..
T<--^i.tdX

D ' ' . ' . l . r . ; '■■’
i'-<-r.iito^ b A.
b^,-^’ u “..•'* C«^vv,v^-<^i.'>v

J. f '•' ^^■/^. |> V ^P le a se retu rn t h is to

Z. ARCHIBALD SMITH.
94, G w endolen R o a d ,L E IC E S T E R .

T M HE ABTIf- ”*

VIEW.

To Him that stretched out the Earth above the W aters; fo r H is mercy
endureth for ever,”— Psa. 136 : 6.

No.

I.

JANUARY, 1893.

P ric e2 d.

GREETING !
T T may be thought that there are a sufficient number of Periodicals
1in the market without adding one more to the extensive list. There'
are plenty no doubt, if they were all of the right kind. But are they?
How many of them profess to stand by the Word of God as true andfaithful in all its parts. And of those who profess to uphold the sacred
Scriptures as inspired of God, how many believe and advocate the literaltruth of the account of Creation as recorded therein ? or the various des­criptions given by them of the works of God as found in what is called
Nature ? Not one ! At least, we know not of any.
Not a single Christian Editor who in the face of the so-called*■ Science ’’ of the nineteenth century dare contend for the literal truthof the Bible text given at the heading of this paper ? We repeat it, weknow of none. We know of many, and some loud in their professionthat they believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, who yet havedeclined to allow us, or our friends, to uphold in their columns the literaltruth of the Bible in all its references to the material Creation. We
deplore this fa c t; and hence the necessity has been laid upon us, with all
our weakness, physically or numerically, to come to the rescue in Tht
Earth Rmieiv. God is able to use the weakest instrumentality to his own
glory, and to the confusion of the enemies of his truth. Our trust is in
G o d ; and in the faithfulness of his Word, in all its teachings from Genesis
to Revelation. Our {»otto is, Let God be true, though every man be aliar.
\
If Genesis is not to be relied upon, in its descriptio 1 of Creation,‘how shall we trust Exodus? If the Old Testament is not true, what will
'Secome of the New? If the Creator, through his servants, the prophets.

THE

EARTH

REV IEW .

has not correctly described his Works, how can we trust him for our sal­vation ? As the great Teacher, who came from God, himself declared ;“ If ye believe not his (Moses) writings, how shall ye believe my words ?
They stand or fall together. Our Lord says so ; and every logical andcandid mind must see it is so. We are prepared to accept the conclusion >for we feel sure that no fact in nature is contrary to Bible teaching.
It is well-known that the teachings of modern Astronomy are opposedto the teachings of the B ible; but it is not so well understood that all
known facts in nature are in harmony with Bible representations. Thomas
Paine, in his so-called “ Age o f Reason” says :—“ The two beliefs ”— Modern Astronomy and the Bible—“ cannot beheld together in the same mind : he who thinks he believes both has
thought very little of either.”This witness is true here. But he makes the very common mistakeof assuming, or supposing, that Astronomy must be true ; and hence hedraws the unwarrantable conclusion that the Bible must be false. This
is not “ reason, ” but assumption ; and is surely an unpardonable offence
against good logic on the part of one who professes to “ reason ” Wecall the attention of our sceptical friends to its inconclusiveness. Giveus facts, or sound “ reasons ” based on facts, and we will listen to our
opponents with attention; but it will be the province of TJu E arth Revte^v
to expose from time to time the flimsy pretexts for reason which so fre­quently are placed before us by those who oppose the Word of the living
God on questions of Cosmology.

UNIVERSITYEXTENTION.

As we are entirely undenominational, we are not going to attempt toestablish another sectarian church, or to support any particular existing one.
“ The Universal Zetetic Society ” is simply banded together to contend for
the Truth and honour of God’s Word, especially as related to H is Worksin Nature and C reation; and The E a rth Eevieiv is its organ. We there­
fore invite the co-operation of all earnest-minded men, by whatever
distinctive names they may, unfortunateiy, happen to be called. We arecertain that all who are concerned for the honour of God’s Word, and all
who desire to see Nature honestly interpreted, must acknowledge that ouraim and purpose is good.
To all such, we send greeting. •' If thefoundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ” ? But again, “ If
God be for us, who,” with any hope of success, “ can be against us ” ?

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION.
According to a report in the Standard of Tuesday, November 29th,
1892, the Chelsea centre of the University Extension Society held its
annual meeting the previous night at St. Mark’s College, Chelsea.
The chairman, Mr. H. D. Ackland, M.P., Vice-President of theCouncil, spoke of the advantages to be obtained in connection with our
Universities, in providing students and teachers from elementary schools,
with advanced scientific instruction.
H e asked the London County
Council for a grant of ;^ io ,o o o to ;^2o,ooo, “ for the purposes of a
Teaching University in promoting the work of University Extension
teaching.” H e also hoped that the Government would meet that sum
with something like a grant of a similar amount.” London had “ alreadydevoted ;j^30,ooo a year to the purpose of forwarding education.”

We want the facts of Science, not in its every varying theories andcontradictions. For these facts we shall ever be glad to find room, in
proportion to their importance and our space. But, we candidly confessat the outset that we do not know of any one fact in Nature which con­flicts with the accounts of the Creation or Universe, as set forth in the
Holy Scriptures. The God of Creation or of Nature, is the God of Rev­elation ; and both these we believe to be in harmony. These harmonies
we propose to shew to our readers as we have opportunity in future num­bers of our little paper.

These are modest sums of m oney; but we would not complain if they
were indeed devoted to the purposes of “ education.” Students shouldbe allowed, and trained, to think for themselves, and not crammed, likeschool children, with mere theories already in vogue.
To educate (L e,and dwo) means to educe, or to draw forth the thinking powers of themind, not merely to cram it with dates, historical facts, or so-called
scientific hypotheses. To teach men, indeed, how to think ; not simply tofill their minds with the ideas or thoughts of other men.

We invite our friends, all over the outstretched earth, to come forward
and help us.
They can strengthen our hands with means and withmatter. Short, pointed, and pithy articles, or letters—written" on one sideof the paper only—and sent to the Editor, will receive captful attention.
Also marked and prepaid newspaper articles, or cuttings connected withthe subject. Subscriptions for the paper must be sent to the Secretary,''
Mr. John Williams, 32, Bankside, Southwark, London, S.E.

Does the University Extension Society aim at this ? Do our Universi­
ties ? For instance, if any student should get up and call in question theteachings of modern Astronomy, giving his reasons for so doing, would
he be encouraged as an original thinker ? Would he be tolerated even,however strong the reasons he might be prepared to offer ? We think
not, and if he would not, what becomes of the boast of education ? Whatpowers of mind are educed by stifling all scientific discussion ? What was
the state of theology when the Church of Rome had power to silence—

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

not by argument, but by fire and faggot—all controversy ? And such atpresent is the state of scientific teaching in our Schools and Universities.
It is one sided, cramped, and in some cases, even superstitious, out of
harmony with Nature.
If we are wrong in so speaking, let anyone of our University friends step
down for a moment from his high pedestal of learning, and let him give us
one proof in support of the popular view that we are living on a whirlingglobe flying through something called “ space ” at the fearful rate of about
eleven hundred miles in an hour, or nineteen miles a second 1 Or to sim­
plify matters, we will waive the question of the shape of the earth, if anyof our savants, with all his boasted University education, can give us one
decent proof that the earth has any motion at all. We only ask for one,
if it be a good one. Who will give it ? Our “ space ” shall be at his
disposal; at least a fair share of it. Now, ‘‘ Scientists’’ to the rescue;and if you can give us only one proof of the Earth’s supposed motion, we
will yield your right, and advocate your claim, to the modest sum ofj^3o,ooo to ;^4o,ooo which you are asking in support of your University
Extension Scheme. But if you cannot give us the proof asked for in sup­port of one of your favourite “ Sciences,” and one, too, which is positively
asserted to be an “ exact ” Science, then you must excuse us saying that
we think you are unworthy of the support demanded ; and that, moreover,your boasted system of education is unsound, unscientific, and misleading,and must sooner or later give way to the true Zetetic mode of teachingadvocated by us.

SCIENCE

Fancy the dreariness of their courtships, for over five thousand years—at least 1—and with only “ an occasional kiss ” to relieve the monotonyof their unscientific existence ! How thankful we, their sons, ought tobe that we were not born in their days, nor in the olden times before
them ! But ye maidens, take courage ; and instead of wasting your timeat your toilets, attend henceforth to your studies. Instead of learning
such common place acquirements as how to stitch, cook, and darn, tomake shirts or to knit stockings, you must now go in for “ science,” study“ literature,” and how to “ talk history.” Then when you have “ passed ”
your examinations in these higher studies, certificates may be awarded
you, by our grave and “ reverend” seigniors, certifying our younger
scientists that are are now in a fit and proper condition of mind to be wooed
and won by them. Certifying you can “ talk history, science, or litera­ture,” in such a sort as to relieve the tedium of cool scientific courtship,even though there be only a “ very occasional kiss ” thrown in for thesake of a little unscientific variety.

ve7''s7/.s

COURTSHIP.

At the meeting of the University Extension Scheme, before referred
to, one of the speakers (S.A.B), “ spoke of a workman who was devoted
to literature, another who was absorbed by scientific study,’’ and of “ ayoung man who was courting,” and who complained that when “ he walked
out with his young woman he could not talk history with her, or Science,or L iterature; so that but for the ma tter of an occasional kiss, his court­
ship was very monotonous.” This, it is reported, made the audience laugh ,but whether at the awkwardness of the promising young scientist, or at
the novel way of recommending “ science ” to the sex, the report does
not proceed to inform us.
But our fair readers will not be slow to perceive the moral of this.
Let them attend well to University Extension Lectures, or let them beprepared to forego the honour, if not the pleasure, of being wooed by any
young aspirant after scientific honours. Just think of it. “ Only anoccasional kiss ” 1 And no “ scientific” jargon, or learned technicalities,
to fill up the “ monotonous ” intervals 1 Oh Venus ! VVhat a fearful

COURTSHIP.

prospect! Ye virgins take heed. We are living in the nineteenth cen­tury ; and vain shall be all your fair blandishments, and youthful charms,
unless you are prepared to satisfy Mercury that you are fully competent
to conduct your courtship according to the rules of scientific terminology.
How in the world did our forefathers manage in past ages ? Poor, simple
and misguided souls !

CREATIONSCIENCE ANDAND

SALVATION.

OR

ILLO G IC A L

C H R ISTIA N S.

We are often advised by well-meaning Christians, who are ignorantof the bearings of our contention, to allow the subject of the plane earth
to “ drop,” and to join witlj/Aem in proclaiming what they are pleased tocall “ the gospel.” As we are going to press we have received anothergratuitous piece of advice of the same nature. Our friend writes :—“ You believe the earth is flat and stands still. I may give it a passing
notice. I am surprised to find a man of so much intelligence and learn­ing should persist in such notions. Is it not a clear fact that we candetermine the approximate size of the globe ? And if you go in a straightline in any direction you will come to the place from which you started,and how do you account for the Seasons, and the difference in the lengthof the days at different Seasons ; and tidal motions, &c. I think you
would be better engaged in helping to swell the world-wide cry of theGospel. Don’t you think so ? ”

THE

EARTH

SABBATH MUSINGSREVIEW .

In answer to the last question we say decidely, No ! not at the ex­pense of leaving off teaching the plain truth. It is undeniable that theHoly Scriptures teach that the Earth is stationary ; that it rests on“ foundations” and ‘‘ pillars” ; and that it is “ established so fast that it
cannot be moved.” We t h e r e f o r e contend that if, as some of our C h r is ­tian friends would have us believe, the Bible is not true in its material
teachings respecting the Universe, it is not reliable in its promises ofspiritual blessings. But we maintain that the Bible is tr u e ; true to fact
and to every day observation ; and that the earth does not move. In
future numbers we hope to give good proofs of the earth’s immobility for
those who need them ; but in the meantime we have a right to ask forsome one proof, and we only ask for one, of the earth’s supposed terrible
motions ? It appears stationary. It feels stationary. Then why shoiild
we give up the evidence of our God-given senses for the sake of a mere
astronomical and unsupported assumption ?
There is much more behind this question of the shape of the earth
than our good natured but illogical advisers are aware of. If we arecredited, as we are by those who know us, with at least an average
share of common sense, and a little more than the average amount of“ intelligence and learning,” how is it that our advisers—who for the mostpart have never really studied the question— how is it they cannot credit
us with understanding this subject, which 7ve have studied, and with
understanding its importance as supplying a good foundation for our con­fidence in the sure Word of God ? We maintain that if the Bible is nottrue respecting the material Creation, it is not reliable it its promises ofSalvation ; and that it is perfectly useless to preach the Gospel of Jesus
the Christ to men who have lost their faith in the inspiration, or truthful­ness, of the Word of God- It is, moreover, a great pity when Christianfriends unite with sceptical foes in support of a godless science, falsely
called “ science, ” which strikes at the very foundation of the truth of theCreator’s Word. They incur a grave responsibility in so doing. Letthem take heed.
In answer to our correspondents questions, we say. It is not “ aclear fact that we can determine the approximate size of the globe.” It
is not a clear fact that the earth is a globe at all. Let proof be offered.
And again, it is not possible “ to go in a straight line in any direction,and come back to the place of starting.” Any straight line ” is an im­possibility on a spherical surface. But apart from this self-evident fact,
no one has ever travelled or voyaged due North, or due South, and comehack to the same place again. The great ice barriers would prevent this.
Yet our correspondent thoughtlessly says, *• in any direction ” ! Men cango round the World in an easterly or a westerly direction ; but this is also
possible on a plane. Hence it is no proof of the earth’s sphericity. But

our opponents do not seem to be able to discriminate in these things. It
is the fault, doubtless, of our system of “ education,” which crams young
minds with other men’s ideas, instead of teaching them to think for them ­selves, and to think cautiously and accurately.
Let us hope that The Earth Review will help, at least, to raise
enquiry, and so teach men to think for themselves ; and not to leave all
their thinking to professional and interested preachers of science. Thereis an evident need of such a paper as ours, even apart from its advocacyof the truth of the Bible, if only to awaken candid enquiry. Let us hopethat all lovers of truth— natural truth or spiritual—and all lovers of originalideas, possessing true freedom of thought, will rally round us, and help us
on towards a world-wide circulation of The Earth Review.

SABBATHMUSINGS.

T H E GLORY O F GOD.”
The inspired Psalmist says that “ The heavens declare of glory of(iod ; and the firmament sheweth his handywork ” ; therefore, whateversome professed Christians affirm to the contrary, the subject of Creationis connected with right views of God, his worship, and his glory. But if
wc would liave a right conception of God, and his glory, we must see toit that we have a right conception of his works in Creation. How, forinstance, do we obtain an insight into the character of any great man,whether he be a poet, poHtician, sculptor, general, or king ? It is not by
his acts, or his works? But suppose these acts, or works, are mis-represented to us, or defaced by someone, should we not have , false and dis­torted views respecting the author, artist, or the maker of those .things ?
Assuredly. And so it comes to pass in respect to the construction of theworld, false views of the universe have led men into a misconception res­pecting the Character of God, and even alas ! in many cases, to a denialof the very existence of such a personal Being.
Let us, then, endeavour to come back to first principles. The
world exists, and must have come from somewhere. It is “ unthinkable ”
to say it came by chance, or any “ fortuitous concourse of atoms.” Its
wonderfnl variety, the general co-relation and adaptibility of its various
parts, and the exact and never failing motions of all the heavenly bodies,
prove, to any well-balanced and unprejudiced mind, that some grand andcontrolling Intelligence directs and rules over all. As the apostle Pauldeclares, “ The invisible things of Him from the creation to the world areclearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead : so that they are without excuse.” Rom. i. 20.
fool.

A grand truth lies in this statement of the apostle. Paul was no
It is allowed on all sides, alike by friend and foe, Sceptic and

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

Christian, M. Renan and the Archbishop of Canterbury, that no one man
has had more influence in forming Christianity, the history of which has
for eighteen centuries been making the history of the civihsed world, than
the apostle Paul. His name will be had in honour when the names of theadversaries of the truth will have sunk into merited and everlastingoblivion. And this great man agrees with the Psalmist in teaching that
the Creation, as set forth in the Bible, and as found in what some call
“ Nature,” sets forth unmistakably the grand truth that God is. Now,
this is a fundamental verity, and the foundation of all true faith, G o d i s .
And “ he that cometh to God must believe that H e is, and that H e is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek H im .” Now, this faith is, on the
one hand, neither an unreasoning credulity, nor, on the other hand, is
it a bigoted (/wbelief. It is based on an intelligent and reasonable under­
standing of the things that are seen above and around us.
T he Book of Nature is open to all m e n ; but it must be read andstudied without prejudice and without philosophical bias. We must cometo it like little children, with the honest desire to know the truth, and not
attempt to read into it our own, nor any one else’s, plausible
or implausible hypotheses. If we do this patiently and persistently, we
shall be “ rewarded ” : the grand and ineffaceable truth will dawn uponus that G o d i s .
We shall see His glory in the bright and blazing sun as he goes
forth majestically, like a giant, to run his daily course. We shall own
ZTis Power and Godhead when the moon, queen of the night, rises inquiet and stately splendour, to reflect her silver radiance in every
rippling stream. And we shall confess H is wisdom and unfailing skill
when, at night, we gaze up into the firmament and behold ten thousand
glittering gems, shining in matchless beauty, and shedding upon the earth
their silent influences, as they nightly perform their appointed revolutions.
Truly we shall then confess with the Psalmist, that “ the heavens declare
the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.”“ T he firmament sheweth His handiwork.’’ That vast and incompar­
able structure which spans the heavens, and covers the earth with its
cipacious dome, divides the waters which are “ above” the firmament
from the waters which are “ under ” the firmament. And when we realize
something of the tremendous size of this tent-like covering, spanning with
one mighty arch across the whole of the outstretched earth ; when we
considered its weight, its strength, its stability, and the avowed purpose
for which it was made by the Creator, we can unhesitatingly and devoutly
again exclaim with the Psalmist, “The firmament sheweth His handiwork.”
No wonder such a “ work ” occupied the whole of one day, the third, inthe “ great and marvellous ” work of the six days Creation. Job, one of
the finest, and certainly one of the most ancient, of true philosophers,

SABBATHMUSINGS.

when comparing the works of God with the puny works of man, asks :“ H ast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten
l o o k i n g glass ? ” Job 37 ; 18. It is, perhaps, this mirror-like quality which thefirmament possesses that makes unbelieving “ scientists ” think that theycan, with their glasses, peer into what they call “ space,” which they affirm
to be “ boundless.” As well might a child, gazing upon the bosom of a
glassy lake, affirm that it had no bottom, and that the sky and clouds,
reflected from its placid surface, were slumbering in the unfathomed
depths below, and not above, its waters.
The idea of illimitable “ space,” filled with an infinity of revolving
worlds or globes, is not only a bewildering idea, unfounded on fact, but it
directly tends to remove the Creator, or rather the idea of a Creator, far,and farther, away from this earthly plane of ours. It necessarily andlogically leads to A theism ; and too often, ala s! it practically leads men
there. The idea of Heaven as a place, the abode of The Eternal,
becomes to the logical and thinking Newtonian a 7nyth\ and God, if heacknowledge such a personal Being at all, becomes farther and farther
removed from the scene of all earthly operations. Whereas the Saviourof the World, who “ came down from Heaven,” to do his Father’s will,taught H is disciples to believe that Heaven was not very far off; that it
was directly and always “ above ” u s ; that God was concerned in thework of His h a n d s; and that as “ our Father,” H e was near enough tohear the prayers of all those who call upon him in sincerity and truth.
This is assuring : this is comforting. God cares for the world ; and H ewill punish those who afflict mankind with their selfishness, their greed,
their falsehoods, and their oppressions. Yea, God has “ so loved thew orld”—not the “ globe,” as some misguided Christians have lately
printed and perverted this sublime text with a ridiculous “ globe” stamped
on the paper—God “ so loved the world that H e gave His only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have ever­lasting life.” This, we say, is comforting. It is assuring. But, on theastronomical hypothesis, the world is like an uncared-for orphan, or adesolate wanderer : God is removed too far from us to be any practicaj
u se ; and the idea of Heaven is so vague, that such a place, if it exist at all,may be anywhere or nowhere; “ all round the globe ; ” or spirited awayfrom us altogether, “ beyond the bounds of time and space.” Thus theChristian’s hope is undermined, and his faith is eaten away at the very
core by this insidious and so-called “ scientific” worm. This is mostcalamitous ; yet even some of our “ spiritual guides ” are either so false to
their professions, or are so deceived themselves, that they cry out, “ Itd o e s
not matter what shape the earth is ; we don’t care whether it be round orflat, square or oblong, so long as ’— yes, so long as they get a good
“ living,” and hold a respectable position in society ? Is this it ? Such a
confession really means, when put into plain language, We do not care

10

THE

EARTH

liE V IE W .

whether the Bible be true or false, in its record of Creation, so long as
our interests or our hope of “ Salvation ” is assured. But “ woe ” is pro­nounced against such easy going shepherds of Israel. “ W oe” to them
who are leaving their flocks to become a prey to the devouring wolves of“ Science, ” “ falsely so called,” as the great apostle intimates. Let us beon our guard. There are honourable exceptions to such false shepherds
and teachers, and others are being raised up to warn us. We have quoted
some of their noble testimonies. Let us give heed to these needful warn­
ings. God has never left Himself without witnesses to His Truth whether
in Nature or in Revelation. We may shew this, if the Lord permit, more
fully another time as regards Creation truth.
In conclusion, we would call the attention of all our readers to theseasonable warning given us by the Apostle Paul, where he says;—‘‘ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain dcceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not afterC h r i s t ,”Col. 2 : 8. And again, Let us “ prove all things ; and holdfast that which is good.”“ Historically as well as logically the concession of any scientificerrors has led to the downfall of the whole Biblical system of doctrine.
Moses in his vision of the creation during six days may not have reviewed
the whole physical development of the globe.”
The Century Illustrated Monthly Alagazinc.
Of course the “ concession ” of error in the Bible must eventuallyand logically, lead to the downfall of “ the whole Biblical system of
doctrine ” in. the minds o f those making the concession : but we do not makethat concession, aad we call for proof that the Earth is a “ globe ” before
we can make it. But the above extract shews the importance of ourcontention that the Earth is a plane.
Ed. T.E .R .
“ If the origin from which a system of philosophy is derived be afalse and erroneous one, whatever emanates from it must of necessity bealso false.”
L ord B acon.
“ We should have fewer disputes in the world if words were taken
for what they mean.”
L ocke.

Mr. J. Lack read a pai)er on “ Zetetic Astronomy ” at the Breakley
Road Chapel, Loudon, December 20th, 1S92. But the report reached us
too late for further notice.

THE EV.ULUT10NIST.

