CH.

FRENCHD A M IE N ’S

TH E

SYSTEM .

IN

THREE

R E V IS E D

E D IT IO N ,EARTH.

MONTHS!
V o l . IV.

1902.

N os. 43 & 44.
FEBRU A RY AND M ARCH.

U e have lutich pleasine in recovimending the above work.
T h e booklet contains the three thousand words, and idioms,
which are most used in ordinary conversation ; sufficient toenable you to talk Frertch all your life ; no fossil philologicalpeculiarities, bu t French as it is actually spoken in France.
Grammar underlies each group of examples, and we think
this a cleverly condensed m ethod of teaching the Frenchlanguage.
T h e A uthor of French in Three M onths also gi\ es Lessons
in Conversational French to adults, at
128, . C R O M W E L L . R O A D ,L O N D O N , SAV. ;

A\D

64.

ROSSLYN

M IL L ,HAMPSTEAD,

NAV.

iM'iends of the Ed. of this Magazine can testif)-to his ability
and agreeable way of teaching.

The Magnetic Nerve Invigorator Co.,JO N A TH ANNICHOLSON,

22, Budg:e Row. Cannon Street,LONDON, E.C.

of Appliances £1 is., £ 2 2s., & £ 3 3s.
In s ta lm e n ts m ay be a rra n g e d .

THE

W O R S H IP
OF
MUST

HUMAN
CEASE;IN T E L L E C T

ORR emarksupon“ T h e V iew sofM o de r n S cience ”(A pam phlet by Rev. G. T. Manley, M.A.)
T h e above pam phlet is evidently written in defence ofm odern science.
After quoting the names of its founders, which include
Newton, Herschel, Professor Adams, Clerk, Maxwell, Boyle,
Wallace, Darwin, Sir Jam es Simpson, P ro f Adam Sedgwick,Young, Joule, and Faraday, the w'riter makes a neat apology
at the bottom of the p ag e—as a footnote—-for not including
those of Hu.xley and Tyndall,
However, he regards Faraday, Young, and Joule— asphysicists— to be superior to Tyndall : and Darwin— as a
biologist— preferable to Huxley. A nd the “ co nclu sio n” of
the whole m atter may be com prehended by critics for the truth
when they consider the writer’s sum m ing up, viz; that “allpoints to one conclusion, th at the functions of science {i.e.,
hum an “ science ” ) and Christianity are to purify eachother ” (!).
I can only express my regret when I see such words asthese in print ; and the only charitable excuse for the one
who penned th em — impossible as it may seem— is that hem ust be ignorant of m any of the tenets of both the Bibleand modern science, otherwise he could hardly make sucha statement.
B u t God has sh ow n that T H E W O R S H I P O F H U M A N
I N T E L L E C T M U S T C E A S E . H um an in te lle c t is on e o f
S atan’s m o st s e d u ctiv e id ols, b ut t h e t im e h a s arrived w h e n
it m u st fall. A nd t h e r e d e e m e d will b e d elivered from its
snare.

Mr. Manley quotes the following words (which are the

■>■ '330

W O R S H IP O F H U M A N IN T E L L E C T M U ST C E A S E .
W O R S H IP O F H U M A N IN T E L L E C T M U ST C E A S E .

I

words of some individual) quoted by Bishop Butler in his
A nalogy o f Religion ; “ Christianity is not so much as a sub­ject of e n q u iry ........but it is now discovered to be fiction.”
Mr. M. then endeavours to prove therefrom, that because
infidehty existed in 1736, “ before a word of m odern science
had been written,” therefore it is not a cause for the present
prevaihng infidehty.
In upholding his position, the writer, after saying, “ I do
not th in k the state of Christianity so black to-day,” asks thisquestion : “ If science is the cause of unbelief at the close of
the nineteenth century, what was its cause at the commence­m ent of the eighteenth ? ” But there is no argum ent here.
It is about level with the contention th at as before a certain
disease was known in a particular country where people hadsuffered and died, therefore it was proven that since it {i.e.
the new disease) appeared, it could neither be the cause of
injury nor death.
T h e one line of argum ent is as sensible as the other. It
must be apparent th a t before a thing exists it cannot affectanything. Therefore, before m odern science existed it could
not have caused infidelity. But now that IT D O ES E X IS T it
is not the only cause for unbelief in the W ord of God, andth e teachings of His Son, Jesus C h rist; nevertheless, it isan additional and powerful cause, and its evil influence
operates upon two classes, viz. ; those who understandsom ething about its tenets, and those who know nothing
about them, but accept the conclusions of those that do.
A part from the lines of T ru th no m an can form satisfactoryju d g m en t on anything. T h e majority of people understandlittle about modern science, nor do they trouble
to understand the truth of the Bible. ThereKnowledge.
fore they do not know where to set the dividing
line between true science, and that which is
described in Holy W rit as “ science— falsely so-called.” Only
the m easuring rod of truth, prayerfully sought after andsought out, can rightly divide these two.
Very m any professing Christians go on in a sort of“ follow-my-leader ” style, never dream ing th at they areprofessing to have faith in two systems which contradict eachother, and which if understood could not be held together
in a reasonable mind. How can a man believe a thing hedoes not understand ? It is impossible. If a man believes

331

in another m an’s teaching without u nderstanding it, or
proving it to be true, his faith is centred in the reliability of
anoth er m an’s conclusions, bu t not in a thing which he does
not understand.
No ! Modern Scripture-contradicting science is not the
only cause for infidelity, b u t it is an additional and a power­
ful cause, and it appears evident to me that its interpolationis the policy of Satan, and his evil instruments, who, althoughinvisible are only so in substance but not in force of evil
influence and rule. A nd thus Satan has retarded the pro­
gress and salvation of mankind, by shaking m en’s faith inGod’s W ord, and in the Creator’s own account of His Cre­
ation as set forth therein.
I expressed this opinion in an allegorical figure about ten
years ago, in my book entitled, A d ria n G alilio,^ song-writer’s
story. T h e stanzas I refer to, which portray Satan, as “ thethe prince of H ades,” conversing with one of his evil instru­
m ents— the “ Spirit-Jester ” — are as follows :—Prince.— W’hy, Jester, laughing still as ever!
fester. — I’m mimicking m ankind so clever !
Prince.—^I hate them for their power of will.
T o change their minds, or hold them still !
fester.— Describe thy plans, detail each stage
For snaring man in Christian age?
Prince.— First, far and wide, shall rise division.
T o fog’s m an’s senses, cause derision.
Then strong conceit shall fast increase,
A trap affording no relief
This spirit, holding men so neat,
Will raise a sect in every street.
For plain I see, through spirit source,
A battle-field right down tim e’s course;
Till the Angel shall the decree enforce.
T h a t “ T im e shall be no more.”

