Thirdly.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of

suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its

possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or

was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry,

ignored that a “ball-and-socket” joint is one which facilitates

_circular_ motion more readily than any other? and that a pendulum so

suspended (as was M. Foucault’s), could not, after passing over one

arc of vibration, return through the same arc without there being many

chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly

turn or twist in its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward

oscillation a slight change of direction? Let the _immediate cause_ of

the pendulum’s liability to change its plane of vibration be traced;

and it will be found not to have the slightest connection with the

motion or non-motion of the surface over which it vibrates.

At a recent meeting of the French Academy of sciences, “M. Dehaut sent

in a note, stating that M. Foucault (whose experiments on the pendulum

effected a few years ago at the Pantheon, are of European notoriety) is

not the first discoverer of the fact that the plane of oscillation of

the free pendulum is invariable; but that the honour of the discovery

is due to Poinsinet de Sivry, who, in 1782, stated, in a note to his

translation of ‘Pliny,’ that a mariner’s compass might be constructed

without a magnet, by making a pendulum and setting it in motion in a

given direction; because, provided the motion were continually kept

up, the pendulum would continue to oscillate in the same direction, no

matter by how many points, or how often the ship might happen to change

her course.”

SECTION 13.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

It has been shown (at pages 25 to 34) that the law of perspective, as

commonly taught in our Schools of Art, is fallacious and contrary to

everything seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and

gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it

is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point; but

if the same object be placed upon the ground and similarly moved away

from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case

the _centre_ of the object is the _datum_ to which every point of the

exterior converges; but in the second case the _ground_ becomes the

_datum_, in and towards which every part of the object converges in

succession, beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

Instances:--A man with light trousers and black boots walking along a

level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had

been removed, and the trousers brought in contact with the ground.

A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches

above the feet, will, in walking forward, appear to sink towards the

Earth, the space between which and the bottom of the clothes will

appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile

the limbs, which were first seen for ten or twelve inches, will be

invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground.

A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs,

which, in less than half a mile, will be invisible, and the body appear

to glide upon the earth.

Horses and cattle moving away from a given point will seem to have lost

their hoofs, and to be walking upon the outer bones of the limbs.

Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the

rim of the wheels which touches the Earth; the axles will seem to get

lower; and at the distance of a few miles, the body will appear to

drag along in contact with the ground. This is very remarkable in the

case of a railway carriage when moving away upon a straight and level

portion of line several miles in length. These instances, which are

but a few of what might be quoted, will be sufficient to prove, beyond

the power of doubt or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane

or horizontal surface, the _lowest part_ of bodies receding from a

given point of observation will disappear _before the higher_. This is

precisely what is observed in the case of a ship at sea, when outward

bound--the _lowest_ part--the hull, disappearing before the higher

parts--the sails and mast head. Abstractedly, when the lowest part of

a receding object thus disappears by entering the “vanishing point,”

it could be seen again to any and every extent by a telescope, if the

power were sufficient to magnify at the distance observed. This is to

a great extent practicable upon smooth horizontal surfaces, as upon

frozen lakes or canals; and upon long straight lines of railway. But

the power of restoring such objects is greatly modified and diminished

where the surface is undulating or otherwise moveable, as in large and

level meadows, and pasture lands generally; in the vast prairies and

grassy plains of America; and especially so upon the ocean, where the

surface is always more or less in an undulating condition. In Holland

and other level countries, persons have been seen in winter, skating

upon the ice, at distances varying from ten to twenty miles. On some

of the straight and “level” lines of railway which cross the prairies

of America, the trains have been observed for more than twenty miles;

but upon the sea the conditions are altered, and the hull of a receding

vessel can only be seen for a few miles, and this will depend very

greatly--the altitude of the observer being the same, upon the state of

the water. When the surface is calm, the hull may be seen much farther

than when it is rough and stormy; but under ordinary circumstances,

when to the naked eye the hull has just become invisible, or is

doubtfully visible, it may be seen again distinctly by the aid of a

powerful telescope. Although abstractedly or mathematically there

should be no limit to this power of restoring by a telescope a lost

object upon a smooth horizontal surface, upon the sea this limit is

soon observed; the water being variable in its degree of agitation, the

limit of sight over its surface is equally variable, as shown by the

following experiments:--In May, 1864, on several occasions when the

water was unusually calm, from the landing stairs of the Victoria pier

at Portsmouth, and from an elevation of 2 ft. 8 in. above the water,

the greater part of the hull of the Nab Light-ship was, through a good

telescope, distinctly visible; but on other experiments being made,

when the water was less calm, no portion of it could be seen from the

same elevation, notwithstanding that the most powerful telescopes were

employed. At other times half the hull, and sometimes only the upper

part of the bulwarks, were visible. If the hull had been invisible

from the rotundity of the Earth, the following calculation will show

that it should at all times have been 24 feet below the horizon:--The

distance of the light-ship from the pier is 8 statute miles. The

elevation of the observer being 32 inches above the water, would

require 2 miles to be deducted as the distance of the supposed convex

horizon; for the square of 2 multiplied by 8 inches (the fall in the

first mile of the Earth’s curvation) equals 32 inches. This deducted

from the 8 miles, will leave 6 miles as the distance from the horizon

to the light ship. Hence 6² × 8 in. = 288 inches, or 24 feet. The top

of the bulwarks, it was said, rose about 10 ft. above the water line;

hence, deducting 10 from 24 feet, under all circumstances, even had the

water been perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should

have been 14 feet below the summit of the arc of water, or beneath

the line of sight! This one fact is entirely fatal to the doctrine of

the Earth’s rotundity. But such facts have been observed in various

other places--the north-west light-ship in Liverpool Bay, and the

light vessels of many other channels near the southern, eastern, and

western shores of Great Britain. From the beach of Southsea Common,

near Portsmouth, the observer lying down near the water, above the

surface of which the eye was 2¹⁄₂ feet, and with a telescope looking

across Spithead to the quarantine ship lying in the “Roads,” between

Ryde and Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, a distance of 7 miles, the copper

sheathing of that vessel was distinctly seen, the depth of which was

about 2 feet. Making the usual calculation in accordance with the

doctrine of the Earth’s convexity, it will be seen that an arc of water

ought to have existed between the two points, the summit of which arc

should have been 16 feet above the copper sheathing of the vessel!

From an elevation of 2¹⁄₂ feet above the water opposite the Royal Yacht

Club House, in West Cowes, Isle of Wight, the pile work and promenade

of the pier at Stake’s Bay, near Gosport, and nearly opposite Osborne

House, were easily distinguished through various telescopes: the

distance is 7 miles, the altitude of the promenade 10 feet, and the

usual calculation will show that this pier ought to have been many feet

below the horizon!

It is a well-known fact that the light of the Eddystone lighthouse is

often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound; and sometimes,

when the sea is very calm, persons can see it distinctly when sitting

in ordinary rowing boats in that part of the Sound which will allow

the line of sight to pass between Drake’s Island and the western end

of the Breakwater. The distance is 14 statute miles. In a list of

lighthouses in a work called “The Lighthouses of the World,” by A. G.

Findlay, F.R.G.S., published in 1862, by Richard H. Lawrie, 53, Fleet

Street, London, it is said, at page 28:--“In the Tables the height of

the flame above the highest tide high water level is given, so that

it is the _minimum_ range of the light; to this elevation 10 feet is

added for the height of the deck of the ship above the sea. Besides

the increased distance to which low water will cause the light to be

seen, the effect of refraction will also sometimes increase their

range.” In the “Tables” above referred to, at page 36 the Eddystone

light is said to be visible 13 miles. But these 13 miles are nautical

measure; and as 3 nautical miles equal 3¹⁄₂ statute miles, the distance

at which the Eddystone light is visible is over 15 statute miles.

Notwithstanding that the Eddystone light is actually visible at a

distance of 15 statute miles, and admitted to be so both by the

Admiralty authorities and by calculation according to the doctrine

of rotundity, very often at the same distance, the lantern is not

visible at an elevation of 4 feet from the water; showing that the

law of perspective, previously referred to, is greatly influenced by

the state of the surface of the water over which the line of sight

is directed. A remarkable illustration of this influence is given in

the _Western Daily Mercury_, published in Plymouth, of October 25,

1864. Several discussions had previously taken place at the Plymouth

Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics’ Institute, on the true figure of

the Earth; subsequent to which a committee was formed for the purpose

of making experiments bearing on the question at issue. The names of

the gentlemen as given in the above-named journal were “Parallax” (the

author of this work), “Theta” (Mr. Henry, a teacher in Her Majesty’s

Dock-yard, Devonport), and Messrs. Osborne, Richards, Rickard, Mogg,

Evers, and Pearce, all of Plymouth. From the report published as above

stated, the following quotation is made:--Observation 6th: “_On the

beach, at 5 feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out

of sight_.”