11

TH E S O N G O F T H E E V O LU TIO N IST .
B y “ Z b t b t b s .”In thG infinite ages of past time
Tliero was nothing b u t “ atoms ” a b o u t;
They groped iip and down in the darkness.
Or ran in irregular r o u t:
A t length seized by “ gravity’s ” impulse.
They all rushed away after one
And clashing around it struck fire, so
They formed the brig h t spherical sun !
The heat soon expanded his body
To most disproportionate size ;And Sol felt himself solitary.
Lone occupant then of the skies :W ith labour lie threw oft young star-suns,
To occupy parts unexplored ;And kept but a few suns about him,
Jfot liking too much to be bored.
The planets ho tied to his body—
The rest ho could never restrain—
And these iled the centre, for freedom.
B ut strong was g reat “ gravity’s ” chain I
Our world as she whirled—hot and ijlastic—
Made herself like her father the sun ;B ut as the long ages rolled overH er blazing and brightness got done.
However, a t length germ inatedIn a quiet old “ Caml>rian ” spot.
From Sunshine and mud in solution,“ A shapeless album inous d o t: ”
H e could “ push out an arm when he w anted."
He learned to “ catch prey, so he th riv e d ; ”
And from him , our m ighty ancestor.
All life on th e planet’s derived !
Then “ active Ascideans ” evolving
Fresii forms ho i-ontrivcd in his spleen,Logs, limbs, improvised for th e sexes.
All sorts up to twelve or sixteen :The strongest the beautiful choosing—The “ fittest ” survive on a Ball—
And beauties th e weak ones refusing,
The weakest soon “ w ent to the wall,”Too many limbs proved inconvenient.
For “ mammals ” which came into view ;He therefore dropped ton or a dossen,
Eeduced them to four, or to two ;Made monkeys four-legged, or four-handed,
Evolving in tim e into men.
W ith two legs, and two hands for labour.
And toe-fingers, rem nant of ten.
So on through th e ages still future
The world will keep “ w hirling ” about,
The “ law of survival ” is cruel.
I t threatens to make me drop o u t:
I ’ll eat then and drink, for to-morrow.
The Book is rig h t here—we shall die ;And a fte r—ah me ! this here-after—
Sujjpose I ’ve believed bvA a lie !
Copied from the Leicester Free Press, Saturday, October lo th , 1301. and con­tained in the Satire by “ Zctetes,” —See Advertisements],

THE

12

EA R THREVIEW .

CORRESPONDENCE.
Letters intended jo r publication in the “ The E arth Review ’’ must be leffiUy
written on one side only o f the paper, and must have some hearing on the subject
before us.
The E ditor cannot, of course, be held responsible, fo r the various opinions o f
his correspondents.
A ll letters must be prepaid, and addressed,“ Z E T E T E S ," Plutus House,
St. Saviour’s Road,
Leicester, England.
To the Editor.
D e a r S i b , —I t is reported th a t Colonel

Duller has brought out an " ingenious
apparatus for slashing smoke.” I t wasalso reported th a t Lord Armstrongj at
th e banquet given to th e members of
the B ritish Association a t Newcastle,
said, “ there is after all some connexion
between smoke and science.” Beyond
all question of doubt Lord A rm strongis perfectly rig h t, as I know you will
ultim ately prove, b u t I w rite to ask, if
you are in possession of any information
as th e th e fact or otherwise, whether
there is a smoke washing apparatus tobe placed in every observatory in th e
U nited Kingdom to wash away thesmoke of th e globe ? T o u r kind reply
will be esteemed by
B a l a a m ’s A s s .

Our con-espondent who signs himself
Balaam ’s Ass, has asked us a question
we are not able directly to answer. He
m ight obtain th e desired information
by w riting to the oiBcials a t th e Royal
Observatory, Greenwich. No doubt an
ajjparatus for '■ washing smoke ” would
be very useful in such places. A stron­omers often complain of particles ofdust, or smoke, obstructing th eir fieldof view when they look through th eir
powerful telescopes. B u t if an ap­
paratus could be devised for washingfrom off th eir own own visions much of
the philosophic, and scientific smoke
which prevents them seeing N ature as
she is, it would indeed be a useful andan ingenious invention. L et us hopeth a t our E a e t h R e v i e w may help
them in th is m atter.
Scientists are generally alive to thesmallest particles of dust and smoke
which may obstruct th e visual ray, orinterfere in th e least degree w ith theresults of th eir experiments ; b u t few ofthem seem to th in k it necessary toguard against th e m ental smoke of pre­judice and early train in g , especially inth e m atter referred to by our corres­
pondent, “ the smoke of th e globe.”
I t is not very long ago th a t Galileo wascondemned, as a philosopher and a
C hristian, for teaching th a t the earth
was a moving ball, rolling on nowhere ;b u t now it is considered a sign ofm ental incapacity to doubt it. B ut
why so ? L et our learned men honestly
apply themselves to th e fundam ental
question as to w hether th e E a rth be a
globe, or a plane, and they will findth a t the globular theory has beenenveloiaed in much more Scientific
Smoke and d ust th a n most people areaware of. I t will be th e object of The
Earth Review, in futui’e numbers, tohelp to clear away some of th is accumu­
lated philosophical smoke, so th a t ourreaders may get to know w hether weare living on a star, or planet, shooting
through “■space ” ; or w hether, as oursenses a tte st and th e good old Book
declares, we are living on an “ out­
stretched ■” earth, founded upon herbases, th a t it should not be moved forever.”
P s a . c.iv. 5.
R ev. V e e .
M a b o in .
A uckland,
Zealand ,N o v e m b e e 2 n d , 1892.
D e a e S i b , — A short tim e ago some­one sent me five pham phlets, called“ Cranks ” from London, th e name onth e wrapper was -------- ------. I am
not acquainted w ith the gentlem an, but
I can truly say I feel very grateful forthem , and shall circulate them among
my friends. I have only very recently

CORRESP0NDENCE,
become acquainted w ith any of thefacts relating to the plane E a rth subject
through the kindness of Mr. J. T. B.
Dines, Auckland, and they certainly
appeal to my common sense and reason
as indisputable proofs. Above all I am
glad th a t so much testim ony can be got
from the “ Sacred W ritings ” in corro­boration of the facts of N ature. I haveseat to Mr. W . C arpenter for one of his“ 1 00 Proofs.” I t is pleasing to findth a t we have one grand foundation
tru th . W ater Level and not Convex.
I should like to get some more in­formation on the subject, or readingm atter. Are there any regular publica­
tions issued ? W ould you kindly sendme a list of publications, also best
method of sending paym ent for thesame.
I suppose N.Z. Stamps are no use a t
Home.
Have you any leaflets on the absurdityof atmospheric xjressure ?
Hoping to hear from you a t yo4i‘
earliest convenience.
I remain, yours respectfully.
G eo. R e v e l l .

We may inform our N.Z. friends th a t
P.O. Orders can be made payable to us
in English money, and if a few of ourColonial friends would join, a numberof pamphlets and papers could be sent
to the same address.
We have ah'eady forwarded a few
papers to our correspondent, and hopeto hear from him again soon. Probably
our indefatigable Secretary will sendooj)ies of The Earth Review to him.
Our esteemed London friend, who
generously helped ris to publish“ Cranks,” will be glad to know thecause is progressing well in New
Zealand, a t the so-called “ Antipodes.”Our friends, however, seem to havetheir heads rig h t side up ! E d . T.E.R .
B e l i 'As t ,M o n d a y , D e c . 12 , 1892.
D k a b S i b , —My lecture

according toprogramme has been delivered. I had
an audience num bering between 70 and
80, and from enquiries made and in ­terest displayed, together with demon­
strations of approval, I have reason tobelieve th a t my eft'orts have been some­what of a success. B ut even should
this not have been the case, I consider

13

it a privilege to be perm itted to proclaim
the tru th which is a t such a discountnowadays.
My audience was mixed. The poetryfrom your Satire was well received byall, and it was understood by those who
were not able to follow the more diffi­
cult portions of the Lecture ; and I
proclaimed the name of the author withno uncertain sound.
I shall circulate the New Organ w ith
pleasure ; and be glad to have anything
fresh on th is interesting subject.
W ill you please forward me somecopies of “ The sun-dial,” two or three‘‘Do the Bible and science agree,”? and a
few leaflets on “ Bible Astronomy,”
for which I enclose 2 /-.
Yours very sincerely,
J . A t k in s o n .

The follow ing w as refused
insertion in “ The Faith."
To the Editor o f T h e F a i t h .
33 , B a n k s i d e , L o n d o n , S.E.,
A o g u s t 2 0 , 1892.
D e a e Sik,—Pardon .the liberty I takein addressing you. Believe me I should
not do so only th a t I see you intend to
exclude from the pages of your in­
valuable pam phlet a subject of theutm ost importance to th e faith of God’s
people.
Lady B lount in this m onths issue of“ The F aith ” informs us th a t she
believes in the Scriptural (not the
Scientific) account of Creation, and th a t
th a t account is, th a t the earth is acircular, and stretched out plane. Is
this God’s tru th Sir ? And if so. W hy
close your columns to it and declare
th a t “ The F aith ” has no testim ony tobear to it ?
If th e first chapters of Genesis are
not an accurate and literal account ofthe'C reation, the whole Bible is a lie,
and th e C hristian F a ith is folly inessence. Can you Sir as a Christianprofessedly seeking to defend God’s
T ruth perm it “ the gaze of the people
to be to man ” instead of to God’s u n ­changing, unerring Holy W ord, and not
lift up your voice in testim ony V Are
you not by your fiat hindering thefulfilment of the Divine injunction on

14

THE

EARTH

the first l^agc of youi' pam phlet to" contend earnestly for th e faith which
was once tor all delivered unto thesaints ” ? You invito contributions
about Spiritualism, Theosophy &c., thoseare b u t forms of demonology, and whatis th e so-called scienco of Modern
Astronomy b u t tha same ? I can iinderstand th e E ditors of “ Science Siftings ”
excluding from th eir pages th e tru th ofGod, but I cannot understand a
Christian E ditor of a periodical of thecharacter of “ The F aith ” doing th esame. Surely it becometh us to fulfil

REVIEW .

p e k s p e c t iv e ;all righteousness “ for God’s ” glory
sake. May I add th a t I believe th a t
full liberty of discussion on all m attersof faith, would increase, not only thesize, but also th e circulation of “ TheF a ith .”W ith C hristian regards and wishes.
Believe me, yours respectfully,
J n o . W il l ia m b .

Cyrus E. Brooks, Escj.

PERSPECTIVE.
F rom

th e

F utureofD e c . 1892.^

S ir ,— I should like to say a few words in reply to “ Enquirer.” His
criticism of the One Hundred Proofs ” I shall leave Mr. Carpenter toanswer. I am pleased to find that “ Enquirer ” has the candour to admitthat “ the effects of perspective alone are sufficient to compel the removalof the time-honoured mistake of the hull-down ‘ proof ’ of the sphericityof the earth.” Yet this is generally considered to be one of the best
popular proofs of the globe theory. But I think “ Enquirer falls into avery common error when he says : “ At length, when the apparent horizon
is overpassed by an outward-bound ship, its hull gradually disappears.”
Now, according to the rules of perspective, objects below the level of theeye appear to rise to a point, or line, on a level with the eye as they
recede ; but they never appear to rise above it, or “ overpass ” it, and thengo down. The apparent horizon is always seen on a level with the eye ofthe spectator ; therefore, if the hull of a vessel be below the line of sightwhen it starts but on its outward-bound voyage, it will, as long as it isvisible, remain below the horizon. It will never overpass tlie horizon, orbe seen above or on i t ; but the hull will disappear before it quite reaches
the vanishing point. As “ Enquirer ” remarks : “ Such instances should
be noted and stated with exactness.” Last year, when I was staying at
Brighton, I watched the disappearance of out-going hulls with this special
point in view. I pointed out this fact to others, who acknowledged I wasright. Vanished hulls can often be rendered visible again by means of agood telescope. This proves that they have not gone down below andbeyond the horizon.
In regard to the eclipse of the Moon having been occasionallyobserved while the Sun was also visible above the horizon, this we regard
as a proof that the earth is not a globe. The fact can be explained without the aid of the globe theory.
Eiiquirer ” admits the fact, but heassumes that we must be ignorant of “ the elementary knowledge ” he sokindly supplies. Like many others, he cannot argue in favour of the globe
theory without innocently assuming the question at issue. For instance,
he says, “ Atmospheric refraction raises a distant object 33', an amountwhich excceds the apparent diameter of the Moon or the S u n ; and byconsequence, both luminaries may be visible at one moment from one
region of the earth’s surface.” This reasoning quietly assumes one or bothluminaries to be actually below the horizon, yet he admits that “ appear
ances are sometimes treacherous.” Although the Sun appears to be set,
it does not follow that the body of the Sun is actually below the earth.
Perspective and the earth’s atmosphere are sufficient to account for thephenomena of sunset, without necessitating the belief that the orb has
really gone below the horizon. Now, the assumption of the globulariststhat it is the earth’s shadow which eclipses the Moon, requires the further
assumption that either the Sun or the Moon is actually below the earth at
the time of the eclipse of the Moon. Then, a third assumption is madeto explain the fact that both Sun and eclipsed Moon are visible at one
and the same movement (from the top of the e a rth ); and this assumption,
ill order to fit with their theory, is that “ atmospheric refraction raises a
distant object.” The fallacy of any one of these several and subtle
assumptions would be sufficient to vitiate the whole argument in supportof the globe theory. If the earth were really a globe, it would be impos­
sible to see from the same place, at the same time, two apparently andcomparitively small orbs, in exact opposition, on either side of the earth.
It would take up too much space to show this by diagrams, or I would
do so. One of the orbs would be at least 90“ below the visible horizon,
and our friends do not surely claim that atmospheric refraction can bringup a body 90° above that horizon. At another oi>portunity, I shouldlike to deal with the greatest assumption of all, viz: Solar attraction or“ Gravitation,” without which the globular theory falls to the ground.
Leicester.
Z etetes.
; We are glad to report th a t the E ditor of The Futurt, has, during the past year.
h;id the courage to adm it several letters discussing the im portant ijuestion of“ The Shape of the E arth .”E d . T.E.K.

HONEST AND

NOBLE CONFESSIONS.

“ When we consider that the advocates of the earth’s stationary andcentral position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as
accurately, to their own thinking, as we can ours, in addition to which
they have the evidence of their senses, and s c r i p t u r e , and FACTS intheir favour, which we have n o t; it is not without a shew of reason thatthey maintain the superiority of their system. • • ■ • However per­fect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply (?) andsatisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all
the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astound­

16

THE

EARTH

BEVIEW .

HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.

17

ing truth that, if our premises be disputed, and our facts challenged, thewhole range of Astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accu­
racy.”—D t. Woodhouse, a late professor o f Astronomy at Cambridge.

“ W h o e v e r considers aright will acknowledge, that, next to the Wordof God, the most certain cure of superstition, and the best aliment offaith, is the knowledge of N ature.”
L ord B acon.

M y “ B e lie f.”“ I believe in the Scriptural, and not in the socalled ‘ scientific ’ account of Creation. I believe that the Earth is acircular and out-stretched plane ; and that it will ‘ not be removed forever.’ I believe that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are what they appear,
mere lights made to serve this earth ; and that the heavens form a canopy
or tent-hke covering, to encircle it.”— L a d y B l o u n t . [See the full ex­pression of her Ladyship’s “ Belief ” in The Faith for August, 1892].

“ T h e s e (Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, inthat they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17 : 11.

T h e following was the official confession, in 1 6 1 6 a . d ., of the Churchof Rome, when confronting the then Astronomical innovator, Galileo,
who recanted and publicly confessed that his doctrine of the earth’s
motion was false :—“ I.—The proposition that the Sun “ is the centre of the World andimmovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally
heretical; because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.”“ I I . —The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world,
nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is also
absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, equallyerroneous in faith.”“ And so we say, pronounce and by our sentence declare, decree,and reserve, in this and in every other better form and manner, which
lawfully we may and can use. So We, the subscribing Cardinals pro­nounce.”—“ This 26th day of February, 1616.”(S u b s c r ib e d

by

Seven

C a r d i n a l s ).

“ I AGREE with )ou in your contention respecting the Earth ; for mymotto has long been, ‘ Let God be true and every man a liar.’ ”
R e v . W. E. B u l l i n g e r , D.D.
“ I t may be a surprise to find that we are still imperfectly acquainted
with the exact figure of the Earth.’’ D aily Chronich (science notes)
April 8th, 1891.
“ T h e whole of Astronomical science, so far as the stellar universe
is concerned, is founded upon a false basis. This arises from the factthat the construction of the heavens in respect to the apparent arrange­
ment of the stars in space is always erroneous, and yet necessarily all
astronomy is founded upon this supposititious situation of the stars.”— The
English Mechanic, J a n . 4th, i88g.

Let us follow th eir example in searching into th e bcok of N ature.— E d . E.E.

T h e “ Catholic World,” says; “ The defence of the sacred Scriptures
is to-day the great talk of the Christian apologist, and most of the attacks
that are made upon the Bible are based upon scientific theories of somekind or other.” “ But,” it adds, “ the Christian has nothing to do with
defending th-e sacred Scriptures. The Word of God is quick (living) andpowerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to thedividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is adiscerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, H eb. iv. : 12. I t is
fu lly able to defend itself ■, what the Christian wants is t h e s a c r e d S c r i p ­t u r e s AS A d e f e n c e f o r HIM .
To those who dwell in the secret placeof the Most High, the promise is. His t r u t h shall be thy shield andbuckler. Those who profess the religion of Christ need such an acquaint­
ance with the sacred Scriptures, that they will not be alarmed lest thatROCK should be vnerturned by idle ‘ scientific ’ theoriet.”

CUTTINGS AND REMARKS.
A v e r y d is tin g 'u is h e d
V isito r.
We have no desire to unduly alarm
onr readers, b u t our duty to the public
compels us to announce that to-night acollision may he expected between theearth and a comet. The notice we giveis somewhat short, so short indeed th a t
if the worst comes to the worst, somedistant readers may have barely learned
the fact before the shock gives it anemphatic confirmation. The Eev. M.
B a x t e r has somehow or other over­looked this noteworthy prediction, an
oversight possibly accounted for by his
feverish desire to discover some u n ­fortunate individual who may be pub­
licly described as “ The Beast ” w ithout
running foul of the law of libel............
Ju st a t present it is pei’haps risky to
speak disrespectfully of comets, b u t it

is undeniable th a t they are chiefly
distinguished by th eir eccentricity.
They resemble in no small degree
political parties. They consist of adefinite point or nucleus, w ith a re­m arkably nebulous ta il preceding or
following the nucleus. The tail pre­cedes th e nucleus when th e comet has
passed its perihelion and is recedingfrom th e sun, and it follows it when thesun is approached. T hat is to say, it
is always to th e front in a retreat andin the rear in an attack. As w ith th ehumble members of political parties, itsdistinguishing feat^ire is prudence.
Nor does th e resemblance end here, forastronomers assure us th a t comets’tails are noted for th eir extrem e tenuity.
Stars which th e slightest fog completely
obscures shine through millions (?) of
miles of th eir transparent m aterial. In
th e same way it is easy to see through

18

THE

EAKTH

th e motjves and tactits of t-he politicalhanger-on. The nucleus is really th e
only p a rt of a. oomet which need be
noticed by practical men. The vaporous
tails have frequently come w ithin th e
oai’th ’s attraction (?) and have been ab­sorbed into its atm ospherej jn st as the
Liberal U nionists have been merged
into the Tory party. Whether the effecto f th e absorption of a comet’s tail into
onr atmosphere has been salubrious ordeleterious, or even if th e event has had
any perceptible influence a t all, is onlya m atter of speculation among th elearned.
This extremely negative
result resembles th e action of homoeopa­
thic medicines upon th e hum an frame—a t least, as described by allopaths.
The moral seems to bo th a t th e world
will be wise it it oarefnlly avoids
th e nucleus to -n ig h t and collides
simply w ith th e tail.
“ E un into
something- cheap,” shouted th e econo­
mical peer to his coachman when his
horses bolted down Piccadilly.
Mankind has received comets invarious moods. Sometimes they havebeen hailed with rapturous welcome.
They have been supposed to herald asuperior wine vintage. The produce of
IS il and of. 1S58 was sj)ecially an ­nounced as “ comet wines,” and topers
declared th a t i t was very good. On th eother hand, these eccentric heavenly
bodies have been regarded w ith hatred
and terror. They were included in avery nncomiilimentary prayer in theyear 145G. The T u rts had Just cap­
tured Constantinople, and it was feared
th a t they would soon overrun Europe.
A comet was hovering about a t the
tim e, and th e pious of th e day added to
the Ave M aria th e following special
supplication : “ Lord, save us from th edevil, th e T urk, and the comet.” I t is
strange th a t a t th e end of th e nine­teen th century we should be threatenedby th e same th ree influences. The first
seems destined to be always with us,
the second wiU h au n t us un til th e
E astern Question is really settled, and

REVIEW .

T H E NEW SCRIPTUKES.

the th ird th reaten s to mend o r end us
to-night.— /'Vom the Morning Leader,
London, November 21st, 1892.

illum ination of the earth is fourteentimes greater on the moon th an th a t ofth e moon on the earth.” —Homeland,
Decemher Sth, 1892.

A fe a rfu ! C o llisio n —Proof wanted of th e above statem ents.
Fancy our “ dull distan t mountains ”
shining “ fourteen times ” brighter
th an the moon, and yet wo “ can’t
see it ” ! Perhaps we need “ glasses ”—astronomical ones ?
E d . T .E .E .

B e t w e e n a E ock a n d a W e b a t h
01- S m o k e !

A Dalziel Telegram , dated Philadel­phia, November 24, says Professor
Synder, instructor of astronomy inth e H igh School here, states th a t theearth last n ig h t collided w ith a cometin the Andromeda group and shattered
it to pieces. This theory is said toreccive confirmation (!) by news from
Illinois and other States, where there
was a great fall of m eteors. These
are supposed to be th e rem ains of thedefunct comet.—Reynolds, November■21th, 1892.
In th e above paragraph th e words“ said,” and “ supposed,” which wehave underlined, are very properly
inserted Ijy th e thoughtful e d ito r; butth e Astronomical “ Professor ” has notbeen so cautions in boldly affirming
th a t the earth “ collided w ith a comet,”and “ shattered it to pieces.” B ut heprobably presum ed eith er ujion theignorance, or th e credulity, of the,students in th e “ H igh School; ” orupon his own self-sufEcient authority asa learned Scientist.” Many of thes(>‘^highly” learned men seem to th in k i(
u tterly superfluous to offer “ proofs,”or '' reasons,” for th eir self-confident
assertions. B ut, as th e earth^’s sup­posed revolution has never y et been
proved, he m ight as well have talked ofa great m ountain colliding w ith a little
w reath of smoke ! A little more
“ Scientific Smoke ” for our corres­
pondent “ B.A.” to clear away ?
E d . T .E.E .

T h e GSotoe S h i n i n g - !
“ As seen from th e moon, th e eartli
would appear four tim es g reater indiam eter, and th irte e n tim es wider insurface th an th e moon does to us. The“ A dis-quieting feature of therecently issued yearly return of shipping
casualities is th e increase in th e number
uf missing sailing vessels, which rose

TPIE NEW

Ui

from 40 in 1888-89, and 2U in 1889-90,
to (54 in 1890-91.”
We need not be astonished a t this when
we remember th a t all our Mariners
are ta u g h t to believe the absurd
theory th a t they are navigating aw hirling globe, instead of sailing on
the “ level of th e sea.” I t is a sadreflection on th e boasted “ science ”
of tlie nineteenth Century.
E d . T.E.E.

Said Tim to Mickey : “ Do you
belave the E a rth turns round ? ” “ Oid o ,” replied Mickey, “ w hin Oi’mdrunk ; but not whin Oi’m sober.”

SCRIPTURES.

ACCORDING TO T y n d a l l , H u x l e y , S p e n c e r ,andD a r w in .