A gainst their M aker men shall turn,And strong “ delusion ” T ru th shall spurnFor this well focussed, and compact.
Im prints untruth as solid fact.
Spirits prepared throughout the ages.

W O R S H IP O F H U M A N IN T E L L E C T M U ST C E A SE .

332

I , Si-333

W O R S H IP O F H U M A N IN T E L L E C T M U ST C E A S E .

Shall do our will at fitting stages ;M an’s word ’gainst G od’s shall be accepted,
A n d false Cosm ogony erected ;T h a t earth ’s a tiny whirling globe
Shall men set forth in learned robe ;Above concern if Moses erred,A n d Jesus verified his w ord—
D eny ing the ea rth ’s Creator.
Jester.— Stay, Prince, observe before T im e s closed,
O u r m ighty will shall be opposed ;S n eer not at the Zetetic band,
Goliath fell by David’s hand.
I see a S tone ; it taketh aim ;A nd hush, I hear its curious strain :Hypothesis quoted—“ All m atter once floated
In atoms wide roaming through space ; ”
W hen a power, perhaps “ N e th e r” ?
Pulled all down together ;How it happened no m ortal can trace !
But, dear me ! however
Could there then he a “ N ether ” ?
Or an u p v a rd or downward at all ?
W ith “ a to m s” dis-severed.
Now gravitj'-tethered.
And shooting through space like a hall.
This power of such fame,“ G ravitation” by name,
Pounced down on the atom swhile strewing;
But further hack gaze,
O’er eternity’s maze,
W hat before was good gravity doing ?
The gravity theory.
W hen started, was clearly
A fancy which Newton had “ run ” ;Imagine the notion—
This world, mostly ocean.
Once a cinder shot out from the sun !
Like Solar relation
Inherent rotation
Sent the “ globe ” whirling round, till fullsoon—
Just picture the view—
The sparks, how they flew !
And a beauty so bright made the moon !
The Sun, the great “ M aster,”Sure, ought to go faster
T han the sparks it sent backward reviewing;
Vet globe and moon, too.
Keep old Sol well in view,
And play all around wliile pursuing !

Tlie Globite avers
It took millions o f yeats
For the earth to develop and cool. Sir ;But he who will try
To give God the lie.
Shall yet prove himself Satan’s tool, Sir.

Jester.— Tru th-S eekers are bu t deemed fanatics,
For at the “ T r u t h ” the masses lau gh!
H e ar how they shout with addled brain,“ It’s nought to me if earth’s a plane,
Or whirling globe, its all the same.”
M odern science is enveloped about in folds of not com­monly understood wordiology. T h e newest
Scientific work on modern science, entitled ; M a n 's
jargon.
Place in the Universe, by Prof. Alfred Wallace,is not exem pt from the unseemly drapery ofscientific jargon : in fact it is pretty freely padded with it.
But is this scientific jargon knowledge? Nay, it is as con­ventional in its nature as are all other man-made con­ventionalities and fashions.

TO

VVMAT

GOOD?

“ N e w P l a n e t s . — Professor Ma.x W clf announces the dis­covery of five new small planets, at K c n ijs tu h l, H eidelburg ;one on the 29th April, three on the 7th May, and one on the
I ith. T h e last he tho u g h t m ight be identical with N o . 469,
which was discovered on F ebruary 13th, 1901, but, accord­
ing to Professor Bauschinger, their identity is not probable.
T h e first three of the above planets were photographed byProfessor Wolf himself, the other two by Dr. Camera.
“ T h re e new variable stars have been discovered in thecourse of the m easurem ents for the astrographic catalogue
at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich ; two in the constell­ation Draco, and one in Camelopardalis, so th at they will
be reckoned as 6, 1902, Draconis ; 7, 1902, Draconis ; and8, 1902, Camelopardalis.”

II
334

iMAN’S PL A C E IN T H E

M A N ’S P L A C E IN T H E

U N IV E R S E .

By the above announcem ent in a “ largest-circulation” daily
paper of Ju n e loth, under the heading of -‘ Science,” thepubHc gain absolutely nothing.
By it, however, a few g e n ­tlemen, calling themselves “ professors,” are advertised as
doing something, the value of which to m ankind may bereckoned at nil.
But there are other sides to this m atter (if the professors
do not live entirely on thin air, or perform their professing
gratis), and one is, that the people are mulcted of funds, andtheir minds be-muddled in order th at a select circle of pro­fessorial star-finders should be employed at their mindbefogging pastime.
If a th ousandth pait of the funds and time now lavishedon such operations was devoted to informing the people as
to the True Shape o f the W orld in which they live, there
would be less ground for com plaint: and common-sense
thinkers would multiply, who would be in a b etter position toapproxim ate these belauded professors, and their work at
its true value. A t present the Plane World has sufficient
camels, if not dragons, without retaining so-called professors
to add to those already tacked-on in name to the beautiful
luminaries of the sky. T h e hum an race would not be benfited in the least were the professors to profess they had
located, and named in the sky, whole flocks of camels, ormore whimsical objects.
LUX,

M A N ’S
A

Song

on

PLACP:
th e

liN

THE

U N IV E R SE .

G l o b u l a r U n iv e r s e ,O n t h e B r a in !

or

“ Globe’I ’ve just had a look
A t W ’s book,
So its bearings, in song, I’ll define.
F or my thoughts go and comeIn rhym erie’s run.
As I step on the critical line.
R efrain— Sir Isaac went far
Beyond reason’s bar
W hen he floated the theory that the earth was a star ;U N IV E R S E .