The matter may be summarized as follows:--At any time when the sea is

calm and the weather clear, the Light of the Eddystone, which is 89

feet above the foundation on the rock, may be distinctly seen from an

elevation of 5 feet above the water level; according to the Admiralty

directions, it “may be seen 13 nautical (or 15 statute) miles,”[41] or

one mile still farther away than the position of the observers on the

above-named occasion; and yet _on that occasion_, and at a distance of

only 14 statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn

day, and a clear back ground existed, not only was the lantern, which

is 89 feet high, not visible, but the _top of the vane_, which is 100

feet above the foundation was, as stated in the report, “_entirely out

of sight_.”

[41] “Lighthouses of the World,” p. 36.

[Illustration: FIG. 32.]

That vessels and lighthouses are sometimes more distinctly seen than

at others; and that the lower parts of such objects are sooner lost

sight of when the sea is rough than when it is calm, are items in the

experience of seafaring people as common as their knowledge of the

changes in the weather; and prominence is only given here to the above

case because it was verified by persons of different opinions upon the

subject of the Earth’s form, and in the presence of several hundreds

of the most learned and respectable inhabitants of Plymouth and the

neighbourhood. The conclusion which such observations necessitate and

force upon us is, that the law of perspective which is everywhere

visible on land, is _modified_ when observed in connection with objects

upon or near the sea. But _how_ modified? If the water of the ocean

were frozen and at perfect rest, any object upon its surface would be

seen as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear

upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always

more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation,

the swells and waves, into which the surface is broken operate to

prevent the line of sight from passing parallel to the horizontal

surface of the water. It has been shown at pages 16 to 20, and also

at 25 to 33, that the surface of the Earth and Sea appears to rise up

to the level, or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance

the line of sight and the surface which is parallel to it appear to

converge to a “vanishing point;” which point is “the horizon.” If this

horizon, or vanishing point, were formed by the apparent junction of

two _perfectly stationary_ parallel lines, it could be penetrated by a

telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance; but because

upon the sea the surface of the water is _not stationary_, the line of

sight at the vanishing point becomes angular instead of parallel, and

telescopic power is of little avail in restoring objects beyond this

point. The following diagram will render this clear:--The horizontal

line C D E and the line of sight A B are parallel to each other, and

appear to meet at the vanishing point B. But at and about this point

the line A B is intercepted by the undulating, or fluctuating surface

of the water; the degree of which is variable, being sometimes very

great and at others inconsiderable, and having to pass over the crest

of the waves, as at H, is obliged to become A H, instead of A B, and

will therefore fall upon a ship, lighthouse, or other object at the

point S, or higher or lower as such objects are more or less beyond the

point H.

It is worthy of note that the waves at the point H, whatever their

real magnitude may be, are _magnified_ and rendered more obstructive

by the very instrument--the telescope--which is employed to make the

objects beyond more plainly visible: and thus the phenomenon is often

very strikingly observed--that while a powerful telescope will render

the sails and rigging of a ship when beyond the point H, or the optical

horizon, so distinct that the very ropes are easily distinguished, not

the slightest portion of the hull can be seen. The “crested waters”

form a barrier to the horizontal line-of-sight, as substantial as would

the summit of an intervening rock or island.

In the report which appeared in the _Western Daily Mercury_, of Oct.

25, 1864, the following observations were also recorded:--“On the

sea-front of the Camera house, and at an elevation of 110 feet from

the mean level of the sea, a plane mirror was fixed, by the aid of a

plumb-line, in a _true vertical position_. In this mirror the distant

horizon was distinctly visible on a level with the eye of the observer.

This was the simple fact, as observed by the several members of the

committee which had been appointed. But some of the observers remarked

that the line of the horizon in the mirror rose and fell with the

eye, as also did every thing else which was reflected, and that this

ought to be recorded as an _addendum_--granted. The surface of the sea

appeared to regularly ascend from the base of the Hoe to the distant

horizon. The horizon from the extreme east to the west, as far as the

eye could see, was parallel to a horizontal line.”

The following version was recorded in the same journal, of the same

date, and was furnished by one of the committee who had manifested a

very marked aversion to the doctrine that the surface of all water is

horizontal:--“A vertical looking-glass was suspended from the Camera

and the horizon seen in it, as well as various other objects reflected,

rising and falling with the eye. The water was seen in the glass to

ascend from the base of the Hoe to the horizon. The horizon appeared

parallel to a horizontal line.”

It will be observed that the two reports are substantially the same,

and very strongly corroborate the remarks made at pages 15, 16, and

17 of this work. Indeed no other report could have been given without

the author’s becoming subject to the charge of glaring, obstinate, and

wilful misrepresentation. What then has again been demonstrated? That

the surface of all water _is horizontal_, and that, therefore, the

Earth cannot possibly be anything other than a Plane. All appearances

to the contrary have been shown to be purely optical and adventitious.

[Illustration: FIG. 33.]

[Illustration: FIG. 34.]

Another proof that the surface of all water is horizontal and that

therefore the Earth cannot be a globe is furnished by the following

experiment, which was made in May, 1864, on the new pier at Southsea,

near Portsmouth:--A telescope was fixed upon a stand and directed

across the water at Spithead to the pier head at Ryde, in the Isle of

Wight, as shown in the subjoined diagram. The line of sight crossed

a certain part of the funnel of one of the regular steamers trading

between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; and it was observed to cut

or fall upon the same part during the whole of the passage to Ryde

Pier, thus proving that the water between the two piers is horizontal,

because it was parallel to the line of sight from the telescope fixed

at Southsea. If the Earth were a globe the channel between Ryde and

Southsea would be an arc of a circle, and as the distance across is

4¹⁄₂ statute miles the centre of the arc would be 40 inches higher

than the two sides; and the steamer would have ascended an inclined

plane for 2¹⁄₄ miles, or to the centre of the channel, and afterwards

descended for the same distance towards Ryde. This ascent and descent

would have been marked by the line of sight falling 40 inches nearer

to the deck of the steamer when on the centre of the arc of water, as

represented in the following diagram; but as the line of sight did

not cut the steamer lower down when in the centre of the channel, and

no such ascent and descent was observed, it follows necessarily that

the surface of the water between Southsea and the Isle of Wight is

_not convex_, and therefore the Earth as a whole is _not a globe_. The

evidence against the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity is so clear

and perfect, and so completely fulfils the conditions required in

special and independent investigations, that it is impossible for

any person who can put aside the bias of previous education to avoid

the opposite conclusion that the _Earth is a plane_. This conclusion

is greatly confirmed by the experience of mariners in regard to

certain lighthouses. Where the light is fixed and very brilliant it

can be seen at a distance, which the present doctrine of the Earth’s

rotundity would render altogether impossible. For instance, at page 35

of “Lighthouses of the World,” the Ryde Pier Light, erected in 1852,

is described as a bright fixed light, 21 feet above high water, and

visible from an altitude of 10 feet at the distance of 12 nautical or

14 statute miles. The altitude of 10 feet would place the horizon at

the distance of 4 statute miles from the observer. The square of the

remaining 10 statute miles multiplied by 8 inches will give a fall or

curvature downwards from the horizon of 66 feet. Deduct from this 21

feet, the altitude of the light, and we have 45 feet as the amount

which the light ought to be _below the horizon_!

By the same authority, at page 39, the Bidston Hill Lighthouse, near

Liverpool, is 228 feet above high water, one bright fixed light,

visible 23 nautical or very nearly 27 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles

for the height of the observer, squaring the remaining 23 miles and

multiplying that product by 8 inches we have a downward curvature of

352 feet; from this deduct the altitude of the light, 228 feet, and

there remains 124 feet as the distance which the light should be _below

the horizon_!

Again, at page 40:--“The lower light on the ‘Calf of Man’ is 282

feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles.” The usual

calculation will show that it ought to be 70 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 41 the Cromer light is described as having an altitude of 274

feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles, whereas it

ought to be at that distance 78 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 9 it is said:--“The coal fire (which was once used) on

the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was

constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles

off.” If the miles here given are nautical measure they would be equal

to 35 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles as the usual amount for the

distance of the horizon, there will remain 31 miles, which squared and

multiplied by 8 inches will give 640 feet as the declination of the

water from the horizon to the base of the Lighthouse, the altitude of

which is given at page 42 as 93 feet above high water. This amount

deducted from the above 640 feet will leave 547 feet as the distance

which the Spurn Light ought to have been _below the horizon_!