1— “ Primarily theUnknovvable moved upon coraos and evolved protoplasm.
2—And protoplasm was inorganic and undifferentiated, containing allthings in potential energy ; and a spirit of evolution moved upon thefluid mass.
3—And the Unknowable said, “ Let atoms attract
begat light, heat, and electricity.

and their contact

4—And the Unconditioned differentiated the atoms, each after its kind ;and their combinations begat rock, air, and water.
5—And there went out a spirit of evolution from the Unconditioned,
and working in protoplasm by accretion and absorption, produced
the organic cell.
6—And cell, by nutrition, evolved primordial germ, and germ developed
protogene ; and protogene began eozoon, and eozoon begat monad,and monad begat animalcule.
7—And arainalcule begat ephemera ; then began creeping things to mul­
tiply on the face of the earth.
8—And earthly atoms in vegetable protoplasm begat the molecule, andthence came all grass and every herb in the earth.
9—And animalculaoe in the water m olved fins, tails, claws, and scales ;and in the air, wings and beaks, and on the land they sprouted suchorgans as were necessary, as played upon by the environment.
lo —And by accretion and absorption came the radiata and mollugca,
and raollusca begat articulata, and articulata begat vertebrata.

20

THE

EARTH

REV IEW .

11— Now these are the generations of the higher vertebrata, in the cosmic
period when the Unknowable evoluted the bipedal mammalia.
12—And every man of the earth, while he was yet a monkey, and thehorse while he was a hipparion, and the hipparion before he was aan oredon.
13— Out of the ascidian came the amphibian and begat the pentadactyle;and the pentadactyle, by inheritance and selection, produced thehylobate, from which the simiadae in all their tribes.
14—And out of the simiadse the lemur prevailed above his fellows, andproduced the platyrhine monkey.
15—And the platyrhine begat the caterrhine, and the catterhine monkey
begat the authropoid ape, and the ape begat the longimanous orang,
and the orang begat the chimpanzee, and the chimpanzee evoluted thewhat-is-it ?
16—And the what-is-it went to the land of Nod, and took him a wife of
the longimanous gibbons.
17—And in process of the cosmic period were born unto them and theirchildren, the anthropomorphic primordial types.
18—T he homunsulus, the prognathus, the troglodyte, the autochthon,
the tarragen, these are the generations of primeval man.
19— And primeval man was naked and not ashamed, but lived in quadrumanus innocence, and struggled mightily to harmonise with theenvironment.
20—And by inheritance and natural selections did he progress from thestable and homogeneous to the complex and heterogeneous ; for the
weakest died and the strongest grew and multiplied.
21— And man grew a thumb, for that he had need of it, and developed
capacities for prey.
22—For, behold the swiftest men caught the most animals, and the swift"
est animals got away from the most men ; wherefore the slow animals
were eaten and the slow men starved to death.

GLOBE TINKERING.

21

GLOBE TINKERING,OR G a s M e t o r i t e s .

Our esteemed Editor has privileged me with the reading of an article
to appear in this number entitled, “ University Extension.” In that
article he has Sampson-like felt for the pillars of modern Astronomy,
doubtless, with the intention of pulling down that “ house of cards.” H eknows that the so-called sciences—which in the point of fact are notscience at all, but mere speculations, or a contrivance to explain phe­nomena—^have not got the shawdow of practical demonstrated proof, eitherof globularity or mobility to support them ! If confirmation of this isneeded, it can be found in the D aily Chronicle (April 8th, 1891). There
we read a confession of ignorance with respect to the shape of the earth.
“ I t may be a surprise to find that we are still imperfectly acquainted withthe exact figure of the earth ” ! But how did the savants manufacture ourwhirling, twirling, tumbling, rotating seven-motioned globe? Why, they
im a g in ed that it was one, and hence they can never demonstratively provetheir speculations, by a practical appeal to nature ! Having imagined theearth to be a globe, they set about to find out its origin by other specula­tions. For instance. Professor l^aplace '•^supposed the solar system tohave originally consisted of a mass of Gas in rotation ” ; and, lo andbehold ! as it “ cooled it contracted,” and by consequence “ rotated more
rapidly, until at length, it became so much flattened, that it could nolonger subsist in a single shape,” therefore it began to evolve and “ sheda ring.” This loss is said to have caused the “ central portion ” to con­tract still further, until a second crisis arrived, when again by the processof physical evolution—not the man monkey evolution of the Darwinians—^“ another ring was shed ” ; and then another, and another, ad infinitum.
Subsequently these rings coaleced into planets, and the central portion
formed the Sun !

23—And as types were differentiated the weaker types continually dis­appeared.
24—And the earth was filled with violence; for man strove with man,and tribe with tribe, whereby they killed off the weak and foolish,
and secured the survival of the fittest,”—Fro77i the “ Rainbmu, ” andcopied from an American yo u rn a l.

Now, Sir, some time after this speculation had been accepted byscientists, there arose another Prolessor by name Lockyei-, who by anothersupposition proved Laplace to be in gross error on the “ matter,” andtaught us, that the immediate antecedent condition of the Sun and planets(“ the earth,” they say, “ being a planet ”) was not gas at all, but, “ thatthey consisted of a swarm of loose stones or m eteorites” ! Is it any
wonder that Lord Bacon in his Novum Organon Scientiarum, ch. iv.,
speaking of the origin of systems of philosophy says, “ if it (the origin) be
false and erroneous, whatever immediately arises from it must of necessity
be false also ” ? This is self-evident.

If it require fa ith to believe the grand, simple, and reasonable account of Creation
given in Genesisj how much credulity and gullibility does it require to swallow
down this new gospel of Evolution ?
E d . E.E.

Now Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, at the anni­
versary meeting at Burlington House, on Nov. 30th, spoke of the sun’srotation, and thus contradicted Sir Isaac Newton, who, in his “ Principia,”

22

THE

EARTH

llEV IEW .

SCIENCE SIFTINGS.

says, that the sun is “ immovable.” How in the name of common sense
can an immovable thing rotate ? Will these gentlemen condescend toanswer ? If they do, perhaps they will also inform us how meteorites
can overcome the frictional resistance of a rotating sun?
How canmeteoric matter overcome the frictional resistance of their seven motioned
globe ? If the orbital speed of this “ globe ” is “ over one thousand
miles a minute,” what chance is there of meteoric dust falling on to sucha flying Dutch Cheese-shaped affair ? In the interest of the public whosemoney iliey spend, I challenge the Astronomer Royal, Lord Kelvin, or
any official astronomer, to answer these and similar questions.
Lately we have been informed by a cheap Science Sifter, that “ theSun is a frozen mass eternal ” ! To say that these contradictions andspeculations are more or less than absolute falsehoods would be super­
fluous. Therefore I await •some reply; and no doubt we shall have to
wait long enough,J. W il l ia m s .

“ SCIENCE SIFTINGS,” SIFTED.
To tiu Editor o f The B arth Review.
Sir ,—T he following is a copy of my letters to the Editors of “Science
Siftings,” with their replies. You will see by them, that although they
say they will “ endeavour to distinguish fact from hypothesis, truth fromfalsehood” (No. i), yet when put to the test, they utterly decline to do
anything of the kind.
J u ly

gxH ,

1892.

To the Editor o f Science Siftings.
S ir,— In your issue for Juue 4th, 1892, you state, that, “ the curva­
ture of the earth is 8 inches for i mile, 32 for 2 miles, and keeps onincreasing as the square of the distance for longer distances.” Now by
this rate ihe curvature of 90 miles is 5,400 feet. Therefore an object at
20 miles distance, the height of which is 1,000 feet, could not be seen atthat distance. I presume that you are aware that there is another rate ofcurvature in existence which is the product of modern astronomy, viz :-—2’04 inches to the mile, multiplied by the square of the distance in miles ?
Now, even by this rate it is evident than an object 1,000 feet high could
not be seen at 90 miles distance, for it would be hid behind a curve, over
1,300 feet. Now I come to practical facts. The Eiffel Tower is not quite
1,000 feet high, but its top can be seen at a distance of over 90' miles ! !
Now Sir, let me ask you how on globular principles, this is to be rationallyaccounted for ? I trust in the interests of truth you will kindly publish
this letter in your next issue, and your reply thereto.

23

On July 9th, the following appeared. “ T he paradox referred to inyour letter is apparent only. It is true that there are two ways ofreckoning the earth’s curvature : but one refers to the arc, the other to thechord of the circle. It was of the last that we spoke in the paragraph you
refer to. AVithin moderate limits, it may be assumed that the chord of
the terrestrial circle, joined the eye of an observer with the base of a
distant vertical object, represents the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle,of which the vertical object forms one of the sides. H ence the simple
rule that the height of this object, when just visible, is proportional to thesquare of the distance along the chord, which, although not an absolutely
accurate rule, is sufficiently nearly so for many practical purposes.”Comment on this is hardly necessary. But on August 20th, I wrote
as follows;—
A u gu st

2o t h , 1 8 9 2 .

To the Editors o f Science Siftings.
G e n t l e m e n , —Permit me to call your attention to the introductionof yourselves to the public as given in No. i of “ Science Siftings. ”
There you promised to “ distinguish fact from hypothesis, truth fromfalsehood.” This you have not done, for, to go no furthur, your reply tome in “ S.S.” of July 9th, is a direct contradiction of i t ! When you canprove your globe has two circumferences, then, and then only, will yourreply be consistent with logical reasoning and common sense. You know
as well as I do that your reply is not true, and that it is on/y theory andutterly false, hence it it you are obliged to have resource to assumption.
In Vol. i. p.38. you say, “ since water finds its own level, it iscompatible with the theory (theory mind) of a spherical or oblate World,that the sea is a plane of Water, &c.

Is it possible you do not see the contradiction which exists in thisgrandiloquent statement, with which is coupled the sarcastic question to afriend of mine about “ tumbling over the ed g e” ? “ The sea being aplane ” as you admit, the World cannot be a globe. How in the name ofcommon sense can a plane of water be a part of a sphere or oblate globe ?
Do you not see that the thing is a practical and moral impossibility ? Is
that the reason why you told “ E. J. Cooper ” (Vol. II. No. 41. p.210)
that “ flat earth theories are kicked out of your columns ” ? I do not Sir
want the ^ 1 ,0 0 0 you offer, but I do want the truth of practical science tobe known by the people, and I therefore challenge the Astronomical
Editor to prove the earth to be a spinning and whirling globe, by anappeal to demonstrated facts found in Nature. I will prove it is not, if
you have the manliness and courage to open your columns for the
elucidation of the truth of the subject.
Yours respectfully, J o h n

W il l ia m s .

P.S.—I encloso a j61,000 challenge in tlie laope that you will accept it.

J.W.

THE

24
T he

f o l l o w in g

reply

EARTH

w as

g iv e n

UEVIEW .
inth eis s u eforS e p t . io t h .

“ We cannot think of accepting your challenge. The “ reward ” of;^ i,o o o is doubtless a hoax on the part of someone who has simply
invented the American references. Not a cent could be recovered fromanybody, upon the strength of such a “ startling offer ” as is publishedupon the hand-bill. Then apart from this, most of our readers have been
educated past flat earth hypotheses. And if we devoted to these such an
amount of our space as would be needed for the rigid demonstration of
the motions and form of the earth, Science Siftings would be considered
uninteresting, and its demonstrations redundant. Then our circulation
would be converted from an increasing to a decreasing one. Probably
this last consideration has not presented itself to you ; but we cannot lose
sight of it.”—and

So we see that these gentlemen evidently distinguish between truths. d . ; and they chose the latter. Comment is needless.
Yours & c . ,H i g 'h l y

J. W i l l i a m s ,E d u c a te d .

B y M. a . B u x t o n .
Miss Pallas Eudora von Blurky,
W ho did’n t know chicken from turkey,
H igh Spanish and Greek
She could fluently speak.
B u t h er knowledge of poultry was murky.
She could name th e great-unole of Moses,
The dates of th e W ars of the Koses,
The reason of things.
W hy the Indians wore rings
Through th e ir red aboriginal noses.
The meaning of Emerson’s “ Brahm a,”
W hy Shakespeare was wrong in his gram mar ;And she went chipping rocks
W ith a little black box.
And a small geological hammer.
She had views upon co-education.
And th e principal needs of th e Nation ;H er glasses were blue.
And th e num ber she knew
Of th e stars in each h ig h constellation.
She expounded th e use of bacilli.
And learnedly lectured on calci ;H er costume was mannish,
H er ways very clannish,’Mongst th e C ult and th e 'V arsity foci.
She wrot« in a handw riting clorky.
And spoke with an emphasis jerky ;H igh German and Greek
She could fluently speak ;B ut—she didn’t know chicken from turkey.
F ro m Uie “ Yankee BU ide.'

UEVIEW,‘ To Him that stretched out the E arth above the W aters; fo r H is imrcy
endnreth for ever.”— Psa. 136 : 6 .
No. 2.

1893 .

A PR IL ,

■©0

o u r

P r ic k

2 d.

' ^ e a b e x s .

again presenting ourselves as it were before our readers we desire
to thank all those who have since our last issue helped forward
T the cause of God and of Truth. Some have aided us by encoura­ging words, others by good service in spreading abroad our literature,
and a few in nobly sacrificing of their means so that the Word of God
may have free course, run, and be glorified. To all these the society
owes its best thanks, and gratefully acknowledges its indebtedness.
Let others join our ranks, and help us by their subscriptions to keep the
Review afloat, like the trim little bark that she is, so that it not only
may be published more frequently, but the burdens which are now rest­
ing on a few may be more equally borne by the many. The workers
in the good cause freely give their time and their services; but printers,
type-setters and others necessarily require paying for theirs. All honour
to those who are making sacrifices for the truth. They have a peaceand a pleasure in it now in saving the doubtful from shipwreck, andthey will have an exceedingly great reward and joy hereafter.
jf

A

W ord

of

Co u n sel.

But there are friends who are only just beginning to enquire into
these matters, to see whether these things are so : they need a wordof advice and counsel. It is Patience. Another word is Perseverame. You
cannot expect all difficulties to be cleared away at once, in one number
or in one pamphlet. T he errors of a lifetime are not so soon eradicated.
We have done something already if only to make you doubt the globu­
lar theory. You should demand proof of that theory first. When you
find this is utterly baseless you will be the more disposed to entertain
the truth. One correspondent writes a very good letter, but he mani­
fests a little impatience and doubt. His letter is long, but we will
quote the most important parts : H e says ;—

THE

EARTH

R.EVIEW.

“ I eamiot prove th a t th e earth is a globe, or th a t the theories of Astrono­mers ai-e founded upon anything more positive th a n human speculation ; as it
is evident, even from a cursory reading of astronomical works, th a t the proofs
with which astronomers are satisfied are extremely flimsy, unsubstantial things,
in fact, not proofs a t a l l ; being nothing more than strange coincidences, which
can be m ultiplied to any extent, whether we take the globe theory or th e plane
theory for the startin g point. For instance, while they find in th e nebula
theory th a t there are several different appearances which they term different stages
uf development, th e astronomers have never y et seen a lower stage develop intoa h ig h e r; in other words, they never saw nebula evolve into a star, nor ovenundergo any transform ation, so much as even one step in th a t direction. In ad ­m ittin g th is, th ey give away th eir own theory. Their argum ent is no better th an
th a t of th e geographical evolutionist, who, seeing various forms of anim al life,
coinciding in appearance, with th e various stages of human development fromconception to b irth , jum ps to the profound conclusion th a t hum an beings wereprim arily evolved from ju s t such animals, and in ju s t such order, from proto­
plasm. W ith such facts of n atu re before me, I should ra th e r conclude th a t
the Creator designed to teaeh us that he has power to p u t life, and a certain amounto f intelligence, even into matter fram ed ju s t as we are before we are born, fromgerm up to fully-developed infant. This is perfectly logical and reasonable,
while th e other view is absurd, although it tends to m agnify human wisdom.
No wonder th e Lord says “ The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”
Because, as with the astronomer, so w ith th e geologist, not one of them canfind any example, either living, dead, petrified, or skeleton, wherein a change
from a lower order to a higher can be discerned, nor from higher to lower. All,
30 fa r as th e evidence goes, rem ain on ju st the same plane in which they werecreated, no change of species being discernible. If God so chose to make themin th e first place ; w hat could hinder him from doing so ? These scientists areth e wisest fools of modern Christendom. God has given them g re a t talen ts ofknowledge, wisdom, and influence, and they will shortly have to give accountof them, as to why they perverted and wasted these talen ts in building air
castles; when th e same talen ts m ight have been used to advance God’s glory in
the way he has appointed.”

This is a very good stricture on the astronomical and evolutionary
theories e x ta n t; but even while hardly aware of it he is still very much
entangled in the meshes of those theories, especially on the question ofdegrees.” We therefore propose to say a word or two about what are
called“ D ecrees. ”

After stating that he is favourably disposed to the Zetetic position,
our correspondent states what he thinks is an “ insurmountable ob­
stacle ” to its acceptance and promulgation. As we are not at all afraidof this “ insurmountable obstacle,” and as we have in fact climbed overgreater obstacles before, we will give it in his own words. H e pro­ceeds ;—To show w hat 1 mean, I will take th e circle called th e equator, and dissect
it, knowing th a t its circumference is not over 25,000 miles. The diam eter is
7,920 miles, and radius 3,960 miles, which is also the distance from n orthern cens

“ DEGREES. •tre to equator. But the distance from N orth Pole to equator on a globe isabout 0,250 miles. Therefore the difference in the length of corresponding
degrees of latitude north of th e equator would be considerable.
Thus, 6,250 divided by 90° equals 69i miles, which is equal to one degi-ee,
1 ° of latitude on a globe, corresponding also, according to “ Parallax ” to theactual measurem ent by th e various Europeon Governments. (?)
B ut w ith a plane the following would be the figures. Radius, 3,960 divided by
90° equals 44 miles, equals 1° longitude. B ut it does not measure th a t way,
being a difference of over 25 miles in every degree of latitude between the
Zetetic theory and w hat sbbmb to be a well-established fact. And here is where
the trouble comes in.’’Now our friend (H.W .M). will make a very good Z etetic; and weonly wish we had space to quote all he says, and all that we could reply.
If we had the means we would publish a pamphlet on this su b ject; but
at present we are compelled to be brief. In the meantime we shallwelcome all /m /s upon the subject which either our friends or our foes
can send us. But we must beg of them to distinguish between fact andfiction. See more on this “ degree ” fiction in the new pamphlet justpublished entitled The M idm ght Sun. There is a great deal of fiction
about these so-called ‘‘ degrees.” There are “ degrees ” of latitude and“ degrees ” of longitude. We must distinguish between these. As ourfriend shews, on a “ globe ” with the circumference of 25,000 miles
there would be 360 degrees in its circumference of about 69J miles to
one degree. Now supposing the circle of the equator to have this cir­
cumference it would follow that a circular “ degree ” on the equatorwould be about this length although the earth be a plane. And circlesof latitude north of the equator would have “ degrees ” oi decreasing
length, while circles of latitude south of the equator would have“ degrees ” of increasing length. We know, and it is admitted thatthese degrees do decrease north ; but the question is, do they increasesouth ? We believe they do, and we challenge any actual facts that they
do not. But this is not exactly our friend’s difficulty as given above.
It seeius to be this. A meridan of longitude on the “ globe,” from theequator to the •* pole,” would be as he says, about 6,250 miles, or one
fourth of the circumference, but on the Plane such a meridian is only
about 3,960 miles long. True. And 3,960 miles divided by 90° would
give only 44 miles to 1° longitude, instead of 69^. True again we reply.
But who says that a meridian from the equator to the North Centre should
be divided by 90° ? T he Globularists. Ah 1 friend, “ This is where
the trouble comes in ” Do you see it now ? There are only about 57;^
such ‘‘degrees” from the equator to the North Centre. T he astronomers
have “ calculated ’’ their go° on the assumption that the earth is asphere, and the f a c t (attested by water being level) that the earth is aplane discredits therefore every so-called “ degree ” of longitude either
north or south of the equator. The same assumption discredits also the

TH E

EABTH

REVIEW .

French Metric system, the metre being founded upon fancy—the globular theory and its meridional “ degrees ” —and not upon any wellestablished fact found in Nature. But we cannot go into this subject
now.
P rogress.

The truth is consistent with itself I.et all Zetetics also be so. Ifwater be level (and Dr. “Parallax” has settled that question for us) thenthe earth must be a plane, and no amount of astronomical conjuring with*■degrees ” ought to unsettle our minds. Water is l e v e l ; this is our
sheet anchor. The earth is m o t i o n l e s s : this is another. We haveasked in va:in for proofs of the earth’s motion. Only one correspond­ent has attem pted the proof. If space permit we shall quote some partof our reply published in a northern paper. Difficulties must send us
forward, not backward. We are glad to see the cause is progressing.
Addresses have been delivered in both islands by Messrs. Smith, Perry,
Atkinson, Lake, and others, valiant defenders of the truth. The news­
papers have been liberal enough to give us fairly goods reports, and toallow of subsequent correspondence. We tender our thanks to all thosewhich have done so, and especially to the Hebden Bridge Times andGazette, and the Ashton Reporter, for allowing such a copious corres­
pondence to follow their reports of the lectures. This correspondence
has astonished and alarmed some of our opponents, and pleased andencouraged our friends.
We only wish we had space for all of the letters on both sides. We
would gladly print for our opponents if they would contribute towards
the expense, as we have no fear of hearing both sides, Magna est veritas et prosvalebit: Truth is mighty and must prevail,

CATHOLIC BELIEF.”“ The astronomical system which had prevailed in the world down
to the seventeenth century is what is called the geocentric or Ptolemaic
system, by which it was supposed that the earth was motionless andthat the sun went daily round it, causing the days and nights ; and thatthe sun in the course of twelve months moved gradually forward andbackward inside the equatorial zone in such a way as to cause thedifferent seasons.”“ This was the system received by the Arabians, the Chinese, thePersians, and the Europeans. “ For,” says an eminent French philoso­
pher, “ all the researches which have been prosecuted with the most
scrupulous exactness have failed to bring to light any other astronomy
than that of Ptolemy.” In accordance with this theory, which is sostrongly and constantly suggested to our senses, is of course thelanguage of Revelation addressed to man. Such being the state of“ CATHOLIC B E L IE F .’Astronom y from the rem otest antiquity ! ”

The Rev. Joseph Di Bruno,

D.D.
After the above confession it requires some courage on the part ofa dignity belonging to a church which is supposed to be infallible andunchangeable, and which condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth
moves, to try to reconcile their present acceptance of the theories ofmodern Astronomy with their past history. Yet this is what the writerattempts ; and his work is endorsed by the so called Catholic Arch­bishop of Westminster.
The writer admits that “ till the laws of gravitation were estab
lished (!)* by Newton, all the Copernicans were reduced to mere
probabilities. Hence we are told by Lord Macaulay that the founderin England of the inductive school of philosophy, Lord Bacon, rejected
the theory of Galileo with scorn ; and so did “ Descartes.” Bravo Dr.
Bruno. It appears that we Zetetics are at least in good company asregards intelligence.
The writer admits that Galileo was brought before the Inquisitionand condemned for his teaching in June 1633. H e says that Galileo“ was ordered to abstain from teaching, as a demonstrated fact, that theearth was in motion, as it appeared to be against the express words ofScripture. H e was, moreover, sentenced to remain a prisoner at thegood will of the Court, and to recite the seven Penitential Psalms oncea week for three years.”
The good Doctor then tries further to excuse his church by saying,“ the Protestants of that age fell into the same mistake of denouncing
as warmly as Catholics the rotatory system of the earth as clashing with
Holy Scripture.” In proof of this he quotes some correspondence
about Kepler written in 1853, to the Editor of the London CatholicStandard.
The letter is signed R. Raby, Munich. The writer says ;“ I allude here to the condemnation of the celebrated astronomer
Kepler by the Theological Faculiy of Tubingen, in 1596, for affirming
the identical scientific truth (?) which 37 years later got Galileo into
trouble. The great majority of English Protestants, are, without doubt,
ignorant of this interesting case, which I venture to think a very fair set
off to their favourite story about Galileo.”“ Bailli, in his Historic de I’Astronomie Modertie calls Kepler ‘ oneof the greatest men that ever appeared on the earth,’ and ‘ the true
founder of Modern Astronomy.’ When he wrote his celebrated work,whose lengthy title begins with the words, “ Prodromus Dissertationum
Cosmographicartim ” &c,, in which he undertook by argument (not bypractical experiments, Ed. E.R.) to demonstrate the truth of the* See article on “ GraTitation. ”

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

Copernican system, n o t l e s s r e p r o b a t e d a t t h a t t i m e b y t h e .
P r o t e s t a n t s of G e r m a n y and E n g l a n d t h a n b y t h e C a t h o l i c s o f
I t a l y , he had to lay it before the A c a d e m i c a l S e n a t e o f T u b i n g e n
for their approbation, without which in the regular order of things it
could not be printed. The unanimous decision of the D i v i n e s c o m ­p r i s i n g TH IS S e n a t e was that Kelper’s book contained a deadly heresy,
because it contradicted the teaching of the Bible in that passage where
Joshua commands the smi to stand still.” Good I
On reading this we are led to ask where are the Protestants ofEngland to-day ? Where are consistent Catholics. Are they all alikegone over to the enemies of Inspiration ? Is the predicted Universal
Apostacy now setting in ; and infidelity rearing its callous face, or its
masked forehead, in the name of a Science that is falsely so called, fora final conflict ? It is quite time, however, in the face of these facts,that all true and devout Zetetics, by whatever name they are called,came forward to the “ help of the Lord against the Mighty.” We haveplenty of matter for the exposure of this modern infidel “ Science,” if
our friends will only assist us with the means.