335---- rAnd the same evil blot
Mr. W ’s got
In his universe pot
F or he starts with a globe, thus assuming the l o t !

Some scientists shirk
Certain truths in their work,
B ut here there are palpable reasons
F o r thinkin g our earth
Is the only one worth
Populating— because it has seasons.
W e make no dissension
W ith this main contention
Because it seems valid, and clear ;So with Wallace we own
T h e E a r th ’s peopled alone,— But no man can prove it’s a s p h e r e !
T his writer’s resolved“ All th at is ” is evolved,
N o m atter what M atter’s the cau se;
So plainly we see
H e and Haeckel agree,T h a t M atter makes M atter’s own la w s !
A nd instead of Genesis
T h e y ’ve got “ Abiogenesis,”— A wonderful compound, this word—
T h e y want “ life without life ”
In m atter full r i f e ;T h u s deny ing all life’s from the Lord.
Suns, counting “ m illions”
A nd stars too in “ billions,”
F orm ed themselves— so they say— right away,
A nd whirling by chance
A sidereal danceT h e y rush round in a-maze-(ing) array.
If W is rightW e must doubt our own sightW hile our sense and our reason resolves
T h ese “ professors ” say it’s clear
Heavenly bodies “ appear
T o move,” but “ it’s the earth th at revolves! ”336 .

M A N ’S PL A C E IN T H E

U N IV E R S E .

“ False science ” ignores
G od’s Word, and H is Laws
It denies th at our God did “ make man ” ;B ut “ m an’s place ” we rehearse“ In the true U n iv e rs e ”
Is to work out “ H is will on H is plan.”
In nebular fiction
T h e re ’s much contradiction,
T h e Scriptures it sets at d e fia n c e ;So we’ll stand by the Bible
A n d spurn every libel
A gainst its true cosmical science.
So Christian be wise
A n d from slumber arise
C hrist’s soldiers should stand up and fightIn strongest accord
F o r the W ord of the Lord,
Clad in armour of T ru th and of Right.
But I fear th at m y song
May be tedious and long.
W ith apologies, dear reader, to you,
T his lyric I ’ll closeA n d finish in prose
T h e rest of my Wallace Review.
(

I have noticed that though in Mr. Wallace’s book hegoes contrary to some astronomical teachings, he yet en­
dorses the theories which underlie the very foundation ofm odern astronomy. I will give a few quotations from his
book, showing the nature of some of the theories still taug ht
by scientific authorities.
M y readers will understand th at light is supposed to con­sist of the wave-vibrations of ether : and scientists are sup­posed to have m easured the length of these wave-vibrations,as also their velocities. H ence we read on p. 27 :“ By ingenious experiments the size and rate of vibration of thesewaves have been measured, and it is found that they vary considerably.
Those forming the red light, which is least refracted, having a wave
length of about 1 three-hundred-and-twenty-six-thousandth of an inch,
while the violet rays at the other end of the spectrum are only about
half that length,or 1 six-hundred-and-thirty-thousanfl3th part of an inch.’*M A N ’S PL A C E IN T H E

U N IV E R S E .

337

T h e rate at which vibrations succeed each other is from 302
millions of millions per second for the extrem e red rays, to
737 millions of millions for those at the violet end of thespectrum.
T h e new astronom y is generally based on deductions
drawn from these theories about light, and light waves ;but when they talk of “ millions of m illions” of vibrations
in a second of time, the ordinary mind is fairly bewildered I
Again, we find th at the Copernican theory of the world
was not generally accepted at first, the objectors saying :■—•
“ If the earth revolves round the sun at a distance whichcannot be less according to K epler’s m easurem ent of the
distance of Mars at opposition th an 13 J millions of miles,
then how is it that the nearer stars are not seen to shift theirapparent places when viewed from opposite sides of thisenormous orbit ? ”
O f course the usual assumptions were made to overcome
this difficulty ; namely, th at the stars we look at are such animmense distance from us. But as the writer of the bookunder consideration adds :— “ This seemed wholly incredif)leeven to the great observer Tycho Brahe, and hence theCopernican theory was not so generally accepted as it o ther­wise would have been.”
It is instructive to notice that the sun’s distance was thensupposed to be 13^ millions of millions of miles, whereas were a d : “ it is now pretty well fixed at about 9 2 ,7 8 0 ,0 0 0 " !
T h is is rather a large difference of opinion, or m easure­m ent (?) for an “ exact science.” But it is noticeable that
however many mistaken guesses the astronomers make, theirteachings are always supposed to be “ scientific ” !
In this case even their mistakes must be “ scientific’’ also,
th a t is, they are “ scientific mistakes ” ! W e notice, further,th a t Mr. Wallace bases all his speculations on the theoryof evolution or d e v e lo p m e n t: and this theory of development
or evolution is based on the globular theory ; the former
explanation being the expansion, as it were, of the latter.
T h is theory of evolution contradicts the very first chapterof Genesis, as also the F ou rth Commandment, in which the
C reator tells us that he made the World in six literal days
like the Sadbath or Seventh Day. But science, of course,
knows of no beginning, as is confessed on p. 134 of Mr.
W allace’s book. H e says :338

m a n ’s

place

in

th e

u n iv e r s e .

“ It cannot be too often repeated that no explanation ; no theory ;can ever take us to the beginning of things, but only one or two steps
at a time into the dim past, which may enable us to comprehend,
however imperfectly, the processes by which the world or the universe
as it is, has been developed otsX. of some earlier and simpler condition.”