The two High Whitby Lights are 240 feet above high water (see page 42),

and are visible 23 nautical miles at sea. The proper calculation will

be 102 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 43, it is said that the Lower Farne Island Light is visible for

12 nautical or 14 statute miles, and the height above high water is 45

feet. The usual calculation will show that this light ought to be 67

feet _below the horizon_!

The Hekkengen Light, on the west coast of Norway (see page 54), is 66

feet above high water, and visible 16 statute miles. It ought to be

sunk beneath the horizon 30 feet!

The Trondhjem Light (see p. 55), on the Ringholm Rock, west coast of

Norway, is 51 feet high, and is visible 16 statute miles; but ought to

be 45 feet below the horizon!

The Rondö Light, also on the west coast of Norway (see p. 55), is 161

feet high, and is visible for 25 statute miles; the proper calculation

will prove that it ought to be above 130 feet below the horizon!

The Egerö Light, on west point of Island, south coast of Norway (see

p. 56), and which is fitted up with the first order of the dioptric

lights, is visible for 28 statute miles, and the altitude above high

water is 154 feet; making the usual calculation we find this light

ought to be depressed, or sunk, below the horizon 230 feet!

The Dunkerque Light, on the north coast of France (see p. 71), is 194

feet high, and visible 28 statute miles. The ordinary calculation will

show that it ought to be 190 feet below the horizon!

The Goulfar Bay Light, on the west coast of France, is said at page 77,

to be visible 31 statute miles, and to have an altitude at high water

of 276 feet, at the distance given it ought to be 210 feet below the

horizon!

At page 78, the Cordonan Light, on the River Gironde, west coast of

France, is given as being visible 31 statute miles, and its altitude

207 feet, which would give its depression below the horizon as nearly

280 feet!

The Light at Madras (p. 104), on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high, and

visible 28 statute miles, whereas at that distance it ought to be

beneath the horizon above 250 feet!

The Port Nicholson Light, in New Zealand, erected in 1859 (p. 110), is

visible 35 statute miles, the altitude is 420 feet above high water,

and ought, if the water is convex, to be 220 feet below the horizon!

The Light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet above high

water, and is visible 35 statute miles (p. 111), this will give on

calculation for the Earth’s rotundity, 491 feet that the Light should

be below the horizon!

Many other cases could be given from the same work, shewing that the

practical observations of mariners, engineers, and surveyors, entirely

ignore the doctrine that the Earth is a globe. The following cases

taken from miscellaneous sources will be interesting as bearing upon

and leading to the same conclusion. In the _Illustrated London News_ of

Oct. 20, 1849, an engraving is given of a new Lighthouse erected on the

Irish coast, The accompanying descriptive matter contains the following

sentence:--“Ballycotton Island rises 170 feet above the level of the

sea; the height of the Lighthouse is 60 feet including the Lantern;

giving the light an elevation of 230 feet, which is visible upwards of

35 miles to sea.” If the 35 miles are nautical measure the distance in

statute measure would be over 40 miles; and allowing the usual distance

for the horizon, there would be 36 miles from thence to the Lighthouse.

The square of 36 multiplied by 8 inches amounts to 864 feet; deduct the

total altitude of the Lantern, 230 feet, and the remainder, 634 feet,

is the distance which the Light of Ballycotton ought to be below the

horizon!

In the _Times_ newspaper of Monday, Oct. 16, 1854, in an account of her

Majesty’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull, the following paragraph

occurs:--“Their attention was first naturally directed to a gigantic

tower which rises from the centre pier to the height of 300 feet, and

can be seen 60 miles out at sea.” The 60 miles if nautical, and this

is always understood when referring to distances at sea, would make

70 statute miles, to which the fall of 8 inches belongs, and as all

observations at sea are considered to be made at an elevation of 10

feet above the water, for which four miles must be deducted from the

whole distance, 66 statute miles will remain, the square of which

multiplied by 8 inches, gives a declination towards the tower of

2,904 feet; deducting from this the altitude of the tower, 300 feet,

we obtain the startling conclusion that the tower should be at the

distance at which it is visible, (60 nautical miles,) more than 2,600

feet _below the horizon_!

The only modification which can be made or allowed in the preceding

calculations is that for refraction, which is considered by surveyors

generally to amount to about ¹⁄₁₂th of the altitude of the object

observed. If we make this allowance it will reduce the various

quotients by ¹⁄₁₂th, which is so little that the whole will be

substantially the same. Take the last quotation as an instance--2,600

feet divided by 12 gives 206, which deducted from 2,600 leaves 2,384 as

the corrected amount for refraction.

SECTION 14.

GENERAL SUMMARY--APPLICATION--_CUI BONO?_

In the preceding sections it has been shown that the Copernican, or

Newtonian theory of Astronomy is “an absurd composition of truth and

error;” and, as admitted by its founder, “not necessarily true or

even probable,” and that instead of its being a general conclusion

derived from known and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound

of assumed premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in

nature. Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance wherein

a phenomenon is explained, a calculation made, or a conclusion

advanced without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption! The

very construction of a theory at all, and especially such as the

Copernican, is a complete violation of that natural and legitimate mode

of investigation to which the term _zetetic_ has been applied. The

doctrine of the universality of gravitation is an assumption, made only

in accordance with that “pride and ambition which has led philosophers

to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a

complete and finished system of nature.” It was said, in effect, by

Newton, and has ever since been insisted upon by his disciples--“Allow

us, without proof, the existence of two universal forces--centrifugal

and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct

a system which shall explain all the leading mysteries of nature. An

apple falling from a tree, or a stone rolling downwards, and a pail of

water tied to a string set in rapid motion were assumed to be types of

the relations existing among all the bodies in the universe. The moon

was assumed to have a tendency to fall towards the Earth, and the Earth

and Moon together towards the Sun. The same relation was assumed to

exist between all the smaller and larger luminaries in the firmament;

and it soon became necessary to extend this assumption to infinity. The

universe was parcelled out into systems--co-existent and illimitable.

Suns, Planets, Satellites, and Comets were assumed to exist, infinite

in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to

explain the alternating and constantly recurring phenomena which

were everywhere observable, these numberless and for-ever-extending

objects were assumed to be spheres. The Earth we inhabit was called a

_planet_; and because it was thought to be reasonable that the luminous

objects in the firmament which were called _planets_ were _spherical_

and had _motion_, so it was only reasonable to suppose that as the

Earth was a planet it must also be spherical and have motion--_ergo_,

the Earth is a globe, and moves upon axes and in an orbit round the

Sun! And as the Earth is a globe, and is inhabited, so again it is only

reasonable to conclude that the planets are worlds like the Earth,

and are inhabited by sentient beings! What reasoning! Assumption upon

assumption, and the conclusion derived therefrom called a thing proved,

to be employed as a truth to substantiate the first assumption! Such a

“juggle and jumble” of fancies and falsehoods, extended and intensified

as it is in theoretical astronomy, is calculated to make the

unprejudiced inquirer revolt in horror from the terrible conjuration

which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its

further progress; to endeavour to overthrow the entire edifice, and

to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated

with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the

learning, the patience, the perseverance, and devotion for which they

have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld;

but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the

general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and

the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot but be

regretted, and ought to be resisted. It has become a duty, paramount

and imperative, to meet them in open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion;

to declare that their unopposed reign of error and confusion is over;

and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, they must shrink and

disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom to those awakening

intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is

rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason have drawn the

sword, and ere another generation has been educated, will have forced

the usurper to abdicate. The axe is lifted--it is falling, and in a

very few years will have “cut the cumberer down.”

The Earth a Globe, and it is necessarily demanded that it has a diurnal

and an annual and various other motions; for a globular world without

motion would be useless--day and night, winter and summer, the half

year’s light and darkness at the “North Pole,” and other phenomena

could not be explained by the supposition of rotundity without the

assumption also of rapid and constant motion. Hence it is _assumed_

that the Earth and Moon, and all the Planets and their Satellites

move in relation to each other, and that the whole move together in

different planes round the Sun. The Sun and its “system” of revolving

bodies are now assumed to have a general and all-inclusive motion,

in common with an endless series of other Suns and systems, around

some other and “central Sun” which has been assumed to be the true

axis and centre of the Universe! These assumed general motions

with the particular and peculiar motions which are assigned to the

various bodies in detail, together constitute a system so confused

and complicated that it is almost impossible and always difficult of

comprehension by the most active and devoted minds. The most simple

and direct experiments, however, may be shown to prove that the Earth

has no progressive motion whatever; and here again the advocates of

this interminable and entangling arrangement are challenged to produce

a single instance of so called proofs of these motions which does not

involve an assumption--often a glaring falsehood--but always a point

which is not, or cannot be demonstrated.