“ THE LAND OP THE MIDNIGHT SUN. ”
The above is the title of an interesting book by Paul B. Du
Chaillu, in which he describes his journeys through Norway andSweden, Lapland and Northern Finland. In this book the writer
unconsciously gives us proof that the earth is not a revolving globe
such as the Astronomers teach, although of course he tries to explain
the phenomenon of the midnight sun in harmony with the astronomical
theories he was taught at school. While we have no space here forthese theories we shall try to find room for the facts brought before us ;then we shall proceed to shew how these facts conflict with the globeearth doctrine, and how they harmonise with the truth that the earth isa motionless plane, with sun revolving daily above and around theNorth Centre, commonly but erroneously called the north “ pole.”
In his preface M. Du Chaillu says ; “ The title of the book isderived from one of the most striking phenomena in the north of thecountry, and one which I witnessed with wonder and admiration on
many occasions.” In chapter v. he states how, between the 13th andthe i8th of June, he sailed “ towards the midnight sun ” in a steamer
leaving Stockholm for Haparanda, “ the most northerly town in
Sweden,” on or “ near the right bank of the picturesque Torne river.”The passage lasting about three days ; while, he says, “ The Bothnia
was not yet free from ice.” H e proceeds to describeTHE

M IDNIGHT SUN.

T he Jo u rn ey .
“ As the voyage drew to a close, and we approached the upper
end of the Gulf of Bothnia the twilight had disappeared, and between
the setting and rising of the sun hardly one hour elapsed.”
Haparanda “ is in 65° 51' N lat., and forty-one miles south of thearctic circle. It is 1° i8 ' farther north than Archangel, and in thesame latitude as the most northern part of Iceland. The sun rises on
the 2ist of June at 12.01 a.m., and sets at 11.37 P-™- From the 22nd
to the 25th of June the traveller may enjoy the sight of the midnight
sun from Avasaxa, a hill six hundred and eighty feet high, and about
forty-five miles distant, on the other side of the stream ; and should hebe a few days later, by driving north on the high road he may still havethe opportunity of seeing it.”This intrepid explorer then describes his journey overland from
Haparanda to the Arctic sea, “ the distance as the crow flies being over
5’ of latitude to the most northern extremity of the land,” but by theroute about 500 miles. The country is inhabited by Finns, who are
cultivators of the soil. The Laplanders roam over the land with theirherds of reindeer. The summer climate is delightful, and during theperiod of continuous daylight one can travel all night if he pleases.”

S tra n g e

N i g 'h t s .

Speaking of a station called Pajala, M. Chaillu says ; “ From thehigh hills on the other side of the stream at this place one may enjoy
the sight of the midnight sun a few days later. How strange are tho.se
evening and morning twilights which merge insensibly into each other !
to travel in a country where there is no night, and no stars to be seen j
where the moon gives no light, and, going further north, where the sun
shines continuously day after day ! The stranger at first does not know
when to go to bed and when to ris e ; but the people know the hours ofrest by their clocks and watches, and by looking at the sun.”
We may mention that at Ranea, which skirts the Baltic, M. Du
Chaillu was told they had snow on the ground so late as the and ofJune, after a winter during which the thermometer had fallen to 40°
and 45° below zero ; yet at the time of his visit he saw garden peas
“ about two inches above the ground which would be fit for the table
at tae end of August or the beginning of September.” Referring again
to Pajala he says ; “ In these latitudes the snow has hardly melted
when the mosquitoes appear in countless multitudes, and the people
have no rest night or day.” “ The traveller is surprised to meet somany comfortable farms, with large dwelling houses, which with thebam and cow-house are the three prominent dwellings.”

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

“ Between the stations of Kunsijarvi and Ruokojarvi ( y d r v i meanslake in Finnish) we crossed the Arctic circle at 66° 32' N, or 1,408
geographical miles (?) south from the pole, where the sun shines for an
entire day on the 22nd of June, and the observer will see it above thehorizon at midnight, and due north. After that date, by journeying
north on an average of about ten miles a day he would continue to see
the midnight sun till he reached the pole. On the 22nd of September
the sun descends to the horizon, where it will rest, so to speak, all day
long ; on the following day it disappears till the 22nd of March.”“ When returning southwards at the same rate the traveller willcontinue to see the midnight sun in his horizon till he reaches the
Arctic Circle, where for one day only, as we have seen, the sun isvisible.”T h e S u n ’s M o t i o n .
Further quoting from these interesting travels we read ;— “ Thesun at midnight is always north o f the observer, on account of theposition of the earth (?) I t s e e m s t o t r a v e l a r o u n d i n a c i r c l e ,requiring twenty-four hours for its completion, it being noon when it
reaches the greatest elevation, and midnight at the lowest. Its ascentand descent are so imperceptible at the pole, and the variations soslight, that it sinks south very slowly, and its disappearance below thehorizon is almost immediately followed by its reappearance.”
After giving the modern astronomical “ explanation ” of these
northern phenomena, an explanation founded on half-a-dozen unproved
and unprovable assumptions, the writer naively and unconsciously owns
that appearances are against these assumptions. H e proceeds ; “ Thenearer any point is to the pole the longer during this time ” (from ihevernal to the autumnal equinox) “ is its day. The number of days,
therefore, of constant sunshine depends on the latitude of the observer ;and the farther north he finds himself the greater will be this number.
Thus at the pole ” (the north centre ?) “ the sun is seen for six months ;at the arctic circle for one (whole) day ; and at the base of the North
Cape from the 15th of May to the is t of August. At the pole theobserver seems to be in the centre o f a g r a n d s p i r a l m o v e m e n t o f t h e
S u n , which, further south, takes place north of him.” {Italics otirs)
Thus we see, that in spite of educational bias and Newtorian
belief, the truth will unconsciously and innocently crop up in iny
description which is true to the facts of Nature. But before we criticise
these phenomena further we prefer first to give all the facts which theinteresting waiter of The Land o f the Midnight Sun has so careftlly
gleaned for us. H e goes on to describeTHE

M IB N ie H T

SU S.

H ow t h e S u n is s e e n .
“ We have here spoken as if the observer were on a level with thehorizon ; but should he climb a mountain, the sun o f course w ill appear
higher; and should he, instead of travelling fifteen miles north, climb
about 220 feet above the sea leael (!) each day, he would see it the sameas if he had gone north ; consequently if he stood at the arctic circle atthat elevation, and had an unobstructed view of the horizon, he would
see the sun one day sooner. Hence tourists from Haparanda prefergoing to Avasaxa, a hill 680 feet above the sea, from which, thougheight or ten miles south of the arctic circle, they can see the midnight
sun for three days.”“ There are days when the sun has a pale whitish appearance, andwhen even it can be looked at for six or seven hours before midnight.
As this hour approaches the sun becomes less glaring, graduallychanging into more brilliant shades as it dips towards the lowest pointof its course. I t s m o t i o n is very slow, and for quite awhile it appar­
ently f o l l o w s d u r i n g which there seems to be apause, as when the sun reaches noon. This is midnight. For a few
minutes the glow of sunset mingles with that of sunrise, and one cannot
tell which prevails ; but soon the light becomes slowly and graduallymore brilliant, announcing the birth of another day—and often before
an hour has elapsed the sun becomes so dazzling that one cannot lookat it with the naked eye.”N a t u r e A s l e e p in S u n s h i n e .
Again, ascending the river Muonio, on the last day of June, M.
Du Chaillu says ; “ I came to Kicksisvaara, the first boat station
situated on a hill commanding a fine view of the country, and over­looking the river Muonio. The people were all asleep as it was mid­night ; the sun had become paler and paler, its golden glow shedding a
drowsy quiet light over all the landscape, and a heavy dew was falling ;the house-swallows had gone to their nests, the cuckoo was silent, andthe sparrows could not be heard.” “ How beautiful was the hour of
midnight 1 How red and gorgeous was the sun 1 How drowsy was
the landscape; Nature seemed asleep in the midst of sunshine. Crystal
dew-drops glittered like precious stones as they hung from the blades ofgrass, the petals of wild flowers, and the leaves of the birch trees.
“ Before two o’clock the swallows were out of their nests, which they
had constructed on the different buildings of the farm. How far they
had come to enjoy the spring of this remote region 1 I did not wonderthat they loved that beautiful but short summer, or that they came year
after year to the Land of the Midnight Sun.”

10

THE

EAllTHREVIKVV.

THE MIDNIGHT SUN.

........ .............
C iv iliz a tio n

N o i* th .

At a short distance from latitude 70°, near a place called Wind, on
the banks of the Alten, a few miles from the sea, our traveller andwriter sa y s; “ I could hardly believe I was so far north, the birds wereso numerous.” Near this place at Bosekop he found a village of“ scattered farms, with a church, a school; several stores, and a com­
fortable inn.” Bosekop is the seat of a fair, and “ in winter is a placeof great resort for the Laplanders ; court is also held here.” H ere too
he met with a “ small society of educated people,” with whom he spenta pleasant evening, and had a game of Tsg. H e says ; “ I liked thegame amazingly ; at 11 p.m., the sun shining brightly, they bade me
good night, and went to their homes, leaving me full of admiration attheir simplicity, innocence, and gentle manners.” There also, “ in 70°
of north latitude, in the quiet parlour of the hotel at Bosekop,” hedelivered a lecture, by request, on his travels in the Equatorial regionsof Africa !
O f the Alten B'jord he says ; “ There is no part of our globe ( 1)where vegetation is so thriving a t so high a latitude as on the Alten
Fjord.” H e might have said that there is nothing at all like it in equal
latitudes south !—ffotv is this pray ?— “ Near Bosekop, rhubarb, barley,
oats, rye, turnips, and potatoes grow well, also carrots, strawberries,
currants and peas. “ The thermometer sometimes rises to 85° thewarmest temperature during my stay being 63° in the shade, the coolest
5S‘^.” Looking over a dreary waste, he says ; “ from the top of thehills the midnight sun can be seen as late in the season as on North
Cape, but the scenery is not so impressive.”

A F a r e w e ll V iew .
But we must conclude, for the present, with a brief description of
the final view, from the island of Mageroe, the most northern land inEurope. T he north Cape is its northern extremity. On the 20th ofJuly, M. Du Chaillu hired a boat and landed on the island.
Heproceeds ;— “ After a walk of several miles I stood upon the extreme
point of North Cape, in latitude 71° 10', nine hundred and eighty feetabove the sea-lroel." Sea “ level.” (Hear, hear !). “ Before me, as far
as the eye could reach, was the deep blue Arctic Sea, disappearing in
the northern horizon. Wherever I gazed, I beheld Nature bleak,dreary, desolate ; grand indeed, but sad. A sad repose rested upon thedesolate landscape, which has left an indelible impress upon mymemory.”“ Lower and lower the sun sank, and as the hour of midnight
approached, it seemed for awhile to follow slowly the line o f the horizon;
and at that hour it shone beautifully oi>er that lovely sea and dreary land.

11.....-#-----

As it disappeared, behind the clouds, I exclaimed from the very brinkof the precipice, Farewell to the Midnight Sun.”“ I had now seen the midnight sun from mountain tops and weird
plateaus, shining over a barren, desolate, and snow-clad country; I had
watched it when ascending or descending picturesque rivers, or crossing
lonely lakes; I had belield many a landscape, luxuriant fields, verdant
meadows, grand old forests, dyed by its drowsy lig h t; I had followed itfrom the Gulf of Bothnia to the Polar sea as a boy would chase a willo’-the-wisp, and I could go no further.”“ I now retraced my steps to where we had left our little boat. The
men were watching for us ; it had begun to rain, and when we got backto Gjoesver I was wet and chilly, and my feet were like ice. I was ex­
hausted, for I had passed two-and-twenty hours without sleep, but tothis day I have before me those dark rugged cliffs, that dreary silent
landscape, that restless Arctic Sea, and that serene midnight sun shining OVER ALL ; and I still hear the sad murmur of the waves beating
upon the lovely North Cape.”
We must reserve our further remarks, for lack of space, until another issueof the E.E. But we thought it best that our readers should first have all thefacts placed before them on this interesting subject.
We may also add that in response to the wishes of friends who have seen
the article, we shall print the whole of it in separate pamphlet form, withdiagi-ams. It will be ready with this issue of the Earth Revi&to and cost
2d. per copy, post free.
Friends willing to help on its circulation willplease to communicate with The Editor,

FLABBYRELIGION.

“ Much of the religion of the day is tlabby indeed. It is afflicted with asort of Saint Vitus’s dance—now bending this way, and now th a t; andit is uncertain which way it will wriggle nextl It is almost disposed tochange our Bible for a science that, instead of tracing our origin to Adam,
makes us only a better order of tadpoles ; and instead of reading “ Abra­
ham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph,” would
read, The fish begat the reptile, and the reptile begat a marsupial ani­mal, and the marsupial animal begat the inadruraana and the inadrumana
begat the gorilla, and the gorilla begat the ape, and the ape begat the
Darwin.” Much of our modern religion begins with a eulogy of humannature, instead of an exposition of its utter downfall. It makes us sickto hear al! this talk about the dignity of manhood. It is a heap of pu
trefaction, unless St. John was wrong when he described it as “ wretched
and miserable, and poor, and blind and naked.”— Talmage.
But, Mr. Talmage, is not youf ow^lreligion just as “ flabby ” ivhen you denythat Joshua commanded thw Sit.i to st.i.nd still ? The Sun, not the •'Globe.”
Kn, E.R.

I?

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

COEEESPONDENCE.

T H E A G N O S T IC ’S C R E ED .

We do uot know anythm g, how can we know ? ”
The Sceptic cried in d e sp air;" Then how do you know th a t you don’t know ? 0 , oh 1”
W as th e answer equal and fair P
You know th a t Creation ; W ithout generation,
Could never occur, I suppose ?
T h a t our ancestors were All covered w ith h air
rro m th e head rig h t down to the toes ?
Ohj yes, you know these things, and many such more,
Occurring in days of yore ?
If I were Agnostic, I never would Vx)ast
My narrow contracted view ;I ’d try t<i be humble, a t least, th e mostTo th in k how little I knew :If I truly “ believed,” And was not self-deceived,
T h at nothing could ever be k n o w n ;I ’d quietiy walk. A nd more modestly talk,
Nor assume such a lofty tone ;L est wrong I m ight jn’ove, and know less th an I ought,
And perhaps some less th a n I th o u g h t!
And if I weren’t sure th a t th ere is not a God,I would not revile his K am e;
F or fear I m ight m erit his chastening rod.
F or having profaned th e sam e :I ’d be faithful indeed To Kegation’s creed.
And own I didn’t know a l l ;T h at things m ight exist My poor vision had missed
Upon and above th is “ d ark b a ll; ”
In fact I ’d not call it a “ ball ” till I knew
The tr u th or not of th a t “ view.”
I ’d never “ believe ” th a t th e earth is a “ globe ”
A-whirling and flying through “ space ”
XJnlPBS I could prove i t —for fear one m ight probe
My theory to my disgrace :Nor would I assume. Much less fre t and fume,Because some are sceptical here :Agnostics don’t know—Y et do they th in k so ?—B ut le t us be honest and fair.
W hy only one Book in th e world should we doubt,
And swallow down ev-erythiug else like a spout f
I would not pretend to think “ Science ” w'as soundIf tr u th cannot be known here j
N or would I presume Soaial-scieneo to found.
I t m igh t seem funny and queer !
And I never would dare, A t home in my chaii,
To te ll how th e world should be made :I wouldn’t pretend To know its last end.
Nor call its “ Foundations ” mislaid :And if I were ig norant of Heaven and Hell
1 would be silent as well.
If I did not care for the trouble to find
W hatever w'as good and rig h t ;1 would not assume because I m ight be blind,T h at all men had lost th eir s i g h t:
Lest my footsteps should slide 1 would call for a Guide,
To save me from pitfall or snare ;If 1 heard of relief. From a beggai- or Chief,■\Vho had saved some men from d esp air;
I would te st his claims on myself, on my eyts,
I would, indeed, were I iHse !
“ Z etetk s."'is

CORRESPONDENCE.
Letters intended Jor publication in the “ The E arth Review ’’ must be legibly
luritten on one side only o f the paper, and must have some direct bearing on tlie
subject before us.
The Editor caJimt, of course, he held responsible fo r the various ojrinions oj
his correspondents ; nor can he enter into I'xirrespondence respe"tin(j artichs, ^c,held over or declined.
A ll letters must he prepaid, and addressed,“ Z E T E T E S '' Plutiis House, St. Saviour’s Road,
Leicester, England.

NOTES.
Carpenter.—Your poem shall api^ear in our next.
Atkinson, and others.—Thanks for cuttings, &o. They sliaJl be used as epai:epermits.
Clarke, Belfast.—'Report of lecture received.
B ut this and several otherinteresting reports unavoidably crowded out. Oh for more space !
To tlCe Editor.

as a heaj). He layeth up the deep instorehouses.”
Jan u ary 2nd, 1893.
L et all the earth fear the Lord; let
Bear Sir,—Allow me to congratulate all th e inhabitants of the world standyou on your New Magazine, which was in awe of Him. F or He spake and it
in great requisition. Many th an k s for was done. He commanded and it stooda copy of the first issue. I shall be fast. Again, according to the Law of God”
pleased to take fifty copies for free dis­ Heaven is “ above,” earth “ beneath,”
tribution.
and the w aters of the sea “ under the
I am one with you in th a t which is earth.” And the i ’salm ist says th a t
expressed in its l>ages, and I like it on th e W orld was so “ established th a t it
account of its strict adhesion to the cannot be moved.” B u t as the Apostle
teaching of the Bible. I am also very P eter says, some people are ‘‘ willingly
pleased with the general appearance of ignorant ” of this order of things. B ut
as these statem ents are from God, andthe Magazine.
I sincerely tru s t th is new and much are in direct contradiction to th e evolu­
needed organ may soon find a heai-ty tion and whirling globe theory, wewelcome amongst all classes everywhere, may with all assurance rest satisfied ofso th at it may not fail in its high pur­ final victory over such absurd andmonstrous notions.
pose and noble aim.
L et us fearlessly use “ The Sword of
We shall reap a rich rew ard if we the Spirit ” which is the Word of God,
hold fast to the W ord of God in prefer­ for by it “ H e m aketh the devices ofence to th a t of man. F or th a t W ord th e people of none effect.”when faithfully proclaimed w ill neither
T rusting th a t such will be th e caseprove void, nor unfruitful.
Let ustherefore hope for great things and w ith all the false theories of men, andmighty victories if we hold on tenaci­ th a t athiesm and infidelity will soon be
ously to th e Holy Scriptures; for the uprooted.
Believe me, in th e hope of E ternal
Word of God is “ sharper th an a twoedged sword,’’ and therefore by i t we Life.
Yours truly,
may hope to conquer.
L adt B loust.
“ By the W ord of the Lord were the B a t h .
heavens made ; and all th e host of them [W 0 a re much obliged to her Ladyshipby the breath of His mouth.
He
for her kindly aid and good wishes,
li' all i,)Ur subscribers would only takegathered the waters of the sea together

u

THE

EAUTH

REV IEW .