So it appears after all that scientists know nothingof the beginning of the world. T h u s we see why those who
reject the inspired account of Creation, as given in the W ordof God, have not only nothing better to offer us in its place ;b u t positively have to confess th at th ey do not know, andcannot reasonably speculate as to how the world or the un i­verse first began. T h e n why do th ey reject or ignore theinspired account ?
Simply because th at account is dia­
metrically opposed to their vain imaginations ; and in ad­
m itting th at account, they would have to admit an allpowerful personal and all-wise Creator. However, there is
one conclusion to which Professor Wallace comes, with which
Zetetics will readily agree— in fact it is his main contention,— namely, th at this is the only habitable world, as far as
can be known to science.
This is quite contrary to the
popular astronomical conclusions.
Something, therefore, is gained for the truth. But alas !
th e truth in this case is marred, because in m aintaining hisargum ent the Professor often illogically assumes th at theearth is only “ another planet.” I will quote some otherof his conclusions ;—(1) “ T hat the stellar universe forms one connected w hole; andthough of immense extent is yet finite, and its extent determ inable.”(2) “ T hat the solar system is situated in the plane of the MilkyWay, and not far removed from the centre of that plane. The earth istherefore nearly in the centre of the stellar universe.”(3) “ T hat this universe consists throughout of the same kinds ofmatter, and is subjected to the same physical and chemical laws.
(4) “ T hat no other planet in the stellar system than our earth is in ­habited or habitable.”(5) “ T hat the probabilities are almost as great against any othersun (!) possessing inhabited planets.”(6) “ T hat the nearly central position of our (!) sun is probably aprom inent one, and has been especially favourable, perhaps absolutely
essential to life develofmeiit upon the earth.”Thus, we obtain the writer’s conclusions in the foregoingsix propositions ; in the last of which I again notice it is “ life
development ” or evolution, as against creation.
Now if all the variations of life on this so-called “ planet ”

m a n ’s

place

in

th e

u n iv e r s e .

339

of “ ours ’’ is by development or evolution, it would be quite
proper to ask how life first started on the earth after it hadcooled down sufficiently to form the so-called “ crust of the
globe.” W as it from a mere “ fortuitous concourse of atoms ?”O r was the operation directed by some intelligent mind, or
cause ? A nd if the latter, then by whose mind was m atterdirected, and who guided the inert mass, and stam ped uponit H is design ? It appears to me th at science, in rejecting
the Creation recorded in the Bible, has got into a dense fog,
where the wildest speculations prevail and nothing certain canbe known.
I deny the possibility of inert matter setting up any
automatic force. ‘
T h e trend of Professor Wallace’s argum ent is seen in th e
opening of chap. 6, where he says : “ Darwin solved the ori­
gin of organic species from other species, and thus enabled
us to understand how the whole of the existing forms of life
have been developed out of pre-existing forms.” A n d hegoes on to say that “ astronom ers hope to be able to solve
the problem of the evolution of suns from some earlier
stellar types.” H e adheres to the postulated predication
th at there is evolution everywhere ; and that man has
been evolved from lower types ; but the author of thebook holds himself back, and will not go so far as Darwin did'in defining the question of the origin of life. T h ere are
two sets of facts, parallel and related, yet at the same time
distinct. T h e y are the physical facts of organic chemistry(which is the chemistry of carbon compounds) and the phy­sical facts of organized beings. T h ere is no known reason
why we may not make sugar, starch, or albumen from theirelem ents ; but th at would bring us no nearer to the productionof a living starch-cell or the living germ of an egg. W h a tscience knows of m atter and force gives us no trace of reason
to suppose th at its “ pro fessors” will ever produce aliving organism — unless another order of existence is added
to th e m — the psychical : life, mind, will.
Life comes from life only ; therefore, spontaneous genera­tion, i.e., “ abiogenesis,” is a leap into illogical darkness.
W here life appears there must be a life-giver— and th at brings
us to the Eternal self-existent Life-Giver whom we know as
G o d —T h e Lord God-Jehovah, Creator of Heaven and Earth.
Mr. Wallace says . “ there m ay be, and probably are, other340

m a n ’s

place

in

th e

u n iv e r s e .

universes, perhaps of other kinds of matter, and subject toother laws, perhaps more like our conceptions of the ether,perhaps wholly non-material, and what we can only conceive
as spiritual.”
T h e author of the work under notice has shown no faith
in the God of the Bible as the Creator, and in Jesus Christas his Redeemer. But he has shown his belief in Spiritualism,
which I understand he expounded and openly defended overtwenty years ago. “ Perhaps ” and “ may be.”In some respects Dr. Wallace and Mr. Bruce Wallace areof the same calibre in regard to spiritualism : and neither ofthem will definitely assert his belief in one self-existent
E ternal Being, the Creator of all, by whose creative W ord
all things came into existence ; because both their minds aredarkened by the false idea of evolution, and the evils of
spiritualism : so I am informed. But Dr. Wallace seems tohave ceased m aking any open confession, he simply leaves
us to suppose he inclines to the belief of man having a
spiritual side to his organization, by quoting a few lines by
T en nyson and Shakespeare here and there. A nd he flavours
his writings with spicy lines such a s : -‘ W h a t a piece ofwork is man. H ow noble in reason ! How infinite in faculty !
........In action how like an angel ! ”“ Spirit, nearing yon dark portal
A t the limit of thy hum an state.
Fear not thou the hidden purposeO f th at power which alone is Great.
N or the myriad world. His shadow,
Nor the silent opener of the Gate.”
This may be all very b e a u tifu l; and no doubt to the mindof T ennyson the concept conveyed in the teaching of theinh eren t Im m ortality of Man, apart from Christ, was a fixed
one. B ut in any case the Bible and the God of the Bible
are entirely left out, and ignored by the author of M an's
Place in the Universe.
A ccording to Dr. A. Wallace the faith which professors ofm odern science have hitherto placed in Sir Isaac Newton’s,
theory of gravitation is somewhat slacking down, and its
power of attraction is fading away.
T his is evident fromProf. W allace’s statem ents as follows. H e says ;D I S A P P E A R A N C E O F A S H I P ON SEA.

341

“ One of the greatest difficulties with regard to the vast system ofstars around us is the question of its permanence and stability.......
But our m athematical astronomers can find no indications of such sta­bility of the stellar universe as a whole, if subject to the law of gravi­
tation alone. In reply to some questions on this point, my friend,
Professor George Darwin writes as follows : ‘ A symmetrical annual
system of bodies m ight revolve in a circle with or without a central body.
Such a system would be unstable. I f the bodies are of unequal masses
and not symmetrically disposed, the break-up of the system would
probably be more rapid than in the ideal case of symmetry. Mr. E .T .
W hittaker (Secretary to the Royal Astronomical Society), to whom
Professor Darwin sent my Questions, writes ; 1 doubt whether the
principal phenomena of the stellar universe are consequences of thelaw of gravitation at all.’ ”

T h e n after quoting Professor Newcomb’s calculation as
to the“ Effect of gravitation in a universe of 100 million stars,each five times
the mass of our sun, and spread over a sphere which it would take light
30,000 years to cross : ”

with which he is not in harmony, he also states t h a t :“ it is questionable whether the effect, which we call ‘ gravitation,’
given by Isaac Newton, is the cause of results in connection with theprincipal phenomena of the stellar universe.
“ I have been working myself at spiral nebulse,” says Prof. Wallace,“ and have got a first approxim ation to an explanation—hut it is elec­
tro— dynamical and not gravitational.”