The magnitudes, distances, velocities, and periodic times which these

assumed motions eliminate, are all glaringly fictitious, because

they are only such as a false theory creates a necessity for. It

is geometrically demonstrable that all the visible luminaries in

the firmament are within a distance of a few thousand miles, not

more than the space which stretches between the North Pole and the

Cape of Good Hope; and the principle of measurement--that of plane

triangulation--which demonstrates this important fact, is one which no

mathematician, demanding to be considered a master in the science, dare

for a moment deny. All these luminaries then, and the Sun itself, being

so near to us, cannot be other than very small as compared with the

Earth we inhabit. They are all in motion over the Earth, which is alone

immoveable, and therefore they cannot be anything more than secondary

and subservient structures, ministering to this fixed material world,

and to its inhabitants. This is a plain, simple, and in every respect

demonstrable philosophy, agreeing with the evidence of our senses,

borne out by every fairly instituted experiment, and never requiring

a violation of those principles of investigation which the human mind

has ever recognized, and depended upon in its every day life. The

modern, or Newtonian Astronomy, has none of these characteristics. The

whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It

is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical in its

details; and in its conclusions inconsistent and contradictory. Worse

than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of

which its advocates are, practically, supporters! By defending a system

which is directly opposite to that which is taught in connection with

all religions, they lead the more critical and daring intellects to

reject the scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and

deny the existence of a Supreme Ruler of the world. Many of the primest

minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures,

and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest christian

devotee holds as of far greater value than all earthly wealth and

grandeur; or than the mastery of all the philosophical complications

which the human mind ever invented.

The doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity and motion is now shown to be

unconditionally false; and therefore the scriptures which assert the

contrary, are, in their philosophical teachings at least, _literally

true_. In practical science therefore, atheism and denial of scriptural

authority have no foundation. If human theories are cast aside, and

the facts of nature, and legitimate reasoning alone depended upon, it

will be seen that religion and true philosophy are not antagonistic,

and that the hopes which both encourage may be fully relied upon. To

the religious mind this matter is most important, it is indeed no

less than a sacred question, for it renders complete the evidence

that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are true, and must have been

communicated to mankind by an anterior and supernal Being. For if after

so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, and change

and counterchange, we have at length discovered that all astronomical

theories are false, that the Earth is a plane, and motionless, and that

the various luminaries above it are lights only and not worlds; and

that these very doctrines have been taught and recorded in a work which

has been handed down to us from the earliest times; from a time, in

fact, when mankind could not have had sufficient experience to enable

them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent, it follows that

whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved

to all future generations, must have been superhuman, omniscient, and,

to the Earth and its inhabitants pre-existent.

To the dogged Atheist, whose “mind is made up” not to enter into any

further investigation, and not to admit of possible error in his past

conclusions, this question is of no more account than it is to an Ox.

He who cares not to re-examine from time to time his state of mind,

and the result of his accumulated experience is in no single respect

better than the lowest animal in creation. He may see nothing higher,

more noble, more intelligent or beautiful than himself; and in this

his pride, conceit, and vanity find an incarnation. To such a creature

there is no God, for he is himself an equal with the highest being he

has ever recognised! Such Atheism exists to an alarming extent among

the philosophers of Europe and America; and it has been mainly fostered

by the astronomical and geological theories of the day. Besides which,

in consequence of the differences between the language of Scripture and

the teachings of modern Astronomy, there is to be found in the very

hearts of Christian and Jewish congregations a sort of “smouldering

scepticism;” kind of faint suspicion which causes great numbers to

manifest a cold and visible indifference to religious requirements.

It is this which has led thousands to desert the cause of earnest,

active Christianity, and which has forced the majority of those who

still remain in the ranks of religion to declare “that the Scriptures

were not intended to teach correctly other than moral and religious

doctrines; that the references so often made to the physical world,

and to natural phenomena generally, are given in language to suit

the prevailing notions and the ignorance of the people.” A Christian

philosopher who wrote almost a century ago in reference to remarks

similar to the above, says, “Why should we suspect that Moses, Joshua,

David, Solomon, and the later prophets and inspired writers have

counterfeited their sentiments concerning the order of the universe,

from pure complaisance, or being in any way obliged to dissemble with a

view to gratify the prepossessions of the populace? These eminent men

being kings, lawgivers, and generals themselves, or always privileged

with access to the courts of sovereign princes, besides the reverence

and awful dignity which the power of divination and working of miracles

procured to them, had great worldly and spiritual authority....

They had often in charge to command, suspend, revert, and otherwise

interfere with the course and laws of nature, and were never daunted

to speak out the truth before the most mighty potentates on earth,

much less would they be overawed by the _vox populi_.” To say that

the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully, is in

substance to declare that God himself has stated, and commissioned

His prophets to teach things which are utterly false! Those Newtonian

philosophers who still hold that the sacred volume is the Word of God,

are thus placed in a fearful dilemma. How can the two systems, so

directly opposite in character, be reconciled? Oil and water alone will

not combine--mix them by violence as we may, they will again separate

when allowed to rest. Call oil oil, and water water, and acknowledge

them to be distinct in nature and value; but let no “hodge-podge” be

attempted, and passed off as a genuine compound of oil and water.

Call Scripture the Word of God--the Creator and Ruler of all things,

and the Fountain of all Truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican

Astronomy the word and work of man, of man, too, in his vainest

mood--so vain and conceited as not to be content with the direct and

simple teachings of his Maker, but who must rise up in rebellion and

conjure into existence a fanciful complicated fabric, which being

insisted upon as true, creates and necessitates the dark and horrible

interrogatives--Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal

falsehood? Can we no longer indulge in the beautiful and consoling

thought that God’s justice, and love, and truth are unchanging and

reliable for ever? Let Christians--for Sceptics and Atheists may be

left out of the question--to whatever division of the Church they

belong, look at this matter calmly and earnestly. Let them determine

to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they can

altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teaching of Scripture, and

endorse a system to which it is in every sense opposed. The following

language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine

of the Earth’s rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with

Scriptural teachings:--“The theory of original sin is confuted (by

our astronomical and geological knowledge), and I cannot permit the

belief, when I know that our world is but a mere speck, a perishable

atom in the vast space of creation, that God should just select this

little spot to descend upon and assume our form, and clothe Himself in

our flesh, to become visible to human eyes, to the tiny beings of this

comparatively insignificant world.... Thus millions of distant worlds,

with the beings allotted to them, were to be extirpated and destroyed

in consequence of the original sin of Adam. No sentiment of the human

mind can surely be more derogatory to the Divine attributes of the

Creator, nor more repugnant to the known economy of the celestial

bodies. For in the first place, who is to say, among the infinity

of worlds, whether Adam was the _only creature_ who was tempted by

Satan and fell, and by his fall involved all the other worlds in his

guilt.”[42]

[42] Encyclopædia Londenensis, p. 457, vol. 2.

The difficulty experienced by the author of the above remarks is

clearly one which can no longer exist, when it is seen that the

doctrine of a plurality of worlds is an impossibility. That it is an

impossibility is shown by the fact that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are

very small bodies, and very near to the earth; this fact is proved by

actual non-theoretical measurement; this measurement is made on the

principle of plane trigonometry: this principle of plane trigonometry

is adopted because the Earth is a Plane; and all the base lines

employed in the triangulation are horizontal. By the same practical

method of reasoning, all the difficulties which, upon geological and

astronomical grounds, have been raised to the literal teachings of the

scriptures, may be completely destroyed. Instances:--The scriptures

repeatedly declare that the Sun moves over the Earth--“His going forth

is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it.”

“He ariseth and goeth down, and hasteth to his place whence he arose.”

“The sun stood still in the midst of heaven.” “Great is the Earth, high

is the heaven, swift is the Sun in his course.” In the religious poems

of all ages the same fact is presented. Christians especially, of every

denomination, are familiar with, and often read and sing with delight

such poetry as the following:--

“My God who makes the Sun to know

His proper hour to rise,

And to give light to all below

Doth send him _round the skies_.”

“When from the chambers of the east

His _morning race_ begins,

He never tires _nor stops to rest_,

But round the world he shines.”

“God of the morning, at whose voice,

The cheerful sun makes haste to rise,

And, like a giant, doth rejoice,

To _run his journey through the skies_.”

“He sends the sun _his circuit round_,

To cheer the fruits and warm the ground.”

“How fair has the day been!

How bright was the Sun!

How lovely and joyful

The _course that he run_.”

All the expressions of scripture are consistent with the fact of the

Sun’s motion. They never declare anything to the contrary. Whenever

they speak of the subject it is in the same manner. The direct evidence

of our senses confirms it; and actual and special observations, as well

as the most practical scientific experiments, declare the same thing.

