s t l e .
N o. IV .
Dedicated to T h e E d i t o r of R e in o ld s s MetmpaJ}er.

We have received the Earth (not a globe) Revitiu, a id monthly publication,
which may be obtained from John Williams 32 Bankside, London, S.E. It is mel­ancholy to think that at this time of the day e en a handful of people are wasting theirenergies upon an absurdity of this nature.—
Neiispaper, A-pt\\ 5th, 1896.

Is this all the otherwise outspoken Editor of Reynolds s Newspaper
can say ] Jt appears so ! .But what does he mean by “ an absurdity?”
Does he mean the globular theory 1 If eo we most heartily j ;in him in
his righteous denunciation, but if he means the teaching that the earth
is noi a globe, then we challenge him to prove his assertion. Seeingthat he owns to being in a melancholy state, we trust tliis challenge will
prove an effectual antidote.

EDITORIAL NOTICES.
Please to ask for “ The Earth—not a Globe—Review,” at all Newsagents,
Readmg Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls. To be had direct from the Hon. Sec ,post free, to any address in the postal union for is 6d 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, John Williams. Post Office Orders to bemade payable at Summer Street, S. E.
E rra ta —\a our last issue, p. 143, from “ Cannock to Whiton,” read Cannock
to Wolverhampton ; from Whiton to Smethwick read Wolverhampton to Smethwick.
We have from time to time received many letters asking us to issue this journal
every month. We have great pleasure in announcing that in future it will be issued
Monthly at its present price and size, and therefore ask the help needed to do so.
We gladly give time and labour free, but the printer must be paid, therefore we ask
the co-operation of all Zetetics to assist us to increase its circulation and so help us in
our testimony for God’s Truth as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

N o 2 ( M o n t h l y S k b ik s).

1

11th— Continued. “ In ascending a hill we experience a hard
struggle, and feel more fatigued than when walking on level ground.
W hy is this? The Newtonian attributes this result to the attractionof gravitation of the earth, against the p u ll of which we have to c n tend ;but if he would be consistent w ith his theory that the ‘ attraction ofgravitation diminishes inversely as the square of the distance from thecentre of the earth,’ we ought, in defiancH of experience, to feel it to beless laborious to a cend a hill than to promenade the same distance onlevel ground, because as v e a-cend we recede from the centre of theearth; therefore the force (pull) of gravitation ought to diminish in acorresponding degree. The Newtonian can only get over this difficulty