A ccepting two different m athem atician’s opinions the writer
says t h a t ;“ We need not limit ourselves to the laws of gravitation as having
determined the present form of the stellar universe; and this is themore important because we may thus escape from a conclusion which
many astronomers seem to think inevitable, viz., that the observed
proper motions of the stars cannot be explained by gravitsitive forcesof the system itself.”{To be continued, D .V .)D IS A P P E A R A N C E

OFA

S H IPON

SEA.

B y a Clergyman o j the Ch. o f E ngland,(continued fro m p. 312).
T h e same principle holds good on sea as it does on land.
It is the principle of perspective, and this principle is univer­
sal in its nature ; whether we look upward, landward or sea­
ward, up or down a mountain ; whether a few feet from us,
or as many miles distant; from the roof or window of a house,

342

D IS A P P E A R A N C E O F A S H IP ON SEA .

or the top of a mast. T h e sea is ahvays seen to be hori­zontal, whether the observer stand on the shore or be on aship ; whether a ship be saiHng N orth or South, E ast orWest, or in any direction between these cardinal points ; orN orth or S outh of the Equator. No point of the compass
affects in the least the surface of the sea ; which is everlast­
ingly horizontal.
T his observation, therefore, th at the sea is horizontal isa f a c t ; and whatever is contrary to the same is not a fa ct.
T his being the case it is strange th a t geographers should
not be consistent in their illustrations. I f it be accurate(which it is not) th at a vessel is represented as
sailing down a curved surface of the sea, like this : J—th e re is no reason why it should not sail tip a
If these two inteurved sea-surface like this :a ship sailing up
illustrations represent
sea-surface,and down a convex shaped
there is no reason why a ship should not sail up and down
a concave sea-surface in a bay, like th is :or like this : .
And, accordingly,
there is no.....
reason why a shipshould not ^^■ '-~ ~ _ _l_be represented as
moving the remaining upper and lower arcs of the circle, liketh i s ;■ or like th is :over the‘' ' k“ north p o l e ”
and the“ south pole ” seas. In this way th ewholecircle of the earth’s surface (supposing it to be a globe, which
is taken for granted but has never yet been proved by any
facts) will have been sailed all over, like t h i s ;Having done with the circular imagination, touching navi­
gation from a globite point of view, there is no reason why
the geographer should not illustrate his theory by thestraight line method, such as setting a vessel on a n o rth ­D IS A P P E A R A N C E O F A S H IP ON SEA.

b ound direction, climbing up the sea, like this :like this, in a southerly direction :or up anlike this :or. down likethis :

343__ t_
or down,
inclineT hese being within
F the line,
sailings
m ight be represented
as on the f * outsideof the diagonal line, like this, climbing up :or sliding down, like this :whereupon the efforts of theimagination may have become
exhausted.
Such illustrations are never drawn from nature ; photo­graphically they have no existence ; th ey are contrary tonature, and equally contrary to fa ct.
A nother serious inconsistency in the theoretic or im agin­ary geography artists, lies in this feature, that while they
represent a boat as sailing down a curved sea, th ey do not
draw the hull of the ship as parallel with the sea-surface,
and the masts as at right-angles with the declining sea-sur­face ; the hull of the vessel, contrary to the laws of geometry,is made by geography-illustrators of the globite theory to
be always horizontal, and the masts to be always perpendi­
cular. T h e appearance of the boat therefore, whether as tohull or masts, disagrees with the globite theory but agrees
with nature. T h e sea-surface of the globite, on the other
hand, agrees with theory, hypothesis, and imagination, but
disagrees with nature, and is contrary to nature. Consis­
tency would dem and th at the barely visible highest portionof the rapidly disappearing vessel should
rep resen t the respective mast-ends to lookslanting like this :th a t is diagonally as follows ;-< ^but they never are
so r e p r e s e n t e d !
Th e —
appear ance of themast-ends is always perpendi c u 1a r
^ like this:This condition of things reminds one of the smart youth
who wishes to pass for the patriarch, which he tho u g h t hecould do by covering his cheeks and chin with a grey wig ;but unfortunately he forgot the head, which, being covered
w ith a rich crop of lig h t brown hair, betrayed the otherwise

344

A C A L C IN E D

P H IL O S O P H E R .

unsophisticated yo uth : the cat thereby was let out of thebag.
T akin g all things into consideration, the conclusion can­not but be reached, that truth must ever p re v ail; that it isour du ty to help in the dissemination of all truth ; and thecounter d uty must ever be borne in mind too, th at error
must be removed. H ence the practical thing for all geo­
graphers is simply to replace the non-natural and misleading
illustrations in their geography-books by illustrations inharm ony with truth, fact, and nature ; and the sooner it isdone, of course the better. Moreover, teaching and illus­
tration should be in perfect harm ony ; whereupon truth shallhave won a victory in one departm ent of science. O ne step
at a time.
By-and-by all error will be replaced by truth ; fancy andfiction by f a c t ; and every evil resulting from the former byhappiness introduced by the latter.

THE

C A L C IN E D

P H IL O S O P H E R .