The progressive and concentric motion of the Sun over the Earth is in

every sense demonstrable; yet the Newtonian astronomers insist upon

it that the Sun does not really move, that it only _appears_ to move,

and that this appearance arises from the motion of the Earth; that

when, as the scriptures affirm, the “Sun stood still in the midst of

heaven,” it was the _Earth_ which stood still and _not_ the Sun! that

the scriptures therefore speak falsely, and the experiments of science,

and the observations and applications of our senses are never to be

relied upon. Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of

our senses and judgement, and the authority of scripture? The Earth

or the Sun moves. Our senses tell us, and the scriptures declare that

the Earth is fixed and that it is the Sun which moves above and around

it; but a _theory_, which is absolutely false in its groundwork, and

ridiculously illogical in its details, demands that the Earth is round

and moves upon axes, and in several other and various directions; and

that these motions are _sufficient to account for_ certain phenomena

without supposing that the Sun moves, _therefore_ the Sun is a fixed

body, and his motion is _only apparent_! Such _reasoning_ is a disgrace

to philosophy, and fearfully dangerous to the religious interests of

humanity!

Christian ministers and commentators find it a most unwelcome task

when called upon to reconcile the plain and simple philosophy of the

scriptures with the monstrous teachings of theoretical astronomy.

Dr. Adam Clark, in a letter to the Rev. Thomas Roberts, of Bath,[43]

speaking of the progress of his commentary, and of his endeavours

to reconcile the statements of scripture with the modern astronomy,

says: “Joshua’s Sun and Moon standing still, have kept me going for

nearly three weeks! That one chapter has afforded me more vexation

than anything I have ever met with; and even now I am but about half

satisfied with my own solution of all the difficulties, though I am

confident that I have removed mountains that were never touched before;

shall I say that I am heartily weary of my work, so weary that I have

a thousand times wished I had never written one page of it, and am

repeatedly purposing to give it up.”

[43] Life of Adam Clark, 8vo Edition.

The Rev. John Wesley, in his journal, writes as follows:--“The more I

consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I doubt

whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude of

any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ,

even with regard to the distance of the Sun from the Earth? Some

affirming it to be only three and others ninety millions of miles.”[44]

[44] Extracts from works of Rev. J. Wesley, 3rd Edition, 1829.

Published by Mason, London, p. 392, vol. 2.

In vol. 3, page 203, the following entry occurs:--“January 1st,

1765.--This week I wrote an answer to a warm letter published in the

_London Magazine_, the author whereof is much displeased that I presume

to doubt of the ‘modern astronomy.’ I cannot help it. Nay, the more

I consider the more my doubts increase; so that at present I doubt

whether any man on earth knows either the distance or magnitude, I

will not say of a fixed Star, but Saturn or Jupiter--yea of the Sun or

Moon.”

In vol. 13, page 359, he says:--“And so the whole hypothesis of

innumerable Suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into air.” And

again at page 430 of same volume, the following words occur:--“The

planets revolutions we are acquainted with, but who is able to this

day, regularly to demonstrate either their magnitude or their distance?

Unless he will prove, as is the usual way, the magnitude from the

distance, and the distance from the magnitude. * * * Dr. Rogers has

evidently demonstrated that no conjunction of the centrifugal and

centripetal forces can possibly account for this, or even cause any

body to move in an ellipsis.” There are several other incidental

remarks to be found in his writings which shew that the Rev. John

Wesley was well acquainted with the then modern astronomy; and that

he saw clearly both its self-contradictory and its anti-scriptural

character.

It is a very popular idea among modern astronomers that the stellar

universe is an endless congeries of systems, of Suns and attendant

worlds peopled with sentient beings analogous in the purpose and

destiny of their existence to the inhabitants of this earth. This

doctrine of a plurality of worlds, although it conveys the most

magnificent ideas of the universe, is purely fanciful, and may be

compared to the “dreams of the alchemists” who laboured with unheard

of enthusiasm to discover the “philosopher’s stone,” the _elixir vitæ_,

and the “universal solvent.” However grand the first two projects

might have been in their realisation, it is known that they were never

developed in a practical sense, and the latter idea of a solvent which

would dissolve everything was suddenly and unexpectedly destroyed by

the few remarks of a simple but critical observer, who demanded to

know what service a substance would be to them which would dissolve

all things? What could they keep it in? for it would dissolve every

vessel wherein they sought to preserve it! This idea of a plurality

of worlds is but a natural and reasonable conclusion drawn from the

doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity. But this doctrine being false its

off shoot is equally so. The supposition that the heavenly bodies are

Suns and inhabited worlds is demonstrably impossible in nature, and

has no foundation whatever in Scripture. “In the beginning God created

the Heaven and _the Earth_.” One Earth _only_ is created; and the fact

is more especially described in Genesis, ch. i., v. 10. Where, instead

of the word “Earth” meaning both land and water as together forming a

globe, as it does in the Newtonian astronomy, only the _dry land_ was

called _earth_,” and “the gathering together of the waters called He

seas.” The Sun, Moon, and Stars are described as lights only and not

worlds. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no

other material world is ever in the slightest manner referred to by the

sacred writers. The creation of the world; the origin of evil, and the

fall of man; the plan of redemption by the death of Christ; the day

of judgement, and the final consummation of all things are invariably

associated with _this Earth alone_. The expression in Hebrews, ch. i.,

v. 2, “by whom also he made the _worlds_,” and in Heb., ch. ii., v.

3, “through faith we understand that the _worlds_ were framed,” are

known to be a comparatively recent rendering from the original Greek

documents. The word which has been translated _worlds_ is fully as

capable of being rendered in the singular number as the plural; and

previous to the introduction of the Copernican Astronomy was always

translated “_the world_.” The Roman Catholic and the French Protestant

Bibles still contain the singular number; and in a copy of an English

Protestant Bible printed in the year 1608, the following translation is

given:--“Through faith we understand that _the world_ was ordained.”

So that either the plural expression “worlds” was used in later

translations to accord with the astronomical notions then recently

introduced, or it was meant to include the Earth and the spiritual

world, as referred to in:--

_Hebrews_ ii., 5--“For unto angels hath he not put into subjection _the

world to come_.”

_Ephesians_ i., 21--“Far above all principality and power, and might,

and dominion, and every name that is named not only in _this world_,

but also in _that which is to come_.”

_Luke_ xviii., 29, 30--“There is no man that hath left house, or

parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s

sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this _present time_, and

in _the world to come_ life everlasting.”

_Matthew_ xii., 32--“Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it

shall not be forgiven him, neither in _this world_ neither in the

_world to come_.”

The Scriptures teach that in the day of the Lord “the Heavens shall

pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent

heat,” and the “stars of Heaven fall unto the Earth even as a fig tree

casteth her untimely figs when shaken of a mighty wind.” The Newtonian

system of astronomy declares that the stars and planets are mighty

worlds--nearly all of them much larger than this Earth. The fixed

stars are considered to be suns, equal to if not greater than our own

sun, which is said to be above 800,000 miles in diameter. All this is

proveably false, but to those who have been led to believe it, the

difficult question arises,--“How can thousands of stars fall upon

the Earth, which is many times less than any one of them?” How can

the Earth with a supposed diameter of 8000 miles receive the numerous

suns of the firmament many of which are said to be a million miles in

diameter?

These stars are assumed to have positions so far from the Earth that

the distance is almost inexpressible; figures indeed may be arranged on

paper but in reading them no practical idea is conveyed to the mind.

Many of them are said to be so distant that should they fall with the

velocity of light or above one hundred and sixty thousand miles in a

second, or six hundred millions of miles per hour, they would require

nearly two millions of years to reach the Earth! Sir William Herschel

in a paper on “The power of telescopes to penetrate into space,”

published in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for the year 1800,

affirms, that with his powerful instruments he discovered brilliant

luminaries so far from the Earth that the light from them “could not

have been less than _one million nine hundred thousand years in its

progress_.” Again the difficulty presents itself--“If the stars of

Heaven begin to fall to-day, and with the greatest imaginable velocity,

millions of years must elapse before they reach the Earth!” But the

Scriptures declare that these changes shall occur suddenly--shall

come, indeed, “as a thief in the night.”

The same theory, with its false and inconceivable distances and

magnitudes, operates to destroy all the ordinary, common sense, and

scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators,

unless astronomically educated, hold and teach that the Earth, as well

as the Sun, Moon, and Stars, were created about 4,000 years before the

birth of Christ, or less than 6,000 years before the present time.

But if many of these luminaries are so distant that their light would

require above a million of years to reach us; and if, as we are taught,

bodies are visible to us because of the light which they reflect or

radiate, then their light _has_ reached us, because we have been able

to see them, and therefore they must have been shining, and must have

been created at least _one million nine hundred thousand years ago_!

The chronology of the bible indicates that a period of six thousand

years has not yet elapsed since “the Heavens and the Earth were

finished, and _all_ the Host of them.”