-New O riental Bank,
40, Threadneedle street,
London, E.C.
7th Jan ., 1893.
B a t t l e C k e e k , M io h .
D ear Sir,—I own there are difficulties
Ijear Sir,—I have read with in terest in believing the earth is a globe, forth e first num ber of your Journel, and instance the rates of ciu'vature given in
th in k i t
fills th e b ill/’ th e best of pojjular Ixioks are inconsistent and mis­
anything yet published. The prepoii- leading. B u t I find it quite impossible
derence of evidence is certainly in favor to believe th e earth is flat. I hope youof th e position you take, namely, th a t will allow me space to say why. I f theth e earth is established, th a t it can­ e arth and sky were two g reat parallel
not be moved,” and th a t w hatever th e wheels, with th e north pole as a common
Creator says in H is W ord about His centre, as t h e Z e te tic s s a t , th e south­
Created Universe, w hether Sun, Moon, ern stars would be near th e rim of th eor Stars, Heaven, E arth , or Sea, m ust revolving or sky wheel, and would all
be true, and is tru e ; w hether anyone ru sh across th e visible heavens of JTew
believes it or no.
I congraulate you Zealand together. (I say rush because,on th e appearance, a nd “ get up ’’ of th e being near th e rim , they would have
B arth Review, as upon th e true vahxe much fu rther to go th a n th e stars weof its contents, and I tru s t it will meet see, which are nearer th e centre). Now
th ey do not do as th e y should do accord­with th e success i t deserves.
ing to the Zetetic theory.
Leaving
T ours truly,
aside other evidence, I w ill quote Mr,
T b b BA JPlEMA.
Euncim an. H e is a Zetetic, b u t a candid one, he lives in New Plym outh, N.Z.
[W e weloome this letterfro m our Amer­ He writes to me. " The Southern Cross
ican correspondent, who has w ritten a never sets in S .Z .,” and “ if you look a t
good pam phlet on th e subject for ou.r Proctor’s S tar A tlas, map 12, and place
Seventh D ay A dventist friends over a pin in th e centre ” where Proctor
there. We will atten d to th e other shows th e south polar star) “ and movele tte r sent us through him if our the map round about, you have exactly
space perm it. In th e meantime onr in one revolution w hat occurs in ourfriends m ust have patience, and help southern sky every 24 how s.
as more if th ey would have us to
Now how can th e earth possibly be
p rin t oftener. A few are m aking noble flat when facts like these so pointedly
saorifioes. E d . E .B .]contradict it? The sky is b etter evi­
dence th a n sm all tra c ts of water.
COIsTKADICTOKY.
T o urs,
Caldwbll H akpcb .
Sir,—I n the Loudon Echo for March
28th, 1893, we are informed th at, “ i t is
a g reat m istake to suppose th a t th e Sun [O ur oorrospoudoTit C.H. lies between
tw'o difficulties. Ho m ust choose theis statvtiwjey^’’ Jsow Sir Isaac Newton
least. The e arth is eith er flat orin the th ird book of his Principia sup­spherical. Can he suggest any o th er
poses th a t th e “ centre of th e system ofform ? If a plane, th e stars in theth e world is imnwvable,”southern sky would hardly seem to
1.—Are n o t these statem ents contradic­“ rush across th e visible heavens,”
tory.
as he says, unless we were nearer tothem th an we are. An express train
2.—If th e first statem ent is correct, isseems to creep along th e m ountains
not modern astronomy proved by its
when seen a t a distance. No doubt
own savants to be based on “ A
th e stars move more rapidly in southern
GBKAT MISTAKE.” ?
latitudes ; for when th e sun has 23^°
3.—Is th is th e " false b a sis’’ on which
degrees south declination, we are in ­“ the whole of th e astronomical
formed by travellers in th e southscience is founded,'" as reported inth a t he seems to set much more
The E nglish Mechanic for January
rapidly and more suddenly th an he4th, 1889 ?
does in th e north.
In fact theyYours, &c.
have no tw ilight there. T his is
B a l a a m ’ s A s «.
quite in ha.rmony with th e plane ti-uth.
a few extra copies for free distribution
it would g reatly help our circulation.
E d . E .R.]G R A V 1T A T 105 *.
Respecting th e Southern Croaa, wewant direct evidence^ not hearsay
evidence, of those competent to ob­serve and competent to describe theirobservations in clear language See
C arpenter’s article “ How is i t ? ” We
do not acknowledge the evidence of a
“ Star Atlas,” not even by Proctor,
who declined to debate w ith P arralla s.
W hen the planets, a rd th e sun andmoon, have ^-eat southern declina­tion, th ey still revolve around theNorth Centre. W hy should not thesouthern stars do likewise ? A t what
" degree ” of south declinatioa dothey tu rn off in another direction ?
B ut even if all th e southern stars
revolved in a direction different fromth a t of the planets, w hat has the
motion of th e stars to do w ith theshape of the a ir th ? No more th a n arevolving lig h t in a lighthouse has to
do with th e shape of th e rock onwhich i t is built. W e don’t go up
amongst the stars to find out theshape of th e earth, no more th a n we
gaze wp a t a gas chandelier to find out
the nature of the floor of a publichall.
W ater has been proved by Parallaie tobe really “ level,” in his g reat work
Martk not a 9lobe. Therefore th e E arth
IS a plane. I f our correspondent thinks
he can overthrow Dr. B irley’s proofs weinvite him to try. Eta. E.R.

15

SPECIAL NOTICE.
The

P arallax
C o w ip a n y .
To the Readers of the HevUw.
Dear Friends,—I t is proposed to forma Company whose object will be to p u r­
chase the plates, and issue a revised,and cheap edition of the work entitled,“ E a rth not a Globe,” by our late esteemed friend “ Parallax ” (D b . B. E .)The price of the shares will be placeda t the lowest possible figure, so th a tevery Plane E a rth friend may partici­
pate in th e re-production of th e grand­
est and truest scientific literature, th a t
was ever placed before th e world.
Will those who are interested in the
spread of Zetetic Astronomy as foundedby P arallax,” kindly communicate assoon as possit>le, (enclosing stam p for
reply) w ith the Secretary.
Universal Zetitic Society.
32, Bank Side, London, S.E ,[N .B .—Perm it me dear friends to taketh is opi>ortunity of asking for yoursupport in our contention for thetru th of Zetetic Astronomy. Mem­bership is placed a t Six Shillings ;Associates at Two Shillings and Six­pence per year. Members and Asso­
ciates will receive a free copy of every
publication issued by the soc'ety.
F u ll particulars can be obtained fromth e Secretary, by enclosing a stamp
for reply.
J. W i l l i a m s .

“ THE MYSTERY OP GRAVITATION.”
To the Editor o f The Future.
( r e f u s e d ).

Sir,— In the National Review for January, 1892, there is an article
by J. E. Gore, with the above title. T he writer commences by saying,“ The law of gravitation discovered by Sir Isaac Newton is believed byastronomers to rule with absolute sway throughout the length andbreadth of the visible universe.” . . . “ Gravity acts in proportion to themass, and inversely as the square of the distance. This is the law of
its action. But the enquiring mind is tempted to ask,
does it act?
What is the mysterious mechanism which produces gravitative action
between two distant bodies unconnected by any material bond ? We
cannot from experience gain any explanation of action at a distance.”
After this confession Mr. Gore proceeds to give or quote a number ofhypotheses, or “ scientific” guesses, as to how bodies can act at a
distance while “ unconnected by any material bond.” H e does not go

16

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

to the root of the m atter and question the existence of this mysterious
something called “ gravitation ” ; he only proceeds to enquire how it
may possibly act upon the most distant planet, comets, meteors, andrevolving double stars ?
Now, Sir, would it not be more scientific first to prove the exist­
ence of such a force, before proceeding to enquire how it acts ? I
think so. But as the writer speaks of “ Newton’s discovery of universal
gravitation ” he perhaps thought this enquiry was unnecessary. But
before enquiring, for instance, how the sun manages to pull at themoon, or ho7v the moon pulls at the earth—without any connectingrope or chain— I should like to know how and when Newton “ dis­covered ” that such action does take place at all ? Can any reader
enlighten me on this point ? As far as my reading goes, at present, it
seems to me that Sir Isaac Newton invented the idea of “ universal
gravitation ” rather than discovered such a force ; and that he invented
it because it was necessary to his mathematical device of a revolving
and rotating earth and sea globe. This is a very important question.
Was “ universal gravitation ” a real discovery, or was it a mere “ scienti­
fic ” idea and invention ? I affirm it was the latter ; and I deny thatthe idea of solar or stellar gravitation has any true basis in the facts ofnature. I shall appeal to the article in question in support of my con­tention, which article was written by a Newtonian.
First, I ask, why is there so much “ mystery ” surrounding this
doctrine of gravitation ? In his History o f Physical Astronomy Pro­
fessor Grant says ; “ W hether gravitation is a quality inherent in, andnecessarily coexistent with, matter, or whether it is a principle essentially
distinct from it, and operating merely on its constituent parts, is aquestion which, in all probability, is destined for ever to prove
irresolvable to the most penetrating inquiries of the human mind.”
T hat is, to put the question in plain words. Does “ matter ” itself
attract ? or is there something else distinct from matter which does all
the pulling ? The learned Professor says that he does not know ; andthat “ in all probability ” no one ever will know 1 What is this but aveiled confession that the astronomers themselves know nothing at allabout it ? T hat it is all philosophical hypothesis or scientific guesswork.
In a letter to Dr. Bentley, dated February 25, 1692-3, or about
ten years after his supposed “ discovery,” Newton makes the following
confession ;— “ That gravity should be innate, inherent or essential inmatter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through avacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which
their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me
so GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that 1 believe no man who has in philoso­
phical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

GBAVITATION.

ir

Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according tocertain laws ; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I haveleft to the consideration of my readers.” This is very kind of Newton,
and very flattering to the penetration of his readers ! He leaves it forthem to decide; and they now appeal to him ! I agree with hini,
however, in saying it is an “ absurdity ” to believe that bodies can act
at a distance—and such distances !—and that they can pull one anotherabout like the great “ globes ” of the universe are said to do ; and this
too without any chains or couplings ! Yet at another time Newton
seems to fall into this very absurdity.
Newton says f Optics, b. iii. app. query 3 1 ); “ Have not the small
particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they a d
at a distance ? What I call ‘ attraction ’ may be performed by impulse,or by some other means u n k n o w n to me.” On which the above
mentioned writer very properly remarks ; “ This passage clearly showsthat even Newton’s penetrating intellect was unable to frame a satis­
factory theory of gravitative action.” Then why, I ask, believe in such
an absurd and occult property ? Newton confesses the idea to be an
absurdity ” ; yet he is compelled to adopt that absurdity himself, or toconfess that gravity acts by some means “ unknown ” to him. Anothertime he supposes this secret force to be a “ universal repulsion,” whichof course is the very opposite of “ universal gravitation,” or attraction.
But as Taylor remarks, “ This ingenious scheme of universal repulsion
leaves no room for that self-repulsion of m atter exhibited in thephenomena of elasticity ” ; and, as Mr. Gore reminds us, these“ phenomena have indeed proved insurmountable difficulties in all
kinetic theories of gravitation.” This confession is honest.
Thus the best Astronomers are all at sea respecting gravitation ,• andthey are each propounding theories respecting it whiqh are mutuallycontradictory and destructive. Yet this baseless idea of gravitation,acting on all bodies, and in all conceivable directions and distances, isa fundamental doctrine lying at the very basis of the teachings ofModern Astronomy. It is one of its main pillars, if not its chief
support. Without solar gravitation the “ globe ” ere this would haveflown off at a tangent into “ space,” and would probably before now
have collided with some “ other world than ours ” ; and we should havebeen suffering, or consigned to, a worse fate than that with which wewere threatened last November owing to a predicted “ collision between
the earth and a comet ” ! See The Earth Revietv for January.
However, as we have fortunately survived this catastrophe, I wouldmodestly ask any of our learned scientists to try to explain for yourreaders, how the sun can possibly “ pull ” at the earth at the distance,
we are told, of ninety two, or ninety three millions of miles ? What is

THE

18

EA ETHREVIEW .

THE SH APE Ol!’ THE EARTH.

the connecting rod or coupling between the two bodies ? What chain
exists between them ? of what are its links composed ? and where is it
attached ? Is the force incessant, and if so what keeps it up ? Does
the sun exhibit any loss of energy or force for such tremendous andconstant dynamic expenditure ? Does the force come out from the sun
to the earth, or vice versa ; and if so, why does it turn back suddenly onreaching that or any other body ? These are practical questions. No
locomotive that we know of can drag the railway carriages after it
unless they are first carefully coupled on to it, and by some extraneous
power. Why should the sun or moon be able to “ pull ” at the “ globe ”
with all its weight of mountains, seas, and continents, “ unconnectedby any material bond ” ? Such an action has never been known to takeplace on the earth. Then what reason is there for supposing it takes
place in the sky? The idea is unreasonable, contrary to universal
experience, and as Newton was obliged to confess, philosophicallyabsurd. Yea, it is so great an “ absurdity ” that he says ; I believe noman, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,can ever fall into it.” Now, Sir, I believe the sam e; and I am delighted
to be in harmony with so great an authority as Sir Isaac Newton on thispoint. But for the present I must conclude.
Yours faithfully,
Zetetes.

-Deecmber 28th, 1892.

THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH.
To the Editor o f “ The F uture''(a l s o“ DECLINED.” )Sir,— The letter of “ Enquirer ” in the January issue of The
Future is as good an example of a bit of special pleading as I havelately met with. H e calls himself an “ Enquirer,” but his corres­
pondence reveals' the fact that he is much more anxious to prove that“ the earth is a globe ” than to find out the true shape of the earth.
However, I will with your permission briefly notice a few of his points.
. H e owns that appearances at least are in our favour. H e writes ;“ Parallax also said, ‘ Water is level.’ This is seemingly true, but not
an absolute truth.” Now, Sir, it is well known that Parallax spent days,
and weeks, and months not in merely “ saying ” but in proving
experimentally that 7i>ater is level; while “ Enquirer,” though admittingthat this is “ seemingly true,” merely says this is “ not an absolute
truth.” Now let “ Enquirer ” prove his assertion, and the victory will
be his. H e might also at the same time explain the difference between
ruth and what he is pleased to call “ absolute truth.”13

Finquirer further says, “ That water appears level is due to thefotnpensating effects of refraction.” H e gives no experimental proof ofthis : he only affirms it on his own authority. Besides, if water “ appears
level,” as undoubtedly it does, I should like to know why we must think
it convex ? I should like to know too what refraction would take placein looking through a medium of unvarying density, as the atmospherefor instance at a uniform height above the level of the water ?
“ Parallax ” was careful to test the density of the atmosphere duringsome of his experiments ; so that an “ instructed person ” can “ deny or
doubt ” the assertion of “ Enquirer.” In fact. Sir, it is the “ instructed ”
person who is best able to do so. It is the uninstructed person who
swallows down all modern astronomical theories.
Again, “ E nquirer” admits that, “ Were the earth a plane thehorizon at sea would seem to arise about us like the sides of a bowl,
just as in fact our horizon does.” This, doubtless, is true ; and it is asource of satisfaction to Zetetics, or real Enquirers into the truths of
Nature, to find that natural appearances are always in our favour, andin favour of the truth that the earth and sea form an outstretched plane.
Nature is no deceiver. She lies not like the following unsupported
assertion; “ It (water) is declared to be level—all the same, it lies
around the spheric surface of the earth, just as the oceans do.” Yes,
friend, “ just as the oceans do.” No more ' “ T he spheric surface ofthe earth.” This is a fine example of the old Petitio Principii, a tacit
assuming, or begging of the very question at issue ! I would advise” Enquirer ” to take a few lessons in logic before he again appears inprint, on this subject at least.
We have the same complaint to make with respect to the vague
and illogical argument which he advances to prove that the “ degrees ”
of longitude converge south of the equator. H e innocently yet fre(juently uses terms which quietly assume the question at issue ; namely,that the earth is a globe. H e talks of the “ latitude ” of places northand south of the e q u a to r; and assumes that these latitudes and“ degrees ” though calculated and given to us on the hypothesis that theearth is a sphere, represent actual facts. H e refers to “ Great circle ”
sailing ; and “ ventures to state” on this supposition, what the distances
are he wishes us to compare. This may be all very satisfactory—-tohimself, and to others who wish to prove a foregone conclusion ; but it
is not so to true Enquirers. H e compares two sailing routes or
distances, one running generally from north to south, and the otherrunning from west to e a s t; instead of taking two parallel circles, orarcs, both running east and west, but one north and the other south ofthe equator. He “ ventures to assert ” that the distance from Teneriffe
to the Cape is S)°oo miles ; and that from the Cape to Hobart Town,

THE

20

EARTH

CUTTINGS AND BEMAKKS.

REVIEW .

6,100 miles or less ; and, without knowing how long the Royal Mail
Steamers to New Zealand actually stop at these places he “ ventures ”
further to say, “ I feel assured that enquiries properly made at theoffices of these great companies, as to how it happens that they only
allot nineteen days for a run which is trvice as long as another for which
they allot fifteen days, would be lucidly replied to.” This sentence
certainly needs some elucidating, whether our friend “ Enquirer ” hasmade Ms enquiries “ properly ” or not, at the offices in 34, Leadenhall
Street, London, E.C.
H e probably refers to what he thinks the
distance ought to be “ on the flat earth theory ” ; for one would thinkthat twice 5,000 miles would be 10,000 miles.
Yet our critic, in the face of all these assumptions and ambiguities,
suavely affirms that “ this is all practical and clear ! ” It almost seems
a pity to disabuse his mind of this pleasant hallucination ; but the truth
demands it, and in all fairness to us, Sir, I hope that you will allow it.
You profess to want “ facts,” so do we. Yes, S ir; we want something
more definite and more lucid than “ Enquirer ” gives us. We wantfacts, not guesses. “ Enquirer ” himself seems rather doubtful of his“ facts,” for he says ; “ .^ th e facts I have given you are substantiallycorrect ” (as if facts could be anything else !) it is certain that the earth
is not a plane, and that water is not level.”Yei, yes, friend, “ i f ” your figures were facts; and “ « /” water
was not level but convex, then the earth would be a globe ! “ I f ” !!
Now let “ Enquirer ” clear his premises of assumptions ; let proper
enquiries be instituted, and let those enquiries, as he says, be “ properly |made ” ; then let the argument be restated, this time “ lucidly ” ; and“ if ” he can prove that the degrees do converge south of the equator,or that water is convex at its surface and not “ level,” then we will own
that appearances have deceived us, that Nature has played us false, andthat the earth after all is not a motionless plane, but a mighty mass ofglobular land and water, rolling its prodigious weight on nowwhere, inwhat is called “ the plane of its orbit,” and supported in that plane by amysterious and invisible arm, outstretched from the sun, ninety three
millions of miles long, and facetiously called “ Gravitation ” !
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,“ Z e t e t e s .”Jan u a ry

1893.

“ Standing order 14 House of Commons, denies convexity. Tliero is no allow­
ance to be made for it. None in m aking the Suez Canal, 80 miles long. None]in m aking the Canal in China, 700 miles long. None in m aking th e Manches-1
ter Ship C anal; working from a level datum line uo allowance is required at]-’iW -”

I . S m it h .

CUTTINGS AND REMARKS,
T h e “ C r u s t o f t h e G lo b e ” I o r T h e w a y t h e y c o o k“ S c ie n c e .”“A

GEOLOGICALBLUNDEK.”" There is in Nature an article by a French w riter on Sir Archibald Geikie,
Director-General of the Geological Survey, which is ju s t now causing a goodof talk amongst E nglish men of science. Of course nobody is surprised a t the
fulsoineness of M. de L apparent’s eulogy. As Nature seems to exist for push­ing the gi-eat official scientific syndicate of Huxley, Hooker, Geikie and Co.,
Limited—very strictly limited—which may be said to “run” science in England,
SI. de Lapparent would probably not have been permitted to write anything
about a member of it unless it was fulsome. W hat has really amazed people
is the audacity w ith which a famous historic bungle on th e p a rt of the Geologi­
cal Survey is glossed over, and th e D irector General not only credited w ith thework of those who exposed and corrected it, to his u tte r discomfiture, b u t actu­
ally covered with laurels for thus winning one of the most glorious scientificconquests of the century. The whole th in g is delightfully characteristic ofStat^-endowed science in England. If you are one of the official syndicate who“ run ” it, you may blunder w ith im punity and make your country ridiculous a t
the taxpayers’ expense. Scientific men who can correct you shrink from thetask. They know th a t th e syndicate can boycott them , and by intrigue keepthem out of every honour and profit, and th a t the syndicate’s satellites canwrite and shout down everywhere independent non-official critics. They also
know th a t if, perchance, some particular intrepid person does succeed in expos­
ing one of this syndicate, they can always, by the same means—after the public
has forgotton th e incident—surprese. him, and boldly appropriate to themselves
the credit of his work.
The geological secret of the Highlands, while th e unlocking of which Sir
Archibald Geikie is now credited, was reaUy made a puzzle for more th an halfa century by th e blundering of th e Geographical Survey and director—General
Sir Eoderick M urchison—and famous courtier and “ society ” geologist of thelast generation. In the H ighlands he saw gneisses and ordinary crystal-line
schists resting on Silurian strata, and he foolishly held the sequence to be quite
normal. The schists, he would have it, were not archaic formations, b u t only
meta-morphosed Silurian deposits. He also held th a t prim itive gneiss was notpart of the molten crust of the globe, b u t only sediments of sand and mud alteredby intense pressure and heat. Murchinson, not to p u t too find a point on it," bounced ” everybody into accepting this absurd theory, and th e whole forcesof the Geological Survey, w ith its official and social influence, together with thevmscrupnlous power of the official syndicate which then, as now, jobhed science
wherever it had a State endowment, wei-e spent in perpetuating the blunder andblasting the scientific reputation of whoever scoffed a t it. B ut in th e N atural
History School of Aberdeen U niversity it was scoffed at. T he late Dr. Nichol,
IVofessor of N atural History in Aberdeen, proved th a t M urchison and th e Sur­
vey were wholly wrong, his proof b eirg as complete as the existing state ofscience allowed. W hen he died. Dr. Alleyne Nicholson, took the same side, andfor years in relation t/> this grand problem it was Aberdeen TTniversity against

l>2

THE

EARTH

IS WATER HORIZONTAL.

REVIEW.

the world. • • ■ • In sliouting the last word no voice has been louder thau
Sir Archibald Geikie’s. It is therefore diverting to find his official biographer
stating in N atw e that all the time he was wrestling in foro conscienti<e withdoabts as to the soundness of the official position, and that finally “ his love oftruth ” prompted him to order a re-survey of the whole Highland region. In
plain English, the taxpayer having had to pay for Murchison’s bungling survey,
was because of his successor’s love of truth,” to enjoy the luxury of paying overagain to correct it.
The real truth, however, is this :—When it was supposed that the Aberdo­
nians were finally crushed, there arose in England a young geologist called
Lapworth, who had the courage to revise the whole controversy and take sides,with the Aberdeen school. As he developed an extraordinary genius for strati­
graphy he not only broke to pieces the official work of the Geological Survey inthe Highlands, but by revealing the true secret of the structure of that perplex­
ing region, he played havoc with the Murchisons and the Geikies and all theirsatellites, convicting them of bungling and covering them with ridicule. ■ ■ •Sfatiu’o, in fact, in these parts had suffered from a much more powerfulemetic than Murchison imagined, and wh?n bits of the primitive crustof the OLOBB* were thrown up and pushed on the top of more recent
deposits Murchison jumped to the conclusion that they were of later datethan what they lay on. It was a terrible blunder, as the Aberdeen men
persistently held, and we do not wonder that Sir Archibald Geikie, who rose toplace and power by defending it, is anxious to have his connection with itveiled by a friendly hand. But it is rather oi,-.trageous for the friendly hand to
give him the credit of conceding the very error which he defended to the lastgasp, and deprive Professor Lapworth of the honour of having banished it fromscience. One of the most diverting things, however, in the Article in Nafitre isthat Sir Archibald Geikie is belauded because, when frightened by the stir Pro­
fessor Lapworth’s jjaper made in 1883, he was fain to send his surveyors to goover the Highlands again—he, as their official chief, ordered them “ to divest
themselves ot uny prepossession in favour of published views,
to map out theactual facts." Old Colin Campbell, when he objected to the institution of theVictoria Cross, s.aid it was as absurd to decorate a soldier for being brave as awoman for being virtuous. He did not foresee a still greater absurdity—that ofeulogising a man of science because he instructed his assistants to tell the truth
when conducting an investigation into his own blunders.” (Italics oursJ.— J^’ro^nthe Daily Chronicle, Saturday, Jan. U th , 1893.
* ln the above article we have “ Science ” exposing “ Science ’’ ? Is not this ideao f “ the crust o f the Qldbe ’’ the greatest blunder o f all and’ the basis o f all
the other geological “ blunders " 9 (Ed. E.E.)