By expressing the views of a large num ber of thinkers
under the sun, all over the world, this may be a protest,
and remain on record, that Zetetics at any rate, were notcarried away nor deceived by the S ynthetic Philosophic
glamour ; neither did they swell the fulsome eulogies to them emory of a misguided man, some of whose enunciations
have greatly assisted to chop the grounds of Christian faithfrom countless num bers of his fellov/ mortals. T h e fact thatabsolute truth slipped out sometimes in his writings is not
singular, as it is almost impossible for anyone to write or
speak at any length unless such occurs.
Some may wonder why we abstained from going with the
mob ; it is simply because Zetetics knowing the W orld is nota globe, are aware that this primary Fact knocks to pieces
the vital part of the Spencerian Philosophy, and makes itof no effect.
It is with due respect stated, that H erb ert Spencer, theso-called publicist, and late figure-head of the syntheticgaseous-School, died Decem ber 8th, 1903, and was by hisTHE

C A L C IN E D P H IL O S O P H E R .

345

own express pre-arrangement, burnt to ashes— in true pagan
fashion— on the 14th, at Golder’s Green, while a large num ­ber of sorrowing friends were in attendance. T o say theleast of this m ethod of disposing of the dead ; it is a wasteof fuel, which if used properly, would be the means of warm­
ing m any shivering living mortals, even if they had not foodto cook, or garments to dry.
Everyone who thinks, should know th a t the earth of theworld is boundlessly sufficient to accommodate all men withdecent graves when they d epart this life,without any ill effects
arising to the living, irrespective of any crack-brained germ
theory ; more especially if the late philosopher’s original
methods, as set forth in his earlier work entitled Social S ta ­tics, were the order of the day.
U nfortunately he ran away from those excellent pro­nouncements by his more recent utterances on the samevital subject, v/hich can be seen by referring to The Per­plexed Philosopher by H e n ry George ; in which small bookth e late H e rb ert Spencer is clearly shown in effect, to efface
himself by his own words, just as, in a similar way, the late
Pope of Rome, Leo X I I I . — who professed to be a greatfriend of hum anity— was also exposed in The Condition o f
Labour, by th at same Christian reformer—^Henry George—•
whose works every thinker should carefully read.
A fool hath said in his heart, God is not.” (Dr. Yoim g's
lit. trans.) But Zetetics, and fortunately millions of otherpeople know the opposite. Therefore, in spite of all the
deep-rooted fallacies existing ; and dogmatically presented astruth by the Neo E lem entary Theoretical School of Phil­osophers, (synthetic or otherwise,) a ll who possess kn o w ­ledge o f God, a n d “ believe H e is,” should continually a n d
fea rlessly declare it.
Doubtless H e rb ert Spencer was an innovator by his
Theory o f the Universe, but to what good ?
H e wasnot only avowedly not an orthodox Christian, bu t he ou t­went all the flabby, weak-kneed varieties in,his systematicand u tter rejection of Christian beliefs and claims ; andfinished by directing th at he should be calcined after death,almost it seems in final defiance of Christian usage ;especially when such natural and respectful usage was
perfectly possible to perform.
Does any reasonable being think the condition of the

THE

346

THE

C A L C IN E D

E A R T H ’S- O BSERV A TO RY .

347

P H IL O S O P H E R .

world would be worse than it is, if the printed outcome of
the Neo Philosophical School was cremated to-day ? Zetetics
think n o t ; they also do not feel called upon to bow down
to simply so m any extra ounces of brains, especially when
the grey substance, of which th o ;e brains are partly com­posed, starts operating
wrong prem iss ; but Zetetics
are content to g ath er wisdom from well balanced (evenif smaller) brains : who enunciate truth as revealed in G od’s
Word.
Pythagoras, Cusa, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, L a Place,Darwin, Lord Kelvin, and the rest may be quoted over andover again, until reasonable people are tired of such clap­
trap, and scholastic hum bu g ; but the individual who know sthat the surface of undisturbed w ater everywhere is horizontal,
is absolutely proof against the whole hypothetical batteryof m isguided philosophers, ancient or modern, even if theirbrain capacity is paraded sometimes as being som ethingabnormal.
W hen what is called a message to mankind, starts from a
suppositious indefinity about the unknowable, environed
in primeval gas and mud, it may be considered not only
worthless, b ut downright pernicious in its influence, nom atter whether it is expounded by a H erb ert Spencer, thePope of Rome, an Archbishop of Canterbury, or any holderforth in a school, college, or so-called little Bethel. U nfor­
tunately, if m any ministers,— especially those of the F ree
Churches,— have courage to preach the pure and simple
T ruth, without scientific (?) garnishings, th ey run the riskof seeing their congregations melt away, their reputations
destroyed, and of being black-listed by their fellows.
T h e conscientious man who wishes to stand by the Bible,
and preach from it alone, will soon find himself involved in a
religious system which is open to the most brutal intimi­
dations of money, and brow-beating, from those calling th e m ­selves his superiors, though they may not be worthy to
black his shoes.
Now, if this state of affairs is in the smallest degree oneof the outcomes of the Spencerian, or o ther philosophy ofthe same family, the sooner such philosophy is exposed in
all its nakedness, the better it will be for the people at large,
and for those ministers who really want to be consistent intheir calling.
IC O N O C L A S T .

A ll communications a n d enquiries respecting this Magazine a n d the teaching it
upholds, and all questions a n d matter fo r insertion, should be addressed to
E .A .M .B ., I I , Gloucester Road, Kingston H ill.

“ TH E

EARTH’S ” OBSERVATORY.