In the modern astronomy, Continents, Oceans, Seas, and Islands, are

considered as together forming one vast Globe of 25,000 miles in

circumference. This has been shown to be fallacious, and it is clearly

contrary to the plain, literal teaching of the scriptures. In the first

chapter of Genesis, we find the following language: “and God said let

the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the

_dry land_ appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land _Earth_,

and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.” Here the

Earth and Seas--Earth and the great body of waters, are described as

two distinct and independent regions, and not as together forming one

Globe which astronomers call “the Earth.” This description is confirmed

by several other passages of scripture.

2 _Peter_, iii., 5--“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by

the Word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth _standing out of

the waters and in the waters_.”

_Psalms_ cxxxvi., 6--“O give thanks to the Lord of Lords, that by

wisdom made the heavens, and that _stretchet out the earth above the

waters_.”

_Psalms_ xxiv., 1, 2--“The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof;

the world and they that dwell therein: for he hath _founded it upon the

seas, and established it upon the floods_.”

_Hermes_ (New Testament Apocrypha)--“Who with the word of his strength

fixed the heaven; and _founded the earth upon the waters_.”

_Job_ xxvi., 7--“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and

hangeth the Earth upon nothing.”

Some think that the latter part of this verse, “hangeth the Earth upon

nothing,” favours the idea that the Earth is a globe revolving in

space without visible support; but Dr. Adam Clark, although himself a

Newtonian philosopher, says, in his commentary upon this passage in

Job, the literal translation is, “on the hollow or empty waste,” and

he quotes a Chaldee version of the passage which runs as follows: “He

layeth the Earth upon the waters nothing sustaining it.”

It is not that He “hangeth the Earth upon nothing,” but “hangeth

or layeth it upon the waters” which were empty or waste, and where

before there was nothing. This is in strict accordance with the other

expressions, that “the Earth was founded upon the waters,” &c., and

also with the expression in Genesis, “that the face of the deep was

covered only with darkness.”

If the Earth were a globe, it is evident that everywhere the water of

its surface, the seas, lakes, oceans, and rivers, must be sustained the

land, the Earth must be under the water; but if the land and the waters

are distinct, and the Earth is “founded upon the seas,” then everywhere

the sea must sustain the land as it does a ship or any other floating

mass, and there is water below the earth. In this particular as in all

the others, the scriptures are beautifully sequential and consistent:--

_Exodus_ xx, 4--“Thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of anything

in heaven above or in the Earth beneath, or in the _waters under the

Earth_.”

_Genesis_ xliv, 25--“The Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings

of heaven above, and blessings of the _deep that lieth under_.”

_Deut._ xxxiii, 13--“Blessed be his land, for the precious things of

heaven; for the dew; and for the _deep which couched beneath_.”

_Deut._ iv, 18--“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, and make

no similitude of anything on the Earth, or the likeness of anything

that is in the _waters beneath the Earth_.”

The same idea prevailed among the ancients generally. In Ovid’s

Metamorphoses, Jupiter, in an assembly of the gods, is made to say, “I

swear by the infernal _waves which glide under the Earth_.”

If the earth is a distinct structure standing in and upon the waters

of the “great deep,” it follows that, unless it can be shown that

something else sustains the waters, that the depth is fathomless. As

there is no evidence whatever of anything existing underneath the

“great deep,” and as in many parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

no bottom has been found by the most scientific and efficient means

which human ingenuity could invent, we are forced to the conclusion

that the depth is boundless. This conclusion is again confirmed by the

scriptures.

_Jeremiah_ xxxi, 37--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a

light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a

light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar, the

Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me,

saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a

nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord: if heaven above can be

measured, and the _foundations_ of the _Earth searched out beneath_, I

will also cast off all the seed of Israel.”

From the above it will be seen that God’s promises to his people could

no more be broken than could the height of heaven, or the depths of the

Earth’s foundations be searched out. The fathomless deep beneath--upon

which the Earth is founded, and the infinitude of heaven above, are

here given as emblems of the boundlessness of God’s power, and of

the certainty that all his ordinances will be fulfilled. When God’s

power can be limited, heaven above will no longer be infinite; and

the mighty waters, the foundations of the earth may be fathomed. But

the scriptures plainly teach us that the power and wisdom of God, the

heights of Heaven, and the depths of the waters under the Earth are

alike unfathomable; and no true philosophy ever avers, nor ever did nor

ever can aver, a single fact to the contrary.

In all the religions of the Earth the words “up” and “above” are

associated with a region of peace and happiness. Heaven is always

spoken of as _above_ the _Earth_. The scriptures invariable convey the

same idea:--

_Deut._ xxvi., 15--“Look _down_ from Thy holy habitation, from Heaven,

and bless Thy people Israel.”

_Exodus_ xix., 20--“And the Lord came _down_ upon Mount Sinai.”

_Psalm_ cii., 19--“For he hath looked _down_ from the height of his

sanctuary: from Heaven did the Lord behold the Earth.”

_Isaiah_ lxiii., 15--“Look _down_ from Heaven, and behold from the

habitation of Thy holiness and of Thy glory.”

_Psalm_ ciii., 11--“For as the Heaven is high _above the Earth_.”

2 _Kings_ ii., 11--“And Elijah went _up_ by a whirlwind into Heaven.”

_Mark_ xvi., 10--“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was

received _up into Heaven_.”

_Luke_ xxiv., 51--“And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was

parted from them, and carried _up into Heaven_.”

If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate of above a thousand miles

an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious. The

terms “up” and “down,” and “above” and “below,” are words without

meaning, at best are merely relative--indicative of no absolute

or certain direction. That which is “up” at noon-day, is directly

“down” at midnight. Heaven can only be spoken of as “above,” and the

scriptures can only be read correctly for a single moment out of the

twenty-four hours; for before the sentence “Heaven is high above the

Earth” could be uttered, the speaker would be descending from the

meridian where Heaven was above him, and his eye although unmoved would

be fixed upon a point millions of miles away from his first position.

Hence in all the ceremonials of religion, where the hands and eyes

are raised upwards to Heaven, nay when Christ himself “lifted up his

eyes to Heaven and said, Father, the hour is come,” his gaze would

be sweeping along the firmament at rapidly varying angles, and with

such incomprehensible velocity that a fixed point of observation, and

a definite position, as indicating the seat or throne of “Him that

sitteth in the Heavens” would be an impossibility.

Again: the religious world have always believed and meditated upon the

word “Heaven” as representing an infinite region of joy and safety,

of rest and happiness unspeakable; as “the place of God’s residence,

the dwelling place of angels and the blessed; the true palace of

God, entirely separated from the impurities and imperfections, the

alterations and changes of the lower world; where He reigns in eternal

peace. * * It is the sacred mansion of light, and joy, and glory.[45]”

But if there is a plurality of worlds, millions upon millions, nay,

an “infinity of worlds,” if the universe is filled with innumerable

systems of burning suns, and rapidly revolving planets, intermingled

with rushing comets and whirling satellites, all dashing and sweeping

through space in directions, and with velocities surpassing all human

comprehension, and terrible even to contemplate, where is the place of

rest and safety? Where is the true and unchangeable “palace of God?” In

what direction is Heaven to be found? Where is the liberated human soul

to find its home--its refuge from change and motion, from uncertainty

and danger? Is it to wander for ever in a labyrinth of rolling worlds?

To struggle for ever in a never ending maze of revolving suns and

systems? To be never at rest, but for ever seeking to avoid some

vortex of attraction--some whirlpool of gravitation? The belief in

the existence of Heaven, as a region of peace and harmony “extending

(above the Earth) through all extent,” and beyond the influence of

natural laws and restless elements, is jeopardised, if not destroyed,

by a false and usurping astronomy, which has no better foundation

than human conceit and presumption. If this ill-founded, unsupported

philosophy is admitted by the religious mind, it can no longer say

that--

“Far above the sun, and stars, and skies,

In realms of endless light and love,

My Father’s mansion lies.”

[45] Cruden’s Concordance, article “Heaven.”

The modern theoretical astronomy affirms that the Moon is a solid

opaque, non-luminous body; that it is, in fact, nothing less than a

material world. It has even been mapped out into continents, islands,

seas, lakes, volcanoes, &c., &c. The nature of its atmosphere and

character of its productions and possible inhabitants have been

discussed with as much freedom as though our philosophers were quite as

familiar with it as they are with the different objects and localities

upon Earth. The light, too, with which the Moon so beautifully

illuminates the firmament is declared to be only borrowed--to be

only the light of the Sun intercepted and reflected upon the Earth.