IS W ATER HORIZONTAL ?
“ Parallax ” the modern and experimental discoverer of the true
shape of the earth and sea is dead, but his living testimony was, Water
is horizontal. John H am pden Esqr. who nobly defended the truth, isalso dead, but his living testimony was, Water is horizontal. William
Carpenter, another noble defender of the truth ; whose One H undred
Proofs that the World is not a Globe, has forced the astronomers into adogged silence, says “ Whenever experiments have been tried on theIsurface of standing water, this surface has always been found to belevel ” i.e. horizontal. The Zetetic Society lives, and its united undeviating testimony is, Water is horizontal. Is this testimony true, oris it false ? Let practical witnesses give their testimony, and I defy
any official Astronomer to contradict them by an open and direct appeal
to the surface of Water, either on lake, river, or sea, in any part of theWorld.
First. “ Parallax ” says, “ Experim ents m ade upon the sea havebeen objected to on account o f its constantly— changing attitude.
Standing water has therefore been selected, and the follow ing experinient m ade.”‘‘ In the County of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal,
called the ‘ Old Bedford.’ It is upwards of twenty miles in length, andpasses in a straight line throught that part of the fens called the‘ Bedford Level ’ The water is nearly stationary, often entirely so, andthroughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or watergates ; so that it is in every respect well adapted for ascertaining whether
any and what amount of convexity really exists. A boat with a flag
standing five feet above the water was directed to sail from a placecalled ‘ Welche’s Dam ’ (a well known ferry passage), to another placecalled ‘ Welney Bridge.’ These two points are six statute miles apart.
'I’he observer, with a good telescope, was standing in the water, with theeye not exceeding eight inches above the surface. The flag and theboat were clearly visible throughout the whole distance ! as shown in thefollowing diagram.

PROVING WATER TO BE LEVEL.

“ From this experiment it was concluded that the water does not de­clinefrom the line o f sight! As the altitude of the eye of the observer
was Sins., the highest point, or the horizon, or summit of the arc,
would be at one mile from the place of observation ; from which point
the surface of the water would curvate downwards, and at the end of
the remaining five miles would be i6 feet 8 inches below the horizon !
The top of the flag, being sfeet high, would have sunk gradually out ofsight, and at the end of six miles would have been 11 feet 8 inches beloiv
the eye line ! ” This simple experiment is all sufficient to demonstratethat the surface o f the water is parallel to the line o f sight and is therefore
Horizontal;
that the earth cannot possibly be other than a P l a n e ! ”

24

THE

EAETH

EEV IEW .

Second. Mr. W. T. Lynn of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich inhis “ First Principles of Natural Philosophy ” says, “ the upper surface
of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because, if a part of the surface
were higher than the rest (and on a globe one part must necessarily behigher than the r e s t!), those parts of the fluid which were under it
would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than theyreceive from them, so that motion would take place amongst theparticles and continue until there were none at a higher level than therest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass o f flu id became ahorizontal plane."
Third. Professor Airy in his “ Six Lectures on Astronomy ” says,“ quicksilver is perfectly fluid, its surface is perfectly horizontal.”

Tu Iliw that stretched out the Earth above the W atern; fo r Hits mercij
endureth for ever."— Psa. lo(i : 6.

No. o.

JU LY , 1893.

P ric e2 u.

J n o . W il l ia m s .

(To be continued).
S outhSPOILED CHRISTIANS.

La t i t u d e s .

" It is a well ascertained fact that the constant sunlight of the North develops,
with the utmost rapidity, numerous forms of vegetable life, and furnishes subaistence for millions of living creatures. But in the South where the sunlightnever dwells, or lingers about a central region, but rapidly sweeps over sea andland to complete in 24 hours the great circle of the Southern circumference, it
has not time to excite and stimulate the surface, and therefore even in compar­
atively low Southern latitudes everything wears an aspect of desolation.—Para^/nx
in “ Earth not a Globe.’’
The hones of musk oxen killed by Esquimaux were found North of the 79th
parallel, while in the South, man is not found above the 56th parallel of lati­tude. Polar Explanations.—Eead before the Eoyal Dublin Society.

A

SONG.

We do not foist a paste-board Globe on every British school.
Nor vote for children’s brains to rack with Theory’s tangled rule ;Nor Teach foul Falsehood’s right to reign though donned in wig and robe.
Nor quench astonishment in youth when told the earth’s a Globe !
Eaiee high the Truth ; knock down the lie ! and blow a mighty b la st;
By showing how for so-called Science the Lie rose in the p a st;
Proclaim the thousands driven mad, and others nigh entranced.
Through grinding-in the Globe-man’s Lie, and Protoplasm’s dance.
Becord how Parallax ” once fought, and Hampden’s Clarion tongue ;Tell how “ Zetetes,” Carpenter, have borne the Standard on :Of other heroes, young and old, in every land and clime ;And let the Truth which m ust be told resound along the line.
On, onward ! Flatten all the globes in every British school,
Nor keep the Eight upon the rack while Falsehoods proudly rule ;Let honest Truth, not lies, prevail through England’s fair domain
Then Eight shall rule and Truth shine o’er the World’s extended Plane.

loOHOCLAST.

riiuiiig the substance of a Seriiiou preached by the Editor in Mouli’s Koad
Chapel, Lincoln, Sunday morning. May li th , 1893].

“ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
afler the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ.” Col. 2 ; 8.
We have, in the words of the text, a note of warning addressed toChristians. It will not be denied that Christians need preaching tosometimes as well as the world. Paul’s letters, exhortations, and warn­
ings, were addressed to believers.
faithful minister has need at times
to preach something more than what is commonly and superficiallycalled “ the gospel. ” H e is commanded to “ preach the Word,” andthe Word of God refers to a great many subjects, some of which aresadly neglected, as for instance the subject of Creation. Yet this sub­ject of Creation stands out at the forefront of the Holy Scriptures,
which Scriptures were written for our learning. But many in our days,
and, alas ! many professed Christians, prefer to take their learning
regarding the construction of God’s Universe from other sources rather
than from the revelation which the Creator has given us. In fact they
prefer human philosophy and vain deceits with the traditions of men
rather than the statements ot the inspired prophets and apostles. If a
“ scientist,” with half a dozen letters of the alphabet tacked on to his
name, should come down to lecture on the stars, or the Universe, he islistened to by multitudes with open ears, and mouths ; and his words are
considered far more reliable than those of the holy men of God who
spake and who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We do
not disparage learning or true science; but there is a great deal abroad
now which as Paul says, is only “ S c i e n c e , s o - c a l l e d . ” 1 Tim.
0 : 20. That is, this so-called “ science ” is not true knowledge, or theTUK

EAU TIIREVIEW .

knowledge of truths, or facts, found in nature or the universe ; but it ismerely speculative learning, deceptive philosophy and worldly tradition.
Now these traditions, these worldly philosophies, make the Word of God
of none effect, as the Saviour said. Mark 7 : 1 3 . So that when God
speaks to us on the same subject we either deny His Word, or Lake itin an unnatural sense to accomodate it to the teachings of men, and so
it becomes of none effect to us. Hence the need of this word of warn­
ing, “ Beware ; ” that is
BEWARE OF PHILOSOPHY.

Ijeware of Science that is falsely so-called. There are those who
think this word of warning is not needed, and who do not like philosophic
subjects referred to in a sermon. But while we ought not to preach
philosophic sermons, which, alas ! is becoming a common practice ; yet,if the Spirit of God inspired Paul’s statement, we ought to lift up avoice of warning against human philosophies, and show how they are
undermining faith in the teachings of the gospel. I propose therefore
to do so this morning in connection with the question of Creation andthe shape of the Earth, in which you know I am so much interested.
I am interested because I see how by false views of Creation and false
theories of the Universe, our great spiritual enemy is subverting thefaith once delivered to the saints. You who are here know how human
traditions have nullified much of God’s Word, especially the great truthof Life through Christ alone ; and I am thankful to think that God has
raised up men in Lincoln to proclaim to the ends of the earth the primi­
tive and gospel Hope of Eternal Life. But if subtle philosophies and afalse science are allowed to undermine all faith in the Sacred Writings
it will soon be useless to preach to perishing men the gospel of a newand better Life through Israel’s Coming Messiah. When men, througha false “ Science ” have lost faith in the Bible then those who now ask
w'hat the shape of the earth has to do with Salvation, will find it has
something to do with damnation if not with salvation ; for men will bedamned, or condemned, through unbelief. And it is most remarkablethat a false system of Cosmogony is at the basis of nearly every formof heresy and unbelief.
I therefore feel it my duty this morning to warn you ; for although
you may think your own faith is at present firm, that of others is actuallygiving way, as I shall proceed to shew, and I trust that some of theyoung men I am now addressing will yet be raised up, not only topreach the Gospel of Resurrectional Life through Christ, but also beenabled to defend the integrity and soundness of the Holy Scriptureson this great Creation subject. Eor if the foundations be destroyed
what will the righteous do ? It is not by accident that God has placed
the subject of Creation in the forefront of His Revelation.
He.SPOILEDCKISTIANS.

challenges our allegiance as Creator. But if the first chapers of Genesis
arc wrong, and the earth is a whirling Globe, evolved out of a hot
cinder thrown from the sun ; and if, as a part o f this erolutionary scheme,
we have sprung from “ B athybius”—a jelly-fish kind of slimy mud—ascideans, mammals and monkeys, then the gospel of Jesus C h ristisa use­less superfluity. If all around us on this so-called “ planet” is unlimited“ space,” and if there be no heaven near and above us, then the resur­
rection and the ascension of Christ are myths, or allegorieSj to be ex­plained away, as they are being explained aw’ay, by clever “ Christian ”
sophists in harmony with the new astronomical philosophy.
“ W H ERE IS HEAVEN ? ”

To shew you that I am not drawing a fanciful picture I will quotefrom a sermon published in The Christian World Pulpit, March 29th,
1893. It is by the ‘‘ Rev.” Geo. St. Clair, F.G.S., preached in West
Grove Church, Cardiff. It is headed, “ Where is Heaven ? ” and thetext quoted w as;— “As they were looking H e was taken up, and a cloudreceived Him out of their sight.” Acts i : 9. You would hardly expect
to find a man denying that heaven is a locality placed above us in thefacc of such a text. But it is not the first time such a text has been
craftily handled and finally contradicted by those who wrest the Scrip­
tures to their own destruction. And on what basis is Christ’s Ascension
to a local heaven denied by this professed man of God ? The new
Cosmogony. The earth is supposed to be a globe, surrounded by—“ space ”— so if there is no local heaven the term “ heaven ” refers toa “ state ” of feeling, or a condition of being, not to a place at all !
The preacher says :—“ In l-i92 Columbus sailed W ustward in seiii'ola of the E ast Indies, and thirty
juiii's later Magellan actually sailed away froui Europe in one direction and re­turned in the other, having voyaged all round the world. I t was thus shewnthat the earth is a globe. Previously the common notion had been th a t theearth was flat, and heaven a little way above th e clouds, and the place of thedead—the wicked dead, if not all the dead—somewhere underneath. These
were ancient ideas and the fact th a t we find them in the Bible is one proof th a t
the Bible is au ancient book. The Bible w riters had been educated to believeth a t Grod had laid foundations for the earth, or supported it ou pillars. H eaven
was His throne, the earth His footstool. If the earth opened you m ight godown alive into the p it or abyss, like Korah, D athan, and Abiraui. In New
Testam ent times these ideas were still traditionally current, and when the
Apostle P aul declares th a t in th e name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of thosein heaven, those on the earth, aud those under the earth, he intended it as au
enumeration of all the provinces of th e U niverse.”

The above paragraph clearly shews what the Bible writers had been
“ educated to believe,” both in old Testament and in New Testament
times. But this “ Rev.” Fellow of the Geographical Society says ; “ The

THE

EAKTH

IIE V JE W .

progress of knowledge leads us to look differently at some of thesequestions.” This is a polite way of saying that Bible writers were all
wrong. How do we know that they were wrong? Because Magellan
sailed round the world, and “ thus it was shown that the earth is a
globe.” And this is called “ the progress of knowledge.” Knowledge
indeed ! I am not going to give you a Science address this morning—
1 shall be happy to do this, God willing, another time—I am going now
to keep strictly to the Bible aspect of the subject, so I will dismiss
this specimen of scientific progress by saying that such knowledge ”
would enable you to prove any island, say Australia, to be a globe, if you
could only sail round i t ! This would be further “ progress ’’ of the samekind ! But what I want you to notice here is this, the idea that we areliving on a sort of shooting star, or planet, is made the basis, not onlyof denying the existence of heaven as a locality, but, as a result, also
denying one of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith namely,
T HE ASCENSION OF JESUS CHRIST.

Of course this is consistent. liem ove heaven millions upon millionsof miles away, or deny its existence altogether; then it logically follows
that the resurrected body of our ever blessed Redeemer did not “ascend”
there ; and according to this, he does not now sit at the right-hand of
the M a j e s t y o n H i g h to make intercession for us. In fact it is morethan suggested by this writer that the material body of Jesus never rose
again ; so that the Apostle Thomas was deceived and the other apostles.
And if Christ be not raised from the dead, we are yet in our sins; thenthey also who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished ; and we, likethe deluded apostles, are of all men most to be pitied, i Cor. 15 : 14-18,
But thanks be to God, in the face of all the evidence for the bodily resur­
rection and ascension of the crucified Nazarene, we can say with thegifted P au l; “ But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become thefirst fruits of them that sleep ” ; and not only so, but that “ He ascended
up on H igh,” and led forth a multitude of captives. See Eph. 4 : 8.
margin. But I want you to see where these false philosophies are. lead­ing men to. To covert and open denial of the leading facts and doctrinesof the Christian religion. You ought to know these things. I shall not
weary you with quotations, or I might instance other writers besides,
but I must give one or two extracts from the sermon already quoted toconvince you of the dangers incurred in harbouring a false system ofCreation, or Cosmogony. The preacher went on to say ;—“ Heaven will extend all round the globe in ev'eiy direction. I f we foundreason to fix heaven, or God’s throne, in some special locality, such as the Siiu,
or the larger luiuinarij around which our Sun is supposed to revolve, we could not
say that heaven is above our heads, because the Sun is never in the zenith topeople outside the tropics, and because the earth rotates daily, so that what is
above our heads at midnight is beneath our feet at noonday. . . ,SimilarW H E R K IS H E A V E N ?

5

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s apply to th e

supposed central Sun in the P l e i a d e s ; and even if
wo could get there we should perhaps find th a t the great lum inary in the P lei­ades was moving round a Sun more masterful and huge in an altogether differ­
ent I’eo'ion of the heavens. We cannot find the centre of the universe, and we
d o not know w hether it has one.”

This is a sad confession to make on the part of a man and a minister
who professes to be a Christian. I t reminds one of Mary’s com plaint;“ They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have
have laid him.” It is the hopeless wail of “ Science” without thehistoric facts and hope of Redemption.’”But I must read another extract from our ■' Christian ” scientist andpreacher to show how he further tries to steal away all our tangible
hopes and supplant them with vague and so-called “ spiritual ” imma­
terialities. H e goes on to say in his sermon ;—“ Nor is the question of distance a t all ridiculous, if we are going to look at,
the m atter in this m aterial way. Dr. Thain Davison has suggested {The Qinrer
for January) th a t the pivot of the starry universe (supposed to be in the Pleiadesl)ut if in the constellation of H ercules no m atter) is the peculiar residence of•lehovah, the metropolis of creation, the palace of the K ing of kings. Upon thisa newspaper writer rem arks th a t Sirius (a star which is really really nearer thantlie Pleiades is so immensley distan t th a t a traveller proceeding 2,000 miles a
day would be 150,000,000 years in getting there, and Adam and Eve would not
yet be very far on th e -way.’’

So that on the basis of absurd star distances, calculated by modern
astronomers upon a fanciful parallax, we are asked to give up theancient apostolic ideas of heaven ; and to believe that the apostles andthe prophets with all the worthies of old had mistaken notions thereon.
Yea, more ; we are required to give up our hope of the resurrection of
the body, based as it is upon the Resurrection and .Ascension of tlie
glorified body of Jesus the Christ. And we are invited to do this tooat the bidding of a gentlemen who dires to take for his text, “ As they
were looking H e was taken up, and a cloud received him out of theirsight.” Acts I : 9. Could sacrilege go further ? Yet in the face of all
the evidence to the contrary he affirms concerning Christ’s material resur­
rection body, “ H e did not take it to heaven with Him.” Then we
enquire. What became of it ? Was even the sceptical Thomas imposed
upon after all ? But the reason this “Fellow” gives is one quite apart fromthe evidences for the resurrection. We are told that “ a material bodycannot throw off the influence q{ gravitation and leave the earth.” You
see historic evidence of facts must be laid aside to give way to modern
astronomical assum ptions; and no assumption is more baseless than themodern idea of universal gravitation, as I have shewn elsewhere.
* See also the following article headed, “ The Hopeless W ail of Science.”

THE

EARTH

R EV IEW .

Whether therefore you now see it or not, I firmly believe that a generalapostacy from the truth is ripening, based upon the unfounded assump­
tions of “ Science ” ; and that therefore, there is

H OPELESSW AIL.

“ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition o f men, after the rudim ents of the world, and not
after Christ.”

DANGER AHEAD !

Before I conclude I would warn you, friends, of the great danger
which crosses our path here. Professors of science w'ho profess also to
be Christians place more confidence in their so-called “ science ” thanthey do in the Word of God. They wrest the Scriptures, under the pleaof spiritualizing them, to make them suit their scientific, or unscientific,
theories. For instance, in the sermon quoted, in answer to the ques­tion, What became of Christ’s body ? we read ;— “ This difficulty is met
by the supposHion that it was not the physical body of Jesus which rosefrom the dead, no more than it was the fleshly body that ascended ; butthat the whole range of these after death appearances of the Lord be­long to the spirit world.” These modern scientists, whether Christianor infidel, seem as anxious to get rid of the physical body of Christ as
the scribes and pharisees of old. Why ? Because, say they, heaven is
not a place, but only a state of feeling ; and a body requires locality.
And there is now no heaven shining above us, it is all empty and end­
less “ space. ” H ence this false prophet says ; “ When once we havelaid the body down we have done with it.” Thus the Resurrectional
hope as well as belief in the Ascension of Christ is undermined.
Friends, we are evidently living in the “ perilous times ” predictedby the apostle P a u l; and there are many traitors already in the Christiancamp. “ Beware” ! The great apostle Paul bids you “ Beware.” If
you lose faith in the heavenly and well attested verities which lie atthe foundation of our hope you will lose Eternal Life ; and if you thinkthat your own faith is firm yet come to the rescue of others by helping
us to remove the stumbling blocks out of their way. You may saveyourselves as well as your children. A man last week was walking
down the line in or near the station at Leicester. H e doubtless thought
he was safe. H e knew the line well, and was, I believe, a worker
on the railway. But his back was towards an approaching engine.
There was no one near to warn h im ; no friendly sign admonishing him
to “ Beware of the trains ” ; and so the engine rapidly overtook him andkilled him on the spot. A single cry would have saved him. May
the apostolic warning save us. And when we see our friends liable tobe led away with a baseless science, a science such as the apostle Paul
speaks of which is “ falsely so called,” then let us take heed and re-echo
the inspired warning which God Himself has given us through his faith­
ful servant. It is

THE HOPELESS W AIL OP SCIENCE.
As going to press we are also reminded of M. Zola’s hopelesswail of Science, as recorded in the Westminister Gazette of May
the 20th, 1893. The Editor remarks ;— “ In proportion as scienceadvances, it is certain that the ideal slips away.” So spoke M. Zola
Inst night at the Paris Association of Students, curiously following u|>]>rofessor Huxley’s Romanes lecture, and that tendency to ‘‘roundupon progress ” which we spoke of yesterday. He, too, is of opinion
that science or evolution does not, for the moment, show the way to theland of promise.” The editor then quotes M. Zola as saying ;—“ Experim ent, it is said, has done its work and science is incapable of vopoopling the heaven th a t it has emptied, of restoring happiness to the souls
whose artless tranqm lity it has ravished.” B ut we are suffering only from theinevitable fatigue th a t attends long voyages. Distressed, we sit a t the edge ofthe far-stretching plain of the opening century, and rath er than take up theonward nmrcli into this unknown country, we would have preferred never evento have come so far, but to have died far back on our course beneath the staris.
Jiut science had ever promised tru th ; and yet how pitiful, how touching, the cryof those who have lost th eir illusions and know not where to look.”

Yes ! These men allow what they call ‘‘science” to spirit heaven awayfrom them, and then like poor orphans they bewail their sad condition.
They cannot say like the true Christian can say ■,— “• Our Father who
art in Heaven” because the idea of boundless ‘‘ space ” has spirited it
away. M. Zola, however, tried to comfort himself with the fact that
“ Science had ever promised truth.” It may have “ promised ” truth ;but. like many besides who make large promises, it seldom fulfils thosepromises. We desire truth, and truth only, at whatever c o s t; and as
many can testify, we have made some sacrifices to obtain truth, and thefreedom to proclaim it.
But we ought to be well assured that it is thetruth we hive, whether in Science or in Religion, lest we only part with
one set of •“ illusions ” for another. Hence the need of the apostolic
injunction ; ‘‘ Prove all things : hold fast that which is good.” Scientists
have been “ educated ” in the globulRr theory from childhood ; and we
doubt if ever a man of them has honestly examined into the found­ations of his belief
We have, and so we pity their forlorn condition ;but we must, nevertheless, expose their unscientific and delusive assump­
tions, especially as they would rob us of a well-founded hope.

r '’ .

THE

EAUTH

REVIEW .

THE MIDNIGHT SUN ,—Contiimed,P r o o f t h a t t h e E a r t h is n o t a G lo b e ,Having given the facts connected with this interesting enquiry, we
now proceed to show how those facts utterly conflict with the globular
theory, and how beautifully they harmonise with the plane-earth truth.
To do this effectually we must have recourse to diagrams. As theseincrease the cost of printing we hope our friends will make it up by
doing what they can to increase the circulation of our paper. We
willingly give our services, but we cannot expect the printers to do so.
We will now refer to diagram i, which represents the sea-earth world
according to the globular theory.
Let A C B D represent the “ globe,” rotating upon its “ axis ” A B.
(see next page). The line C D will represent the circle of the equator
midway between the “ poles ” A and B.
T he line F G will shew the position of the tropic of Cancer said tobe 23^° north of the equator, which is the highest north declination thesun attains on or about midsummer day, June 24th. Let P represent
the position of the sun directly in a line with this tropic at thisperiod. In this position it would be mid-day on the side of the earth
next the sun along the meridian L F N ; and it would be midnight on
the opposite side along the meridian M D O.
Let L.M. represent the Arctic Circle said to be 23^° from the North“ P o le” A, or about 66^° of north latitude; which latitude, or ciicle,
runs across the northern parts of Norway and Sweden or Scandinavia.
THE EARTH AS A GLOBE.

T H E M ID N IU H T

SUN.

Now we are crcdibly informed by travellers that in this latitude, andat or about the above mentioned date, a spectator at M can see thesun at midnight, above the horizon, looking directly over the north“ pole ” in the direction M Q. The horizon is a straight line tangential
to the surface of the sphere at the point of observation, and it must
therefore be placed at right angles to the dotted line E M running fromthe centre of the sphere to the latitude and position of the observer.
But we have already alluded to the fact that the sun is never seeu
directly over any part of the earth north of the tropic of Cancer ; thatis, the sun is never more than 23!° north of the equator. Persons living
further north than this have always to look in a southerly direction forthe sun at noon ; and it ought therefore never to be seen to the m rthof them at any time, so we must place the sun in the diagram some­where on the line P F G. Let it be placed at any point P. Now it ismanifest that for an observer at M, near the latitude of Haparanda, to
see the sun at midnight at P, over the tropic at Cancer, he would haveto look downwards and be able to see right t h r o u g h t h e “ g l o b e ”
for about five or six thousand miles along the dotted line M R ! ! I am
not aware of any traveller who claims this ability ; nor yet that the“ globe” to oblige the astronomers, becomes transparent at this perioa 1
I am not aware that any spectator of the phenomenon of the midnightsuu has to look do7cn at all upon this gorgeous spectacle. The traveller
sees it above his horizon, and the higher he ascends the higher the sun
is seen. Therefore the earth cantiot be a globe-, and thus the midnight
sun is a splendid and periodic witness to the fallacy of this absurd un­
scientific and infidel hypothesis.