The E d. does not necessarily endorse statements made under the headings o f • 'T h e
E arth’s Observatory,” Letters, etc., unless signed E d. The Earth.
I t will be seen from the following paragraphs, reprinted from (he July num ­ber of Past and F utuie, that someone has asked its editor (Mr. J. B. Dimbleby)
for a B IB L E T E X T proving the earth has motion ; and Mr. Dimbleby flounders
about pitiably trying to prove it. Others can see his illogical arguments, andhis pathetic floundering ; but I pray that erelong he may be led to a knowledgeof the truth regarding Creation himself.
“ Will you give me a Bible text which bears out your contention that thewriters of Holy Scripture believed and taught that the earth moves ?
“ There are several astronomical facts known to us which are not mentioned
in the Bible. The writers of Holy Scripture do not tell us that the length of thesolor year is about 365i days ; yet they speak of solar years. The years of thebirths and lives of the patriarchs are always solar years, not lunar. But there
are passages of Scripture from which we learn both the rotation and the annual
revoluiioa of the earth. Gen. i. 5, speaks of the ‘\first day.” The 20th of
September is always the first sidereal day of the year caused by the rotation of
the earth. It difl'ers in length from all the other days of the year which have anatural increase owing to the earth moving in her obit. In Gen. i. 19, we also
read of a “ fourth day,” when the earth reaches the point of the autumnal equi­nox. On the first day of the year the earth is diametrically opposite the centreof her o rliit; but on the fourth day she has moved opposite to the sun which
is not in the centre of her orbit. Hence on the fourth day the earth has thrice
gained the dift'erence between the length of the sidereal and the tropical day.
If the earth had no revolution in an orbit round the sun she could not daily
make this gain throughout the year, which amounts to nearly four minutes
each day. T his is also a proof that the cosmogony of the opening chapter of(jenesis consisted of natural days of 24 hours, and not long periods.
“ I am of opinion that both the rotation and the revolution of the earth areclearly taught in the first chapter of Genesis, and that the points m entioned are
scientific, surpassing our English civil year.
“ It is owing to the tropical day being nearly four minutes longer than thesidereal or rotation day that we gain one day every year, which comes to a year
in 860 years ; hut we are not sensible of this without referring the position of
the earth to the stars. It is because the earth muves about a degree in her
orbit daily that this gain is efifected.
“ 1 am quite disposed to think that Moses understood all this. The Egyptians
amongst whom he lived during 40 years before going into Arabia were precise
observers of the motions of the earth and stars. Their Sothic Cycle taught
them thi>i. It is the falling back of sidereal time which produces the heliacal
rising of Sirius at each quarter of the great zodiac of 649 years, that is to sayalter each 162 years, except at the fourth quarter of 649 when the earth in theeast has the sun behind her.”“ In the Christmas number of ‘ Home Chat ’ Lady Blount deals deadly blows
at the people who still utter the shibbolfth that the earth is round. The glob­ular h\pothesis is, i . her ladyship’s opinion, ‘ the greatest nivth of science.’
H er figures illustrate her argument, and it is obvious that, like President K ru­
ger, who was a strong Protectionist of the Chamberlain type. Lady Blount
regards the pancake theory of astronomy in the light of a Divine revelation.
But we hope that nobody will tumble over the edge of this terrestial soup-plate.”— Daily News, December 31st, 1903.

348

THE

e a r t h ’so bserva to ry .

It is a pity the ignorant writer of the above does not attem pt to go far enoughSouth to try and tumble over the edge, before writing such twaddle. The poor
wretch has never thought how long he, or anything else, would be able to stopon, were the world the absurd shape he infers it is.— H. H . S.
“ W hen the Roman Inquisition condemned the illustrious Gallileo and laid
the progress of astronomy under anathema, and commanded the centre of thesolar system itself to run respectfully round the earth—(laughter)—the pious
absurdity was more pernicious just in proportion to all the power of the Inquisi­tion.”—
Protestant Observer, January, 1904.
On Tuesday evening, January 26th, Lady Blount delivered a lecture to a large
and appreciative audience, in the south aisle of St. Paul’s Church, Clerkenwell, on
the subject of the earth. After being eloquently introduced by Mr. W. G.
Musgrave (a lay m inister of the Church), who took the chair, her ladyship pro­ceeded in a lucid and able manner, without any notes, to dei-1 with a subject
which ever occupies the attention of the sages throughout the world.
The above forms the opening words of a long report, sent in by C. E. ParkerRhodes, Esq. ; but lack of space precludes the possibility of printing any of thedifferent reports of lectures in this issue. The Ed. also regrets that Mr. John­
son's reports of her lectures, delivered at Y .M .C .A ., Kingston-on-Tham es, andalso at numerous other places must likewise be held over for a future issue.
t ■“ H o w any reasoning man who believes the elementary
theories of evolution, of A S T R O N O M Y , and geology, canaccept the doctrine of the atonem ent is a marvel.” — Dr. E.
W. B u l l i n g e r , D.D. From T hings to Come, Feb., 1904.
Q. —Is it Biblical knowledge that the stars revolve? Ans.— It is indirectly;
for the stars like the sun and moon were made “ to give light upon the earth ; ”
and as they can shine only over about one-half of the earth at one time, theinference would be that they must revolve.
Q .— If the Scriptures are scientific authorities, how do you explain Gen. vii.
II?
Are there windows in heaven, as sta te d ; or is this but a m etaphor?
Ans.—The Holy Scriptures are “ scientific” in the true sense. T hat is they
are accurate in respect to what they teach about the earth, the sun, and themoon, and the stars, etc. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that Gen.
vii. I I . is strictly correct: but the m arginal reading appears to he the bettertranslation ; so we should read : “ And the flood-gates of heaven were opened.”
I believe that there are such flood-gates.
Q .—Can the sun, like a ship, be brought back to view, after disappearance ?
A ns.—The sun cannot l>e brought back to view by a telescope after sunset.
But if we could rise up sufficiently high in a balloon we should" see the sun
again. Balloonists have seen this phenomenon.
Q .— If the earth is, as you say, a circular plane, please what is the thicknessof it? We do not know the thickness of the earth, that is the dry land ; andit is probable that the thickness varies in different places.
Q .—Do you consider the Sun to be a globe, or merely a plane? Ans.—The
sun is evidently spherical, but it is not a solid body ; it is like a large luminous
spherical balloon, floating in the “ ether,” or soft m atter, which fills the space
between the earth and the waters, and “ the firmament of the heavtn ” above.
Q .—Why does the sun when rising, appear, not as a whole, getting larger,
hue a little at a time, till the whole sun appears? A ns.—The sun rises a little
at a time because of its size. One edge (the higher edge) of the sun comes into
the angle of vision before the other. And for the same reason the lower edge
is the first to reach the line of sight and so disappear.