These doctrines are not only opposed by a formidable array of

well-ascertained facts (as given in previous sections), but they are

totally denied by the scriptures. The Sun and Moon and Stars are never

referred to as worlds, but simply as _lights_ to rule alternately in

the firmament.

_Genesis_ i., 14, 16--“And God said let there be _lights_ in the

firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night. * * * And God

made two _great lights_--the greater light to rule the day, and the

lesser light to rule the night.”

_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7, 9--“O give thanks to Him that made _great lights_:

the Sun to rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.”

_Jeremiah_, xxxi., 35--“The Sun is given for a light by day, and the

ordinances of the Moon and of the Stars for a light by night.”

_Ezekiel_, xxxii., 7, 8--“I will cover the Sun with a cloud; and the

Moon shall not give _her light_.” “All the bright lights of Heaven will

I make dark over thee.”

_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon, praise him all ye Stars

of light.”

_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“The Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and

the Moon shall not cause _her_ light to shine.”

_Matthew_ xxiv., 29--“Immediately after the tribulation of those days

shall the Sun be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light.”

_Isaiah_ ix., 19, 20--“The Sun shall be no more thy light by day;

neither for brightness shall the _Moon give light_ unto thee. * * Thy

Sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy Moon withdraw itself.”

_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7 to 9--“To him that made great lights, the Sun to

rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.”

_Job_ xxv., 5--“Behold even to the Moon, and _it_ shineth not.”

_Ecclesiastes_ xii., 2--“While the Sun, or the light, or the Moon, or

the Stars be not darkened.”

_Isaiah_ xxx., 26--“The light of the Moon shall be as the light of the

Sun; and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold.”

_Deuteronomy_ xxxiii., 14--“And for the precious fruits brought forth

by the Sun, and for the precious things put forth by the Moon.”

In the very first of the passages above quoted the doctrine is

enunciated that various distinct and independent _lights_ were created.

But that two _great_ lights were specially called into existence for

the purpose of ruling the day and the night. The Sun and the Moon are

declared to be these great and alternately ruling lights. Nothing is

here said, nor is it in any other part of scripture said, that the

Sun is a great light, and that the Moon shines only by reflection.

The Sun is called the “greater light to rule the day,” and the Moon

the “lesser light to rule the night.” Although of these two “great

lights” one is less than the other, each is declared to shine with

its own light. Hence in Deuteronomy, c. 33, v. 14, it is affirmed that

certain fruits are specially brought forth by the influence of the

Sun’s light, and that certain other productions are “put forth by the

Moon.” That the light of the sun is influential in encouraging the

growth of certain natural products; and that the light of the Moon has

a distinct influence in promoting the increase of certain other natural

substances, is a matter well known to those who are familiar with

horticultural and agricultural phenomena; and it is abundantly proved

by chemical evidence that the two lights are distinct in character

and in action upon various elements. This distinction is beautifully

preserved throughout the sacred scriptures. In no single instance are

the two lights confounded. On the contrary, in the New Testament, St.

Paul affirms with authority, that “there is one glory of the Sun, and

another glory of the Moon, and another glory of the Stars.”

The same fact of the difference in the two lights, and their

independence of each other is maintained in the scriptures to the last.

“The Sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the Moon became as

blood.” If the Moon is only a reflector, the moment the Sun becomes

black her surface will be blackened also, and not remain as blood,

while the Sun is dark and black as sackcloth of hair!

Again: the modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot

possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great

distance from it: that the fixed Stars are only burning spheres, or

Sun’s to their own systems of planets and satellites: and that their

light terminates, or no longer produces an active luminosity at the

distance of nearly two thousand millions of miles. Here again the

scriptures affirm the contrary doctrine.

_Genesis_ i., 16-17--“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the

firmament _to give light upon the earth_.”

_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“For the Stars of Heaven and the constellations

thereof shall not _give their light_.”

_Ezekiel_ xxxii., 7--“I will cover the Heaven, and make the _Stars_

thereof _dark_.”

_Joel_ ii., 10--“The Sun and the Moon shall be dark, and the _Stars_

shall withdraw _their shining_.”

_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon: promise him all ye

_Stars of Light_.”

_Jeremiah_ xxxi., 35--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the Sun for a

light by day; and the ordinances of the Moon and of _the Stars_ for a

_light by night_.”

_Daniel_ xii., 3--“They that turn many to righteousness shall _shine_

as the _Stars_ for ever and ever.”

These quotations place it beyond doubt that the Stars were made

expressly to shine in the firmament, and “to give light upon the

Earth.” In addition to this language of scripture, we have the evidence

of our own eyes that the Stars give abundant light. “What beautiful

star-light!” is a common expression: and we all remember the difference

between a dark and starless night, and one when the firmament is as it

were studded with brilliant luminaries. Travellers inform us that in

many parts of the world, where the sky is clear and free from clouds

and vapours for weeks together, the Stars appear both larger and

brighter than they do in England; and that their light is sufficiently

intense to enable them to read and write, and to travel with safety

through the most dangerous places.

If it be true that the Stars and the Planets are not simply lights, as

the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds, for the most

part much larger than this earth, then it is a very proper question

to ask--“are they inhabited?” If the answer be in the affirmative, it

is equally proper to inquire “have the first parents in each world

been tempted?” If so, “have they fallen?” if so, “Have they required

redemption?” And “have they been redeemed?” “Has each world had a

separate Redeemer? or has Christ been the Redeemer for every world in

the universe?” And if so, “did His suffering and crucifixion on this

Earth suffice for the redemption of the fallen inhabitants of all other

worlds? Or had He to suffer and die in each world successively? Did

the fall of Adam in this world involve in his guilt the inhabitants of

all other worlds? Or was the baneful influence of Satan confined to

the first parents of this Earth? If so, why so? and if not, why not?

But, and if, and why, and again--but it is useless thus to ponder! The

Christian philosopher must be confounded! If his religion be to him a

living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation

and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy

which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty! But as the

system which necessitates such doubts and difficulties has been shown

to be purely theoretical; and to have not the slightest foundation in

fact, the religious mind has really no cause for apprehension. Not a

shadow of doubt remains that this World is the only one created; that

the sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral

doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy; that they were written

for the good of mankind, at the direct instigation of God himself;

and that all their teachings and promises are truthful, consistent,

and reliable. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of

an arrogant false astronomy, of an equally false and presumptuous

geology, or a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands

a proof of its premises, and which therefore leads to conclusions

which are contrary to nature, to human experience, and to the direct

teaching of God’s word, and therefore contrary to the deepest and

most lasting interests of humanity. “God has spoken to man in two

voices, the voice of inspiration and the voice of nature. By man’s

ignorance they have been made to disagree; but the time will come, and

cannot be far distant, when these two languages will strictly accord;

when the science of nature will no longer contradict the science of

scripture.”[46]

[46] Professor Hunt.

CUI BONO.--“Of all terrors to the generous soul, that _Cui bono_ is

the one to be the most zealously avoided. Whether it be proposed to

find the magnetic point, or a passage impossible to be utilised if

discovered, or a race of men of no good to any human institution

extant, and of no good to themselves; or to seek the Unicorn in

Madagascar, and when we had found him not to be able to make use of

him; or the great central plateau of Australia, where no one could

live for centuries to come; or the great African lake, which, for all

the good it would do us English folk might as well be in the Moon;

or the source of the Nile, the triumphant discovery of which would

neither lower the rents nor take off the taxes anywhere--whatever it

is, the _Cui bono_ is always a weak and cowardly argument: essentially

short-sighted too, seeing that, according to the law of the past, by

which we may always safely predicate the future, so much falls into

the hands of the seeker, for which he was not looking, and of which

he never even knew the existence. The area of the possible is very

wide still, and very insignificant and minute, the angle we have

staked out and marked impossible. What do we know of the powers which

nature has yet in reserve, of the secrets she has still untold, the

wealth still concealed? Every day sees new discoveries in the sciences

we can investigate at home. What, then, may not lie waiting for the

explorers abroad? Weak and short-sighted commercially, the _cui bono_

is worse than both, morally. When we remember the powerful manhood,

the patience, unselfishness, courage, devotion, and nobleness of aim

which must accompany a perilous enterprise, and which form so great an

example, and so heart-stirring to the young and to the wavering, it is

no return to barbaric indifference to life to say, better indeed a few

deaths for even a commercially useless enterprise--better a few hearths

made desolate, and a few wives and mothers left to bear their stately

sorrow to the end of time, that the future may rejoice and be strong:

better a thousand failures, and a thousand useless undertakings,

than the loss of national manhood or the weakening of the national

fibre. Quixotism is a folly when the energy which might have achieved

conquests over misery and wrong, if rightfully applied, is wasted in

fighting windmills; but to forego any great enterprise for fear of the

dangers attending, or to check a grand endeavour by the _cui bono_ of

ignorance and moral scepticism, is worse than a folly--it is baseness,

and a cowardice.[47]”

[47] _Daily News_ of April 5, 1865.