F u rth e r

A ssu m p tio n sneeded.

We are well aware of the further assumptions the astronomers maketo get over these difficulties ; and we are quite prepared to meet themwhen occasion requires. They have first to remove the sun millionsof miles from where we know and can see that he is ; and then they haveto assume that he is millions of times larger than he is. In fact assump­
tions vitiate their whole system. For the midnight sun to be seen, as itis, by a spectator at the point M looking directly over the north “ pole,”
it would have to be placed somewhere on or above, the line M Q, say at Q.
The further off the sun is placed from the “globe” and the greater diverg­
ence there would be between its proper place at Q, above the northernhorizon, and its hypothetical position at P. If the spectator could lookright through the earth and sea the sun ought to be found on the line
G F P to satisfy the conditions of the globular theory ; but as a matter offact it is found many thousands (and according to astronomical ideas
many millions) of miles north and away from where it ought to be. I
fear that the sun has not yet been converted to the Newtonian way of

til

10

THE

EARTH

REV IEW .

thinking or of acting. Its course of conduct is rather inconsistent withmodern scientific “ belief”—and there are philosophical creeds as well
as religious “ beliefs ”— and it is very well known that the behaviour ofthe moon is even more outrageous, considered from an astronomical
point of view. There may be some little excuse for the moon in her
wayward wanderings, considering her changeable character and the sex
generally applied to her ; but surely the sun ought to keep his place
better with respect to the “ globe ” than to go out at nights staring attravellers nearly at the “ north pole.” But perhaps, if they could only
see it, he is staring with astonishment at some of their unphilosophicalideas ; and if their “ scientific” consciences be not utterly seared hemust stare them out of all countenance with such ideas.
There must be something sadly wrong someivhtre, for both luminaries
regularly to shew their smiling faces in positions both when and where
they ought never to be seen. How is it ? Perhaps “ gravitation ” getsa bit slack at times, and kindly allows them these little excursions!
However, we pianists have no need to complain, although it rather
frets the Astronomers. Why should the sun not visit the north pole, andmake a considerable stay there too, for the benefit of Arctic explorers ?
But here is the strange part of the question. Why is he, and why arc
they, so partial to the north “ pole ” ? Why not try the south sometimes
in the same way ? It seems rather strange : does it not ? Very ! How
is it that vegetation, flowers, fruits, birds, animals, men, civilization,&c. cannot be found so far south as they can north ? The Plane truth
explains it. However we wall now proceed to show how simply thephenomenon of the Midnight Sun can be explained in harmony with thetruth that the earth is a vast outstretched and motionless plane with thesun circling above it in a spiral orbit around the North Centre.

THE

M ID N IG H T

SUN.

11

Let A B C D
represent t h egreat circularplane, with N
for the northcentre. T h e
thicker circle
E F G H will
represent t h eequator or sun’s
daily path at
the equinoxes
in March and
September, half
way between
the North Cen­tre N, and theouter Southern
ice circle A B
CD .
A ll
countries i n side the equatorial circle have North latitude ; and all outside it South
latitude. I-et the outer and thinner circle J K L M represent the tropicof Capricorn, or the sun’s expanded and daily path in our mid-winter,and the Nevv Zealand mid-summer ; and the inner and thinner circle
P Q R O the tropic of Cancer, or the sun’s contracted and more north­erly path or circle at the time of our mid-summer and the southern mid­
winter. The small dotted circle S T V W will show the position of the
Arctic circle, and the larger dotted circle near the outer circumference,
the Antarctic circle.
TH E EARTH AS A PLANE.

‘‘ D e g r e e s . ”

THE PLANE

TRUTH.

The eartli and sea together form a vast circular plane. T he surface ofstanding water has been abundantly proved to be Im l. We cannot
repeat the evidence h e re ; but those who want it may find the evidence
given in an excellent book by “ Parallax ” (Dr, Birley) which has never
yet been answered. This book though out of print at present may be
reprinted before long, or as soon as the necessary means are available.
Oh ! Is there no one with sufficient means, and sufficient love o f the truth,
to do himself so great an honour and the truth so great a service ?
(But see a letter in the April number of the “Earth Review.”) However,to our subject. As water is level, the earth must be a plane.

Now a glance at this diagram will reveal another very popularfallacy in connection with this subject.
There cannot be ninety“ degrees ” of the ordinary geographical extent, between any point on
the equator and the north centre. The number and the length of“ degrees ” of latitude north and south of the equator have been “ cal­culated ” on the assumption that the earth is a globe. But as the“ level ” of the surface of the sea proves the earth to be a plane these“ degrees ” are so far misleading. If we allow 360 degrees for theequatorial circle E F G H , there would be, in distance about 114-| of such“ degrees ” in its diameter say from E to G, or F to H ; and only about57^ of such “ degrees” in its radius, or from the equator to the so-called“ pole,” or North Centre, So that if we take all the “degrees” as equal,
in length the distance from any point G, on the equator, to the North

12

TH E

EA R TH-REVIEW.

Centre, N, instead of being 6,250 miles, or one quarter of a meridional
circle of 25,000 miles as the astronomers assume, it would
really be only about 3980, or a little under 4,000 miles. We shouldhave to substract about one-third. But more about this “ degree ”
delusion another time. See E arth Review for April, 1893.

THE SUN’S SPIRAL PATH.
Now when the sun is on or over the equator, say at the point G, it isacknowledged that its light extends to the North Centre, at the point N.
Therefore the distance G N represents the distance which the sun’s rays
can pierce through our atmostphere, in a northerly or southerly direction,
so as to show the full body of the sun to an observer north or south.
H ence when the sun is on the tropic of Capricorn in our mid-winter,say at the point L, its direct rays cannot be seen beyond the point V
in the Arctic Circle V W S T. Hence all who live within the Arctic Circle
at this season of the year are in darkness as far as the sun’s direct rays
are concerned, the distance L V being the same as the distance G N.
But when the sun’s daily circular path has contracted towards the northso as to bring that luminary to the point R in the tropic of Cancer at
our midsummer, then it is evident his rays must shine right across thewhole Arctic Circle from R to S, the distance again being the same asthat from G to N.

A P la in P ro o f.
So that if the earth be a plane with the sun moving over it as alreadydescribed, a spectator 011 or near the Arctic Circle at the point S ought
to see the sun at midnight at the point R as he looks over and acrossthe North Centre. But this is just what the spectator in such a position
does see according to the abundant evidence already adduced. T here­
fore the earth is again clearly and abundantly p r o v e d t o e e a p l a n e .
In such a position on a plane the spectator although in a high northernlatitude, must necessarily look still further north to see the sun at mid­night as he circles round the North Centre ; but on a globe, as we havealready seen, where the body of the sun never attains more than 23^°
north declination, a spectator in such a position, 66^° north latitude,
would, (if he could see the sun at all) be compelled to look doionwards
through the “ globe ” and in a southerly direction. This cannot be
done, and if it could the sun would not be found th e re ; therefore
again the earth is not a globe.

A F a ith fu l W itn e ss.
Thus the sun in his movements becomes a grand and solemn witness
to the truth of God and a stationary and outstretched earth. As M.
Chaillu. in spite of his astronomical education and bias, is constrainedTHE

MTDNTGHT STJN.

13

honestly to confess that it seems to be the sun and not the earth which
revolves. H e says “ It,” the sun, “seems to travel around in a circle, re■quiring twenty-four hours for its completion.” Hear, h e a r! And since byplane triangulation the sun can be proved to be a comparatively small
s m a ll body and not more than three thousand miles away, we need not
wonder at this. It is surprising how near the truth our Arctic explorer
comes when, forgetting his astronomy, he simply and honestly describes
the phenomena he witnessed. H e further says;—“ At the pole theo b s e r v e r seems to be in a g r a n d s p i r a l m o v e m e n t o f t h e s u n , whichfurther south takes place north of him.” Well done M. C haillu! We
thank you for your honest and noble testimony. It agrees with that of
the inspired Psalmist when he sa id ; “ The heavens declare the glory of
God ; and the firmament sheweth his handywork • • • In them hath He
set a tabenacle for the s u n which is as a bridgegroom coming out of
his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man t o r u n a r a c e . H is going
forth is from the end of heaven and h i s c i r c u i t unto the ends of it,
and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.” Psa. 1 9 ; i — 6.
Let us then, in conclusion, again unite with the Psalmist, in his songof P r a i s e T o Him that by his wisdom made the heavens; for His
Mercy endureth for ever.
To Him that s t r e t c h e d o u t the earth
above the waters ; for His mercy endureth for ever. To Him who madegreat lights; for his Mercy endureth for ever. The sun to rule by day ;for His Mercy endureth for ever. The moon and the stars (all “ lights ”only) to rule by night; for H is Mercy endureth for ever.” Psa. 136:
5—9 “ The sun may be seen at midnight in Hammerfest, in Norway, themost northerly town of Europe. It contains about 3,000 inhabitants,
whose principal business has to do with the fisheries.”e. p. w.
Considering the diameter of the sun is 888,646 miles, (?) the three
thousand fishers must have plenty of room to move about in. I should
imagine the sun-fish would require little cooking. For this valuablepiece of absolutely original information about the sun, our little planet
is indebted to S i f t i n (',s .—Pearson's Weekly, Jan. 21st.
Extract from a letter written by a passenger on board the “ Iberia,"
Orient Line, R .M .S .— At noon on Thursday, 27th of September, wewere 169 miles from Port Said ; by the ship’s log, our rate of steamingwas 324 miles in 24 hours. At 12 p.m. we were along side the lighthouseat Port Said, it having become visible at 7-30, when it was about 58
miles away. It is an ordinary tower, about as high as Springhead (60feet) lit by electricity.” According to modern science, the vessel would
be 2,182 feet below the horizon.
J. C. A k e s t e r .

u

THE

THE

EABTH

GLORY

R EV IE W

OF GOD.

B y L a d t B l o t in t .

The heavens declare the glory of God
And th e firmament shows H is power ;In th eir Maker, God. let the nations all tru st.
As th eir shield, th eir stren g th and tower,
F or he sjoealis to man in N a tu re ;And the stars w rite out His W ord,
D ay unto day
They u tte r th eir g reat C reator’s love,
Though His voice be never heard.
R hfbain .—L et us tru s t in Jehovah, for He will deliver us.
L et us rest in H is Love and ta t e Him for our guide
For H is mercy endureth for ever and e v e r;
For each of His Creatures the Lord will provide.
The “ p illars ” of th e earth are the L ord’s,
H e h ath set the world thereon.
H e established it fast, th a t it cannot be moved.
For th e W ord of our God is strong.
I t shall not be removed for ever.
Though th e ages pass away
He spake the W ord
W ho rolls th e sun in his course along ;And who dare th a t word gainsay H
R e fb .\-IN.—I jet us tru s t in Jehovah, for He will uphold us.
And H is word in th e h eart giveth life like a fire.
He is slow unto anger and nigh those who call on Hiui,
And to each one who seeks H e will g-i-ant his desire.
As a canopy spread o'er th e e a rth ’s outsti'etohed plane.
Is th e firmament, or sky.
I t divides the w aters beneath from tho-se
Above its grand dome on high.
And th e lights in perfect order all
Fulfil th e ir appointed way
He hangs o’er th e earth
F or signs and seasons, for days and years.
And to rule by n ig h t and day.
K e f b a i n .- -W e will tru st in Jehovah, His W ord shall not fail us.

By H is W ord in six days were all things a t first made.
I t is life unto man who lives not by bread only.
And firm as th e e arth ’s g reat foundations He laid.

The gifted authoress has set th e above W ords to Music, which may be hadfrom her Ladyship, W est Brow, Coombe Down, Bath.

CORRESPONDENCE,

16

CORRESPONDENCE.
Letters intended jo r puhlication in, the “ The E arth Review ’’ ntmt he lerjihb/
wriften on one side onb/ o f the paper, and must have some direct bearing on the
fubject before vs. Then
accompanied by the nam.e and address o f thesender. Short pointed letters preferred.
The Ed;itor cannot, of course, he held responsihU fo r the various opinions of
his correspondents ; nor can he enter into correspondence respectim/ articles, 4’c,held over or declined.
Letters must he prepaid, and addressed to the Editor o f the E arth Review.
“ Z E T E T E S ,” Plutus House, St. Saviour's Road,
Leicester, England.
N 0 T E S.
“ Globe.” —Anonymous correspondence not noticcd.
E. Bram-k.—Your letter is good and interesting. B ut it proves too long for
publication, in this number a t least. Our space is very lim ited. W ith in­creased means we would gladly enlarge our borders. A t present L etters m ust
be short.
G. Revall.—Glad you like the 6'a^iVe. Yes, the “ g lobe” is spoken of in au
ironical sense. Too late to quote in this issue what you say about southernstars. See Carpenter’s Article, How is i! f
L>.N.—You sent lOd, instead of Is. 3d. for “ six copies altogether ” of tlie
E.R. We, are, therefore, not "enco u rag ed ,” oven “ financially,” by yourillogical letter. We don’t deny th a t men can sail round the e a rth ; b u t you
fail to see th at a thing may be round and flat too. Though a Christian, you
deny the Bible account th a t the E a rth is “ established ” on “ foundations ” soth at it cannot be moved.
G. H.—B oth your letters are much too long for our lim ited space. Y"ou
own th at “ small areas of water may be flat.” T hen it is for you to shew th a tlarger ai-eas are spherical. We should be glad to make th e Review a m onthly if
you could find us the means. F riends at least, m ight take a few copies of eacli
number for free distribution. This would help, a little. Respecting “ degrees ”
you have misquoted us. On page 3 April Review we said ; “ There are only abouto7i such ‘ degrees ’ from th e equator to the North Centre.” Such “ degrees ”
referred to distance, or lengths of “ about 69a miles to ono degree,” not todivisions of a supposed circle. Quote fairly ! We deny solar and stellar“ gravitation,” not simply because we “ cannot explain how it acts,” butbecause it never yet has been proved to act a t all. Can you prove it ? If thesun “ attracts,” or pulls a t the moon, why does it allow the moon to go fromconjunction to opposition every month ? Is the sun’s “‘puU” weaker during theincrease of th e moon than during the decrease ; or is th e moon more “ wayward ”
at such times ? Your “ strongest argum ent against th e flat oarth ” is not sounanswerable as you supjoose. Your triangle consists of straig h t lines, ofcourse ; and so you assume th a t th e sun’s lig h t travels in a straig h t line througha long distance of the earth ’s atm osphere ! Hence your absurd and fanciful
conclusions. No wonder Mr. Carpenter did not th in k them worth replying to.

k;

THE

EAUTH

CORRESPONDENCE.

liE V IE W .

If this is your best you bad bettor try agiiin ! Publish a pam phlet for yoursolf,
w ith your diag ram s; and we will shew you w hether Zetetics can be accused of a
“ conspiracy to ignore the tru th they dare not attack .” Or, if you prefer our
pages, guarantee us paym ent of the p rin te rs’ bill to th e proportion of pages
and diagrams required ? The “ conspiracy to ignore th e tru th ” is on the otherside, friend. F o r other points in your le tte r see th e article headed “ Our
Critics,” which also answers other correspondents. E d .
Mr. Cari^enter, author of “ 100 Proofs the earth is not a globe,” writes
respecting the Bedford Canal W ager saying ;—I beg to say th a t “ th ere is only
one man living besides Mr. Alfred Kussel W allace who can give ‘ a true anddetailed account ’ of th is transaction, and th a t he will be hax>py to do th is ; b u t
th a t it has been done over and over again, in pam phlet form, and before th epeople took th a t interest in th e question they now do. I was w ith W allace thewhole week and watched his winning ways ! ” W.C.
The following note was received by a Zetetic, Mr. W . B athgate, from agentlemen in Napier (lat. 40°) New Zealand.
Oct. !)th , 1H80.
" B ear Sir,—L a st n ig h t a t 12 p.m. the Southern Cross was setting in thesouth : and I could (mly see three stars. The Cross tu rn s round, falling overtowards the south, and its change of position, which is regular, shews th a t it
must rise and set.
Yours respectfully, J . W . W o e b o t s .”Major A .P . of th e IJ.E.—Your statem ent th a t “ 2'il^ should be measured fromtlie centre of th e e arth ” is replied to in th e article entitled. Our Critics.
The sun and moon may float in ether, being comparatively sm all and light,
etlierial bodies ; but th e earth is not an heavenly body, and being heavy andsolid it could not possibly “ float in space.” Your diagram is in c o rre ct: th e line
E F should bo parallel w ith M Q. and parallel lines never meet,—E ». E.K.

Letters to the Kditor.
Dear Sir,—I t having come to mynotice th a t letters sent me containing
P ostal Orders have been lost in tran sit
thro u g h the post, I herewith beg to in­form our friends th a t a printed official
receipt, or a tem porary acknowledg­
ment is always sent by return o f post
for all such monies received. Therefore
should they not receive either one or
the other let them at once notify me
th at the Post Office authorities may be
communicated with.
Yours faithfully,
J n o . W i l l ia m s .

Dear Sir,—“The smoke of the Globe”
thickens around me, can you help me
out of it ?
In Joyce’s Scientific Dialogues (p. 73)
we re a d ;Uuasti'in.—Is there any axis belonging
to th e earth ?

Answer,—No ,• b u t . . . the earth tu rn s
round once in twenty-four hours, so
astronomers imagine an axis (exists)
upon which it revolves as upon acentre.
How can an im aginary a x is ,in c lin e orslope over 23i degrees out of th e per­pendicular,” as it is said to do so (p.S:i)in these Dialogues ? W here’s th e proofof it ?
B a la a m 's A ss.
The slope or "inclination of th e Axis’’is also “ im aginary, ” like the greaterp art of modern theoretical Astronomy,
E d . E.E,
Se a L e v e l .

Sir,—In xiugust last I, with several
other friends, l5eing in Oban for a holi­day, took a trip for a day in a sm all
yacht on Loch Lom e, and being a
glorious sunshiny day and so calm th a ti:

not a ripple was seen, and being be­ him acoeiDt the evidence of “ E nquirer,”c a l m e d for an hour about mid-day we
who in the A pril issue says,” b u t it iso b s e r v e d a good many sights of various
known to all th a t th e surface of fluids
kinds. Amongst other things th a t we a t rest is level for all practical purposes
saw was a yacht, which the captain told for quite short distances beyond all
us was twelve miles distant. We saw possibility of disproof.” Yes, quite so,
all the masts and p a rt of th e hull, and the Zetetics reply—“ for a l l p b a c t i c a l
to o'et a better view of her we took our puBPosBg ”—and th a t’s why our “ Jackbinocular opera glass (a good one). T ars ” when they go to sea take M erca­
Now, sir, would’n t it require a funny to r’s ch art which shews him th a t thecurvature table either with or w ithout water is level, and the sea a vast irreg­
the odd fractions to explain how we ular plane ! You see sir, the sailing ofsaw the hull of th a t vessel twelve ships is a very practical thing, and con­miles off ? According to a table fur- sequently requires praotical facts to nav'inislied by the present Astronomer Eoyal gate by, so “ Jack ” ju st lets the Globe
recently, it ought to liave been GC feet I roll down the scupper hole. B ut is it
liolow the line of s ig h t; but the " ta b le ” possible th a t “ E nquirer ” and thethat we saw it from was th e side of our I E ditor of the “ The F u tu re ” are soyacht, and we concluded the sea was I biased as not to be able to discern, th a tlevel. And sir, I have in my possess­ when anything is “ level ” for all practi­
ion a letter from the engineer of the cal purposes,” it m ust be atisolnteli/ level,
Ship Canal Manchester, saying there is and consequently cannot be a p a rt of ano need to make any allowance for cur­ curve ? Y et “ E nquirer ” says plainly,
vature Perhaps someone can tell me th a t, “ the level is a curve ” ! ! W ell I
which end of the Suez Canal is th e say this is a level falsehood, to prop up
highest, and how much curvature was a lying theory. B u t of course theoreti­
allowed for in its construction, and wherecal purposes are not “ practical p u r­
he may find the “ tables’’ for it.
poses” and this is why “ E n q u ire r”
very kindly “ leaves others to discuss
Yours respectfully,
w hether it is proper to use the word
JO H N SM ITH.
‘ level ’ in respect of the surface of
Siddal, Halifax.
fluids a t r e s t” You see Sir, how these
Newtonians play th eir conjuring tricks
w ith simple language, using words with'■ PARALLAX ■’ TRIU M PH A N T.
a double meaning to bolster ujj their
Dear Sir,—You are doubtless aware false teaching ! “ E nquirer ” proceedsof the one-sided "controversy” (.?) going by informing us th a t “ Were the earth
on in “ The Future ” respecting the a plane ”—and he shews th a t it is forshape of the earth. The editor is evi­ “ all practical purposes”— ‘ Were th e
dently afraid of his readers seeing our earth a plane, the horizon a t sea wouldside, consequently he declines to insert seem to arise about us like the sides of
my letter in reply to “ E nquirer ” and a bowl, ju staa in fa ct (m ark this please)so warns me, th a t I am “ not to touch
our horizon does when a balloonist seesliis figures ” of “ The Fntiire.’’ In his it from a g reat height.” W hy a Lou­
letter to me, I was amused to find th a t don D ust Cart man could tell him th a t
he is so simple as to think th a t he when he saw the horizon as he imssed
has found a man who can with the over from Southend to Sheerness it was
magic wand of Theoretical Refraction, like a piece of a side of a bowl before“ vitiate, invalidate and nullify ” all him-when he was looking seaward! I
tlie practical " proofs of the shape of defy any man to refute me when I say,tlie earth, or the configuration of the th a t upon any ocean the horizon seems
surface of W a te r” ! H e says, “ after to arise about us like the sides of a
“ Enquirer,” has finished his demolition b o w l; and therefore it is th e identicalof “ Parallax ” &c.
“ Demolition ” phenomenon th a t is seen by balloonists.
indeed ! Why, th e editor knows as well If this is not so, why does the sailor :—as I do, th a t the evidence of “ Parallax’’ “ climb the m ast to see his native
being practical, is by consequence, in- shore” ? Yes, Sir, “ E n q u ire r” hasvnhierahte.. He fu rth er says, “ Morrison’s shown th a t the earth is a plane ! You‘New P riu cip ia’ is much superior to cannot eee over a curve, until you haveany of either your productions, or those surmounted i t ; and the “ offing ” as itof ‘ Zetetes ’ and ‘ Parallax ’ together.” is called, is always a t a distance. Pro­
Well, if he refuses our evidence let fessor M, Boiigour states th a t “ when ii

18

THE

EARTH

R EV IEW .