“ The two last verses of N othing are most acceptable to me as a lover oftru th .”—T .H .D e V . T.
»
“ Have you seen What the Bishop of Ripon says, in the Sunday Strand,
about Creation account in Genesis ? T his is the bishop who, a few month.s ago,
caused such a sensation in the country by his publicly denying the Divinity of
Christ. Also have you seen what H. j . Mackinder, Reader in Geography to
the University of O-xford, said at the head teachers’ conference, on the 7th inst. ?
H e urged his hearers to abolish, from the junior schools, all maps, and begged
them not to talk of the globe, but of the great realities of nature.
We aregetting on. We are getting on.”— E. J. S.
“ On receiving The Earth, a few days ago, I felt what is so well expressedby one of your contributors, viz. ; that ‘ I experienced one of the greatest joysof my life ’ when I commenced reading several of the articles, especially yours
on my dear teacher and Instructor, Ur. Bullinger. H e is a great favourite ofmine, as a writer, and has been for many years ; for I fell in love with hisThings to Co7ue soon after its commencement. I h a v e read it ever since, andhe has been my spiritual guide ever since. • The article expresses my views all
through,and it is always pleasing to find our views confirmed, especially by those
we know and esteem.
“ I think the globites are on their last legs. I am as sure as that we arealive at this moment, that they have no other reason to give of the earth beinga globe, than this : that finding what they call the North pole has suggested tothem the South p o le ; and they have been searching for it ever since. But
every attem pt has been a failure; which they m u s t h a v e r e a l i z e d themselves,
otherwise they would have made as many attem pts to discover it as they havethe North Pole.
Even in the last e.xpedition they suggest that their object
was not so much to find the pole, as to make other obseivations.
“ Whoever reads Captain Cook’s account of the South Seas, will be convinced(if of an unprejudiced mind) that none but idiots would attempt to go further
than he did in search of a pole, or anything else ; as there could be nothing but
sudden and irretrievable loss to those acting contrary to his advice and action.
And Captain Cook was no coward.
“ It is worse than madness to say that the sun is a million times larger thanthe earth. Both the sun and moon are small bodies (as you say) in comparison
with the earth—and no doubt the stars also. Seeing them principally througha vacuimi we can form no definite idea of their size, or elements. We notice thegreat difference between the appearance of the sun when rising and setting ;at the latter stage its size is increased more than fourfold, because seen throughthe medium of denser air.
“ How difficult it is to make people understand the distance at which our siglit
fails to perceive any object o n 'lan d .
I have noticed persons walking in themeadows near my residence, and found that the height of them, from head tofoot, as I marked on the window pane through which I looked, was only theeighth of an inch, i.e. : at that distance the eighth oi' an inch really represented
their height.
Now any school boy could readily tell at what distance theywould be lost to sight ; after which a telescope would restore them, until, in
turn, its power would be lost. The rule of the globist is, that at a distance equal
to 2,OUO times the height of any object it would be lost to the unassisted eye ; andhe will not understand why the s u n d o e s not illuminate the whole earth sim ulta­
neously. Were the sun a million times larger than the earth its light would beshown allover the world, and there would be no darkness ; but the sun is a small
body ever revolving above and around the earth, so as to give alternate day andnight, as ordained by an all-wise Creator.” — From AN O CCA SIO N A L
SC R IB B LER .
“ I am very much interested in your teaching. Though I must csndidly ad­m it that I cannot think entirely with you ; I recognize the important fact thatvours is the only logical and consistent view that any professed believer in the
Bible can take."— FRA N K W H E E L E R .
“ Your reply to Mr. Blatchford is the best that has been written. Kindly
send me 100 copies as soon as possitile.” —W. P.

CH.

FRENCHD AM IEN ’S

TH E

SYSTEM .

IN

THREE

R E V IS E D

E D IT IO N ,EARTH.

MONTHS!
Nos. 45 I'v 46.

V o l . IV.

1902.

We have much pleasuie in recommending the above work.
MAN' ST h e booklet contains the three thousand words, and idioms,
which are most used in ordinary conversation ; sufficient toenable you to talk French all your life ; no fossil philologicalpeculiarities, but French as it is actually spoken in France.
Grammar underlies each group of examples, and we think
this a cleverly condensed method of teaching th e Frenchlanguage.
T h e A uthor of French in Three M onths also gives Lessons
in Conversational French to adults, at
128, C R O M W E L L R O A D , L O N D O N , S.W. ;
AND

64,

ROSSLYN

H IL L ,HAM PSTEAD,

N.W.

F riends of the Ed. of this Magazine can testify to his ability
and agreeable way of teaching.

The Magnetic Nerve Invigorator Co.,JO N A TH ANNICHOLSON,

22, Budge Row, Cannon Street,LONDON, E.C.

Price of Appliances £ I Is., £ 2 2s., & £ 3 3s.
In sta lm e n ts m ay be arra n g e d .

PLACICIN

TI I EU N IV E K S l'..

Therefore the idea
gra vita tio n (which truly belongs to
the regions of metaphysics, existing only in imaginationand not in fact) is falling into discredit, and one might
almost say into disrepute. Professor Wallace’s book sheds
more than one ray of hope that the light of reason is dawning
upon the minds of some of the science-makers, the evidenceof \\hich appears in one of his quotations from Professor
H u x ley :— “ that the results you get out of the ‘ mathematicalmill ’ depend entirely on what you put into it.”T rue ! If you put o in you 11 get O out. A n d my advice
in seeking after truth is this : if you don’t possess a realstandard unit to start your mill, don’t forge one ! It won’t pay
in the long run, because although the faith some have in the
Bible may be very weak in comparison to that which they
have placed in this world’s “ w isdom ” yet honesty will everbe found “ the best policy.” But earnest Christians who arereal truth-seekers and truth-lovers will never relax theirfaith in the Bible, when they have proved it to be true, be­cause they “ know whom the)- have believed ” in too real a
sense ever possibly to be shaken by anj' mere man-madesystem, however cunningly it m a y b e constructed.
Prof. Wallace has ingeniously endeavoured to make thevarious portions of the globular hypothesis dovetail into eacho'.her, and thus present a glossed surface of apparent con­sistency ; that is, in the eyes of some, but not of all. Because
personally 1 can perceive no true gloss of beaut)’. But
nevertheless the most carefully polished fallacy can only
present external and transient attractions, even to those
whose minds have been grossly fed upon that which will
not stand the searching test of the W ord of the Living God.
Moreover, the most cleverly framed Scripture-contradicting
m vths present no “ face \-alue ” to the keen truth-seeker.
No mere superficial glitter can hide from his penetrating gaze