The above quotation is an excellent general answer to all those who

may, in reference to the subject of this work, or to anything which is

not of immediate worldly interest, obtrude the _cui bono_? But as a

special reply it may be claimed for the subject of these pages--

First,--It is more edifying, more satisfactory, and in every sense far

better that we should know the true and detect the false. Thereby the

mind becomes fixed, established upon an eternal foundation, and no

longer subject to those waverings and changes, those oscillations and

fluctuations which are ever the result of falsehood. To know the truth

and to embody it in our lives and purposes our progress must be safe

and rapid, and almost unlimited in extent. None can say to what it may

lead or where it may culminate. Who shall dare to set bounds to the

capabilities of the mind, or to fix a limit to human progress? Whatever

may be the destiny of the human race truth alone will help and secure

its realisation.

Second,--Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern

astronomy, and discovered that the Earth is a plane, and motionless,

and the only material world in existence, we are able to demonstrate

the actual character of the Universe. In doing this we are enabled to

prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific

but irreligious men have assailed the scriptures, are absolutely

false; have no foundation except in their own astronomical and

geological theories, which being demonstrably fallacious, they fall

to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded as weapons

against religion. If used at all it can only be that their weakness

and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form

of Infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away,

and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer

obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings

of scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to

demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted; and

if he fails in this respect his impious vanity, self-conceit and utter

disregard of justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence

in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theory must be

put aside, and the questions at issue must be decided by independent

and practical evidence. This has been done. The process--the _modus

operandi_, and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in

the early sections of this work. They are entirely consonant with the

teachings of scripture. The scriptures are therefore literally true,

and must henceforth either alone or in conjunction with practical

science be used as a standard by which to test the truth or falsehood

of every system which does or may hereafter exist. Philosophy is no

longer to be employed as a test of scriptural truth, but the scriptures

may and ought to be the test of all philosophy. Not that they are to

be used as a test of philosophy simply because they are _thought_ or

_believed_ to be the word of God, but because their literal teachings

in regard to science and natural phenomena, are demonstrably correct.

It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge

the scriptures against the theories of the philosopher simply because

he _believes_ them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to urge

his theories against the scriptures only because he disbelieves the

one and believes the other. The whole matter must be taken out of the

region of belief and disbelief. The Christian will be strengthened

and his mind more completely satisfied by having it in his power to

demonstrate that the scriptures are philosophically true, than he could

possibly be by the simple belief in their validity, unsupported by

practical evidence. On the other hand the Atheist who is met by the

Christian upon purely scientific grounds, and who is not belaboured

with enunciations of what his antagonist believes, will be led to

listen and to pay more regard and respect to the reasons advanced

than he could possibly concede to the purely religious argument, or

to an argument founded upon faith alone. If it can be shown to the

atheistical philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories

are fallacious, and that all the expressions in the scriptures which

have reference to natural phenomena are literally true, he will of

necessity be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations,

if the _philosophy_ of the scriptures is demonstrably correct, then

possibly their _spiritual_ and _moral_ teachings may also be true; and

if so, they may and indeed must have had a divine origin; and if so

they are truly the “word of God,” and after all, religion is a grand

reality; and the theories which speculative adventurous philosophers

have advanced are nothing better than treacherous quicksands into which

many of the deepest thinkers have been engulphed and lost. By this

process many highly intelligent minds have been led to desert the ranks

of Atheism and to rejoin the army of Christian soldiers and devotees.

Many have rejoiced almost beyond expression that the subject of the

Earth’s true form and position in the universe had ever been brought

under their notice; and doubtless great numbers will yet be induced to

return to that allegiance which plain demonstrable truth demands and

deserves. To induce numbers of earnest thinking human beings to leave

the rebellious cause of Atheism and false philosophy; to return to a

full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the scriptures, and

to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which religion can alone

supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the

noblest possible answer to the ever ready “CUI BONO.”

In addition to the numerous quotations which have been given from

sacred scriptures, and proved to be true and consistent, it may be

useful briefly to refer to the following difficulties which have been

raised by the scientific objectors to scriptural authority:--“As the

earth is a globe, and as all its vast collections of water--its oceans,

lakes, &c., are sustained by the earthy crust beneath them, and as

beneath this ‘crust of the earth’ everything is in a red-hot molten

condition to what place could the excess of waters retire which are

said in the scriptures to have overwhelmed the whole world? It could

not sink into the centre of the earth, for the fire is there so intense

that the whole would be rapidly volatilised, and driven away as vapour.

It could not evaporate, for when the atmosphere is charged with watery

vapour beyond a certain degree it begins to condense and throw back the

water in the form of rain; so that the waters of the flood could not

sink from the earth’s surface, nor remain in the atmosphere; therefore

if the earth had ever been deluged at all, it would have remained so

to this day. But as it is not universally flooded so it never could

have been, and the account given in the scriptures is false.” All this

specious reasoning is founded upon the assumption that the earth is

a globe: this doctrine, however, being false, all the difficulties

quickly vanish. The earth being “founded on the seas” would be as

readily cleared of its superfluous water as would the deck of a ship

on emerging from a storm. Or as a rock in the ocean would be cleared

after the raging waves which for a time overwhelmed it had subsided.

“Thou coveredst the Earth with the deep as with a garment; the waters

stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; and at the voice

of thy thunder they hasted away ... down by the valleys unto the place

which thou hast founded for them.”[48]

[48] Psalm civ.

“Thou didst cleave the Earth with rivers; and the overflowing of the

waters passed by; and the deep uttered his voice and lifted up his

hands on high.”[49]

[49] Hab. iii. 9-10.

The surface of the Earth standing above the level of the surrounding

seas, the waters of the flood would simply and naturally run down by

the valleys and rivers into the “great deep,”--into which “the waters

returned from off the earth continually ... until the tenth month, and

on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen.”[50]

[50] Gen. viii. 2-5.

Again; as the Earth is a Globe and in continual motion, how could

Jesus on being “taken up into an exceedingly high mountain see all

the kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time?” Or, when “He cometh

with clouds and every eye shall see him,” how could it be possible,

seeing that at least twenty-four hours would elapse before every

part of the Earth would be turned to the same point? But it has been

demonstrated that the Earth is a Plane and motionless, and that from a

great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once; and, at

once--at the same moment, could every eye behold Him, when “coming in a

cloud with power and great glory.”

FINIS.

S. HAYWARD, PRINTER, GREEN STREET, BATH.

Transcriber’s Notes

Inconsistent and unusual spelling, punctuation etc. have been

retained; accents on (French) words have not been corrected. The

inconsistent nesting and pairing of quote marks often makes it

difficult to determine where a quote starts or ends.

Page 20: ... as represented in figure 10 ... changed to ... as

represented in figure 9 ....

Page 13, A B is the line-of-sight, and C D the surface of the water

...: C nor D are depicted in the illustration.

Page 27, Fig. 15 and accompanying text: the number 4 in the

illustration appears to be misplaced.

Page 77, “Sun’s altitude at the time of Southing ...: there is no

closing quote mark.

Page 142, 143 and Fig. 31: the lower case reference letters are

present as upper case letters in the illustration.

Page 193, ... only the dry land was called earth,” ...: the opening

quote marks are missing.

Page 198, ... stretchet out the earth above the waters ...: as

printed in the source document; both "stretched" and "stretcheth"

appear in other sources.

Page 211, ... “did His suffering and crucifixion ...: the closing

quote mark is lacking.

Changes made:

Footnotes and illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.

Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been

corrected silently.

Terrestial has been changed to terrestrial (3x), trignometry to

trigonometry (2x), incondescent to incandescent (3x).

Illustration captions for Figs. 27, 28 and 31-34 have been added.

Page 10: ... to lesson the difference ... changed to ... to lessen

the difference ....

Page 51: ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8.000 miles ...

changed to ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8,000 miles ....

Page 64-65: replicated text deleted.

Page 133: exclamation mark inserted after Neptune has only _one

third_ of this volume (as in surrounding text).

Page 134: Professer Schumacher changed to Professor Schumacher.

Page 139: M. Foucalt’s communication describing his experiments ...

changed to M. Foucault’s communication describing his experiments ....

Page 141: Ille sante aux yeux ... changed to Il saute aux yeux ....

Page 171: ... south cost of Norway ... changed to ... south coast of

Norway ...; The Troudhjem Light ... changed to The Trondhjem Light

...; Lower Farn Island Light changed to Lower Farne Island Light.

Page 193: ... the heavenly bodies are Sun’s ... changed to ... the

heavenly bodies are Suns ....