m an stands upon a level plane, it does th e P ianist. B u t says “ E nquirer ” —not seem to rise sensibly, hut at some, “ it is wrong.” T hen we reply, proveilistance from him.’’ “ E n q u ire r” says it. B u t before you do, it will be as“ a dead level would appear as a bowl,” well to remember th a t those who teachB u t “ E nquirer ” did not say which side earth curvature assert th a t “ wihsn,of th e bowl was to be upperm ost ! B ut refraction exists one ten th is added to
doubtless as “ there is n either up nor th e distance.” Now you see th a t the
down in space,” he will be able to con­ schoolmen teach th a t there are times
jure his bowl to suit his theory, and when refraction does not exist don’t
fu rth er blind those who are already you ? And now I will shew you how
astronomically hypnotized.
they prove it ;—B u t I m ust refer again to th e “ demo­“ Jam es—I should like to see an ex­lition of P arallax.” I suppose th a t the perim ent to confirm th is.” i. e, thohour of burial will be notified in “ The existence of refi’aetion.
.Future.” To those who have neverT utor—I have no objection ; in every
thought for them selves on th e subject,th e “ demolition of Pai-allax ” attem pted cage you ought to require th e best1)y “ E nquirer ” in th e May issue of evidence th a t th e subject will adm it of“ The F u tu re,” may appear “ un­ “ (H ear hear). B ring me your m ulti­
answerable,” and th e more so since we plying glass ; look through it (Aarc not allowed to reply, lest we should H o ttentot wants to know if “ it ” isbreak th e nice glass case th e E ditor has “ another medium ” ?) a t the candle • • •p u t over his friend. W hat a valuable • for by the principle of refraction, the“ controversy ” it will be when only one image of the candle is seen in as manyside is allowed to be h e a rd ! “ E nquirer ” places as the glass has surfaces.” Wosays, “ I g ra n t a t once th a t if curvature reply, of course it will. Joyce’s Scienti­
only has to be considered, ‘ P arallax ’ fic Dialogues. I t is quite am using tolias proved his case. B ut I am about see th e array of “ facts ” “ E nquirer ”
to prove (he wishes he could) th a t produces in support of this “ demoli­
curvature is not the only m atter to be tion ” ! W hy we could make him aconsidered.” B u t I ask, who said th a t present of plenty of such. H ere’s one
curvature was “ th e only matt,er to be for his consideration. Perhaps he willconsidered ” 9 I am afraid we shall account for th e phenomena in The
jn’ove th a t “ E nquirer ” is sviffering Future. I t is from ShankUn, I.W . “ Ifrom curvature mania. “ P aral'ax ,” see a t low tide, from my window, which
never in any experim ent considered it is 22 feet above high w ater mark, a
as, “ the only m atter to be considered,” window in a house on th e E nglish coastand n either does any P ianist th a t ever w ith th e telescope on a clear day, just
lived, either before Copernicus, or after above the horizon. As the tide rises
him ! Are m isrepresentation and false­ this is cut off from sight. I am stillhood th e only weapons our opponents unfiooded, and th a t other house looks
can use to spin th eir occult Glo oe with ? a m te n te J when th e tide goes down
“ Parallax ” was a thorough and again. How is th is ? ”
practical scientist, who knew th e globu­
Now “ E nquirer ” w hat was yourlar theory in all its ramifications. The refraction doing th a t it did not “ raise ”
refraction he denied is the refraction I th a t Jiouse “ visually above its true
deny, and I herewith challenge “ E n ­ place of being,” seeing th a t you assert,
quirer,” th e E ditor of “ The F u tu re,” “ th a t th e refractive powers of theand any astronomer, to prove the atmosphere have inherently and coiiexistence of, v iz : his theoretical re­ slantly this elevating jjower," and thatfraction. W hy it is like try in g to prop “ th e effect of refraction is shewn to benothing up against something. “ E n ­ • constnnt ” i The scientist who wrote it
quirer ” says, it is “ always in action.” declared he covild not account for it only
Now le t him face me and prove this “ by supposing th a t th e curve of thestatem ent.
“ Parallax ” says “ re­ earth came between him and it ” ! I
fraction can only exist when the suijpose he m eant the curve of tho
medium surrounding the observer is w ater, for when the tide was out lie
tlifferent to th a t in which th e object is could see the house. Or does “ theplaced.” Now says “ E nquirer,” this curve of the earth ” come in and go out“ conclusion of ‘ Parallax ’ is of the w ith the tide ? I should like to know,
greatest consequence.” (xranted says you know.

PA RA LLA X

TRITTMPHANT.

10

Now Sir, I cannot notice nil “ En- for, the effects of Refraction ” he says
cinirer’s ” facts, which ai-e better proofs w hat is utterly false. “ E nquirer ” asks
th a t the earth is a plane rath er th an a for “■th e facts ” of th e Bedford Canalof
1870, whiletheirlobe ! but I will notice the first. He experimentsays; “General Roy drove th irty pickets E ditor of the Future privately refuses
to insert our letters ! In the February
100 feet apart, so th a t th eir heads
appeared in a rig h t line. This was in : Future ” he said “ the curvature you
the afternoon. In the m orning the deny is im aged th ere before you.”heads of the pickets exhibited a curve Is it ! and pray to w hat extent ?
concave upwards. (Trig. Survey. Vol. If “ only 5 feet wa‘< declared to bor.miaiiihj shewn ” why did Mr. Coulchor
1 , p. 175) : Object and observer in one
say, “ the sketches showed a deiireasioniiiedium. This is enough.”Doubtless “ this is enough ” for one a t the end of six miles of about 20 feet,Like
who has a theory to sustain, b u t it is I not allowing for refra-'tion.”
not enough for one who is honestly in­ “ K nquirer” he contradicted him self tovestigating phenomena in quest of support the globe theory ! I wonder
absolute tru th . I t should a t least have w hat “ E nquirier’s ” refraction, “ which
been apparent to " E nquirer ”—though is always in action,” and “ constantly
he says, and he emphasises i t ; th a t re­ elevating th in g s,” and causing them tofraction in effect is always in action ” — “ present a curve concave tipward ”
that there m ust be some different cause was doing th e n ? According to Mr.
of the morning as distinct from the Coulcher and Professor W allace, it pre­evening phenomena. B ut No ! “ this is sented a curve concave downwards!
enough,” so long as he thinks it will which is th e rig h t way of th a t ugly
demolish Parallax ’’ If refraction is curve “ E nquirer ” ? You know th a t“ always in action,” why did the picket the rate of curvature in six miles is 24
You
heads not present th e same appearand feet. Why was it not found ?
in the morning as they did in the even­ know it cannot be found ? You know
ing ? If refraction is “ always in action ” it cannot be found anyw here in tho
causing things to “ exhibit a curve con­ world, hence your trickery about “ re ­cave upwards ” how came it about th a t fraction.” T h a t th e earth is not athe picket heads a t any tim e appeared globe is as evident as th a t the sun isin a right line” Is “ a rig h t line “ a shin-'ng. Every practical te st proves”part of a “ curve ” ? If the “ refractive we are right. Even “ Sc.ie.nc.e
powers of the atmosphere have con­ declares it, for in th e issue |for May
stantly this elevatinij power,” why were 20th, we read, “ the Nile has a fall (>fonly six inches in 1,000 miles ! ” “ E n­
the picket heads not elevated in the;i,fteraoon ? “ E nquirer ” says, “ the quirer ” says “ all optical objections
effects of refraction are shewn to be were disposed of )iy a specialist, before
r.imstant,” Hence he contradicts him ­ tho umpire gave his decision.” Is heself ! for he says, “ refraction is variable ignorant th a t it was only the “ specia­
iu its etfects.” How can the effects of list’s ” ossiMnnt who gave the decision,
anything be constant when they are and in doing so, “ to I- into consideration
the. the.ort/ o f the earth's rotvndity ” andvariable ? Is this a specimen of the“ claptrap ” th a t “ may be dismissed as .afterwards requested Mr. W alsh to
worthy only of the Tegaro Academy of “ defer his decision ” ? Does “ E n ­Sciences,” th a t “ E n q u irer’' makes quirer ” consider th a t th a t fact “ is one
mention of ? yet, this is the way “ E n ­ more convincing proof of the rectitude
quirer ” hopes to “ demolish ” Parallaz. of the award of the umpire ” ? Let
He must stand informed—for he is him “ enquire” more. In conclusion I
evidently ignorant of the fact—th a t would ju s t notice the most im portantscientific instrum ents are used to indi- “ fact ” of th e whole transaction. “ E n ­ea„e the exiitenee or th e noN-JEXJaTKNOR quirer ’■says, “ it will be noticed tlint'V utitutspheric rftfi'uc?ion. W hen the the three-m ile signal is below thereading of those instrum ents are found optical centre of th e theodolite, and theto be vtnaltered from w hat they were six mile signal is below the three-mile
B ut this gives only tiro
when exposed to the atmosijhere, it is signal.”
for aH practiciU piu'poney,” //roced fhdf si(/nafs. Where vris the third siqnaii
re/rociioii n'oes not exist. See “ Pai'al- W hy did Mr. W allace omit to put \ip
lax,’’4p. 31—33. “ E nquirer ” must the th ird signal ? Is it ,'in act ofknow th a t when he ^says, “ they seem honesty to break an agreem ent ? Was
to have no knowledge of, or no regard not the signal th a t was omitted th('

rn

TUB

EARTH

most im portant one in the field of view,
beflaiise th e results to be aociu'ate
should have been th e ontcorae of thefulfilment of th e agreem ent. E vidently
w ater is level and th ey know it for

1?KVIKW.

they dare not p u t up th a t third mastor signal and try th e experiment again !
Yours, &c.,
A H ottbntot.
This letter is too long.—E d .

§ It f H tt g 5 .

THEORETICAL ASTRONOMY.
Astronomers are very fond of boasting of the wonderful exactness of
their science, and that it is based on the principles of incontrovertible
m athem atics; and of ridiculing astrology as a pseuiia-%c\tnce. The
exactness belongs to practical and not to theoretical astronomy. For
example, when the writer learnt the principles of astronomy at school,
he was taught that the Sun was exactly 95 millions of miles from thee a rth ; now-a-days astronomers say that this was an error, and that the
Sun is only 92 millions of miles distant. Newton made the Sun’s dis­
tance to be 28 millions of miles, Kepler made it 12 millions, Martin 8r,
and Mayer 104 millions ! Dr. Woodhouse, who was professor of astron­
omy at Cambridge about fifty years ago, was so candid bs to admit the
weakness of the Newtonian speculations. Woodhouse wrote : “ How­ever perfect our theory, and however simple and satisfactorily the
Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestialphenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truththat if our premises be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole
range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy.”—■n e Future, Feb. 1892.

“ A GEOLOGICAL BLUNDER.”“ Sir Archibald Geikie, Director-General of the Geological Survey, hasat last taken notice—in Nature, we need hardly say— of our article con­demning the attem pt to give the Survey all the credit of some of themost remarkable discoveries of the age which have been really made by
men unaided by the State, and toiling for daily bread as teachers ofscience. We had heard something that caused us to expose this scandal.
The fact is the official ring of State-endowed science, not content withjobbing the Royal Society and its distinctions, as their critics have been
showing in the Times, are meditating a raid on the taxpayer. They
want more money, and as a preliminary step their official organ Natureof course begins to “ boom ” their work and reputations. This is a good
old game. The only novelty in the situation is that a daily newspaper,for the first time in history, ventured to show it up. We do not desire
to be harsh to the illustrious scientists who edit Nature. It is the dutyof all official organs to make big men out of small material. But when
they began to do this by cooly consficating the achievements of private

OUK CKITICS.

21

and independent workers for one of the managing partners of the greatfirm of Huxley, (reikie, Dyer and Co., limited, we thought it time toprotest. • • • ■ The letters that have been appearing in the Times
make some funny revelations about the way the Royal Society is'■ worked. ” Sir Archibald Geikie’s defence suggests that if the Times
only followed up the game it scented it would should show its readers
plenty of sport.
We ourselves would make no objection to avote of money in aid of researches into the “ frank ” and “ practical ”
manner in which, and the terms on which, the ofBcial gang of sciencefrequently “ acknowledge ” the achievements of young outsiders. Ex­
tract from an article in The D aily Chronicle, Feb. 2nd, 1893.

OUR CRITICS.
'I'he pamphlet we lately published entitled The Midnight Sun, thelatter part of which is found in the July number of the E arth Raneiv,
has fallen like a bomb into the camp of the enemy, and has crcatedsome consternation amongst our opponents. A few are trying to showthat our conclusions are premature, and our diagrams, especially.
Diagram I, not correct. Fair controversy will do good. Anonymouscorrespondents we shall not notice ; but the criticisms of one or two
who have honestly sent their names we shall reply to. Our only object
is truth. But friends, and foes, should remember that our means arelimited. A\^e have been to the expense of another diagram lo shew thepoints of our objectors. We will take our correspondent C. H as a
typical objector, as his criticisms approach nearest to those of a
“ scientific ” character.
Referring to Diagram I, he says
“ The sun should be overhead at
the point F, but it is not. It ought to be on a prolongation of the line
E.F. not G.F."t h e ka rth as a g lo be.

llO\V
22

f '=■

THE

E A im i

is

IT ?

I'a

in c v iE W

As this is the chief objection of other critics, and one of our own
friends as well, we will take up this point first, and elucidate it by refer­ence to Diagram 3. It is thought that the sun ought to be placed at S
in a line with E .F ., and not at
in a line with G.F.P. Why so ?
Because S is vertical over the point F on the “ globe ” while P is not.
True. But our critics forget that the Tropic of Cancer is not on theearth but up in the heavens ! This fact has been overlooked or for­gotten by all our critics. Perhaps we were not sufliciently explicit on
this point. T he line F. G. is marked across the “ globe, ” for the suffi­
cient reason that we cannot put it above the p a p e r; but it really repre­
sents a line and a position in the heavens where the sun is found in our
Northern summer. H ence we prolong this line G.F. to F, and place
the sun a t / ; where it ought to be. Our critic further says;— “ Youassume the sun to be small and near.” No ! we reply. We can seethat the sun is comparatively small compared with the earth, and weknow that it is near from the data given us by the astronomers them­selves. flow ? Thus :—When the sun is in the tropic of Cancer we are told that it is 23^°
north of the equator, or the line C.D., which is an imaginary line rest­
ing upon the earth. Let this line be produced to V, and from the point
C, on the surface o f the earthy draw the line C.P. making 23^° with thelineZ>.6’. V. Then, where this line C.P. crosses the produced line G.F.
is the position for the sun to be placed in, namely at P. N o ! cries theobjector, “ the 23^° should be measured from the point E , at the centreof the earth.” Oh ! We re to rt; Who says so ? The astronomers, ofcourse. Why ? Have they ever been inside the earth and seen thesun from the centre of the “ globe ” in the position of 23^° north of theequatorial plane? We never heard of but one philosoper who confessed
he had been down below—into hell ?—for his instructions! This was
the pagan Pythagoras, who was the originator, though perhaps not theinventor, of the spherical idea. Then why should the sini be placed at
6’ ? Because the enemies of the truth tell us to place it so. No, No !
friends, it wont do I We must place the sun where it is seen, “ 235“
north of the equator,” if you like ; but as seen from the point C on thesurface o f the earth, and not 23^° from the centre, where it never has
been seen. And this is where we have placed it.
NOTHING O.'VINED.

However, as we have truth on our side we can afford to be generous,
and although truth is still truth, yet for arguments sake, we will put thesun at S, where our critics want it, in a hne with E.F . produced. Now
draw the line M . T.S. from the position of the spectator at M on the
Arctic circle at midnight, to the sun at S. This line M .T .S . will be thespectator’s new line of sight, instead of the line M J i.P . Both have topass through the “ g lo b e ’’ for several thousands of miles! Suppose

M .T. is about 5,000 miles and M .R . 6,000 miles, what have our critics
gained ? Is it easier for them to look through five thousand miles ofland and w a t e r than six thousand I f so they are welcome to the differ­ence if it relieves them any.
Now the only way our friends can, get out of these difficulties is byassuming that the sun is about 93,000,000 of miles away and more thana million times larger than the earth, contrary to the testimony of oursenses as well as to that already adduced. Let them give us a single
proof of these assumptions, but one not based upon nor begging thethe question at issue, and we will yield. But our critics must be at theexpense of their own diagrams, and not think to claim about one halfof our space under the plea of a paltry subscription for one year’s
Revieius. We must be fair to our friends, the few who nobly bear all
financial burdens. We have been accused of trying a money-making
venture ; but let our accusers try an opposition journal and see howthat paper would pay. Yet one on the popular side ought to pay. We
have often wondered how it is that there is no popular astronomical
journal got up by our friends the astronomers. But, doubtless, although
they have the means, they have good reasons for not submitting theirs c i e n t i f i c theories and faiths to the open discussion of a cheap periodical.
_See further replies to C .H . under Correspondence.

How

Is I t ?

It has bcun nuticod th a t “ exijlanations ” very often I'ail to explain ! A cauo
in iioiut is th at of the motion of the stars when they are said to travel as tlio
iuiuds of a watoli. If we look downwards upon a watob as it lies upon thetable, the circle described by tlie hands may be correctly spoken of as a rightliaud circle. I t is the circle described hy the phonogi-apher when he writes
s-pr ” in contradistinction to th e circle in “ s-p,” which is a left-hand circle.
The St. Louis ke[jM ic is quoted by the Baltim ore Sun as follows :—“ The way
Cyclones T urn.—The question is often asked : W hy do cyclones, ‘ whirlwinds ’and tornadoes all persist in the polar w hirl of from rig h t to left ? Astronomical
speculators have supposed th a t all th e planets once existed as rings of thinly
scattei’ed m atter around th e sun, and th a t these rings were annular segregations
from a vague, irregular', scattered mass th a t tu rn ed one way in spiral courses,
thus determ ining th e direction in which th e rings revolved, and all the rest
from this took th e same course. ‘ B u t,’ you say, ‘ why did the nebula revolveat a lii'’ I t grew from chaos, and chaos, presumbly, possessed an inluirent
motion from rig h t to left. This being the case, from th a t tim e to th is, sunmoon, stars, planets, cyclones and tonadoes have adhered to the original habit.’’Now, i t may appear strange to say th a t this m eans nothing a t a l l ; but it is a
fa c t! If the “ astronomical speculators ’’ ta u g h t us th a t sun, moon, planets andstars all revolved cis we see them , th ere would be no difSoulty in the m atter a tall; but they do not. Anti the description would answer ju st as well if wo weretold th at the motion was from left t >r i g h t; since every circle uuiy be said to goeither way indiscrim inately! Ho th a t, as the old showm.in s a id : you pay yourmoney, and you take your choice ! ” But, when we w ant to get a t th e tru th ,this mode will not answer.

24

the

EAH TIIKEVIEW .

Lot us see, uow, wherein lies th e diifioulty. Take th e hauds of a watoh as
iudicatiug the motion of th e stars. T he watoh we n aturally look a t from above(lownivards ; th e stars from helow, upwards. And a deal of difference is uuidi;
hy th is; th e description being useless w ithout qualification. Again, if we des­cribe th e motion by pointing w ith th e hands and following it, when looking to
the heavens, th e motion of th e circlij is a “ left-hand ” motion. B ut, if wo takethe watch, as i t lies on th e table, th e circle described would be a “ rig h t hand ”
circle. So th a t a true description of the motion of th e sta rs north of th e equatoris th a t of a left-hand motion as we ga?,e upwards at them , and a right-handmotion if we im agine them to be reflected into th e watch glass.
Now, in gaining information from the Southern p arts of th e earth th e diffi­
culty is intensified. I t has to come by w ritten description, and g reat care isnocessary. I t it is so easy to get “ mixed up ” here, a t home, .vith so simple!i m atter, it will never do to jum p at a description from New Zealand unless webe sure th a t the folks there are exempt from such difficulties as we ourselves
have. A New Zealand correspondent sa y s: " I am an eye-witness every clear
n ig h t to th e various groups of Stars m aking a circle in our Southern heavens
in th e same way as your N orthern S tars circle in your Northei’n heavens.’' I t isa very sim ple m atter to w rite this, b u t “ th e same w ay ” requires a little more’,to be said about it, since astronomers tell us they go the reverse way. And it
we are n o t clear in describing one way here, in th e north, it would be quite unzetetic to acceiit w ithout a searching investigation th e moaning of “ th e sameway ” or th e “ reverse ” way from New Zealand. A nd the diiffioiilty spoken of
is not dim inished by th e m aking of a diagram , b u t ra th e r increased. H ere is aplain piece of j>aper. I p u t th e letter 0 upon a straig h t line to rein'esent an
observer. Above th a t, a t any distance I place the letter S to represent the
Korth Star. B ut both the observer and th e star are upon th e same piece of fiatl)ai)cr, and im agination is necessary. A line from 0 to S would be a perpendi­
cular from th e ground line, b u t we have to suppose it to represent a vertical line.
(In th e same way, the picture of a plane is upwards on th e sheet of paper j thatof a view u 2^-hill, is th e same j an d a view down-hill could not be told fromeither of th e others, so far as the plane of th e paper goes !) Now to represent
Stars circling around S. in the N orth, th e “ a r r o w w o u ld point to th e left
helKceii O and S., and to the rig h t Oei/ond S. T h a t would be as th e w atch hands
go. Now tu rn to th e heavens. The “ arrows ” would point sim ilarly, b u t the
motion is “ left-hand ” instead of rig h t-h an d aa in th e watch ; and th e whole
scene is revei'sed from its position on th e paper ! In other word, a right-hanil
motion upon th e paper is a left-hand motion when we face th e sky ; and thestars appearing in th e diagram above the N orth S tar are bel.uw it. Therefore in
uecepting information from our Zet<;tio friends in the far south, we m ust getthem to state, definitively, which of these two modes of looking a t th e question
it is of which they sp e a k ; for if anything founded upon m isunderstanding cowo
over th e waters to us, it certainly will no t fit into th e Zetetic philosophy ofof “ P a h a li.a x .”Btdliinore. Marykind.
Wm. C arp £ n tb k .
This caution is very opi>ortune. Our New Zealand triends should also state iu
desci’ibing th eir phenomena whether th eir facca are tow ards the North or
th e South ; and w hether the sun rises and sets due east and west of them,and when Y or in a north-easterly and north-w esterly directly, when he Iws
his g reatest south decliaation ? Ed. E ,R ,- NOT A GLOBE -To Him that atretched out the Earth above the W aters; fo r

meri'i/endureth for ever."— Psa. 1 3 fi : G.

No. 4 .

OCTOBER, 1893.

P r ic e 2 d .

SHIPS AT SEA.
'E have already given proofs that the earth we live on is anextended plane ; and one good practical proof of this is quite
sufficient lo discredit all the so-called proofs of the earth’s
sphericity. The practical surveying of the surface of water proves that it
is level ; and if the surface of canals, rivers, and seas, is level then theearth must be a plane. We begin with practical proofs ; but, on theother hand, our opponents begin by first assuming the earth is a globe,
and then looking about for some phenomena to support that assumption.
This is not scientific ; yet it is the way of our'best astronomers. They
first assume, and then try to support their assumptions.
That which is most relied on by the Newtonians to prove the earthand sea to be globular is the phenomenon of the disappearance of ships
at sea. The hull of a vessel generally disappears first, and when it does
so it is quietly assumed that the hull has gone down behind a hill ofwater. That this is a fallacy may often be proved by applying a good
telescope, when, in clear or calm weather the hull may be brought again
into view. This shews that other causes than the one imagined operate
to cause the disappearance of the lower part of a vessel before the sails&c., in the upper part are lost to view. We will mention some of thesecauses ; and first and foremost we shall offer some remarks under theheading ofP e r spe c tiv e

La w s .

It is a well known law of perspective that parallel lines when pro­
duced far enough appear lo meet. This may frequently be seen on ourrailways. Now if the earth be a plane with the heavens outstretchedabove it, they ought in the distance to appear to meet. They do so
appear to meet, everywhere in the horizon however distant ; therefore
the earth and sea form a vast extended and circular plane. The