ULTIMATE CONCLUSION

ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899

 start here

(Post 42/47)

THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF SCIENCE 

IN RELATION TO BIBLE TEACHING.

In the preceding pages it has been clearly shown that the Copernican or Newtonian System of Astronomy is an absurd composition of meaningless expressions, false ideas, and mechanical impossibilities. In our consideration of the subject—and we have touched upon all the important items—we have not found one statement which does not require a supposition to start with; not a single fact has been elicited from the published books on the subject written by the profession; and contradictions have been found in all the most important component parts of the "science," which effectually refute the system and destroy its claims. Hence, the whole hypothesis must be rejected as a snare and a delusion, without a vestige of fact or possibility to support its bold, unwarranted, and Infidel conclusions.

I shall now proceed to demonstrate that when the fictions of the system are received as facts, the logical necessity arises for disposing of the Bible as a collection of old wives' fables. I shall also quote from the Scriptures themselves, to prove conclusively that NATURE and the BIBLE are in perfect agreement.

In Paine's "Age of Reason," it is stated that:

"The two beliefs—modern astronomy and the Bible—cannot be held together in the same mind; he who thinks he believes both has thought very little of either."

However much many well-meaning Christians may affect to ignore this statement, it is nevertheless true. The system of astronomy at present in vogue is the very opposite of the facts of nature, as we have abundantly demonstrated. The facts of nature are in perfect harmony with the Bible, as we shall presently see.

The most casual and superficial reader of the Bible must see that it claims to be of Divine Origin. He must further see that the Author of the Bible claims to be the Builder of the Universe. And he must still further see that the world is described in this Book which claims to be from God as being built upon the waters of the mighty deep, which foundations are not to be discovered by man; that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are inferior to the world we live on, and that they move above the earth, which is at rest.

How, then, can a thinking person affect to believe the Bible and a system which teaches the very opposite of the teaching of that Volume. The logical conclusion is that if the statements of modern astronomy be true, the Bible cannot be what it claims to be—THE WORD OF GOD. We have already shown that there is not so much as one true statement in all modern astronomy concerning this world—that the whole thing is a fake and a fable, an ingenious hoax. It is, therefore, not incumbent on any one to believe the imposture; but all lovers of truth should join hands in exposing the thing. We shall now see that the extravagant and false ideas of the scientific world have led the more daring intellects to despise Bible teaching, and, in some cases, to reject the existence of a personal God at all. But we shall also show that such conclusions are merely the logical sequence of belief in the impossible theories of the "learned." Two opposite things cannot both be true, and the "scientists" thinking that modern astronomy is true, have only been acting in a logical manner by rejecting the teaching of the Bible.

R. A. Proctor, in his work entitled "Our Place Among Infinities" page 3, unblushingly states:

"To speak in plain terms, as far as science is concerned, THE IDEA OF A PERSONAL GOD IS INCONCEIVABLE, as are also all the attributes which religion recognises in such a being."

A Durban gentleman told the writer some time ago that:

"When the Bible speaks of physical things such as earth, IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE."

And a "reverend" gentleman told me in April, 1898, that:

"The Bible is only inspired when it speaks on matters of the soul; when it speaks on physical matters, such as astronomical facts, IT IS MERELY THE OPINION OF THE WRITERS."

But if the first two statements are only the logical sequence of believing the fictions of modern science to be facts, what shall we say about the third? It is much more inconsistent than anything that the avowed enemies of the Gospel could devise. They believe science and therefore disbelieve the Bible, which is contrary to science. But to believe both to be correct as some do, or to say that when the Bible speaks of physical facts it is only the opinions of the writers and not inspired, is to refute any statement made as to inspiration in any other direction.

Obviously, if the Bible be not true in matters scientific it cannot possibly be true on any other matter. It is either true in part and true altogether, or false in part and false altogether. Between modern astronomy and the Bible, there is not so much as an inch of standing ground; if the one be true the other and opposite statement is false.

But there are a great many Christians who do not seem able to arrive at any logical conclusion in the matter. They take for granted that what science teaches is true, because many "learned" men believe it. But when brought face to face with the fact that Bible and astronomical teaching are contrary the one to the other, and because men believe science, therefore they disbelieve the Bible; they at once begin to say that the statements in the Bible concerning the world are merely "poetic" or "symbolic" and by no means literal. But before arriving at such a conclusion it must, in all fairness, be shown that those passages which teach that the world is at rest, and the sun, moon, and stars are moving over and around it, are consistent with other passages which are, admittedly, not symbolical, but literal beyond all controversy. I may instance Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, which, if the reference to its movement in Psalm 19 be symbolical and not literal, brings to light a serious discrepancy, for the Scriptures say that the sun did stand still. Now, according to modern astronomy, the sun never does anything but stand still. Does it not, therefore, seem very absurd that a General of a large army should be so ignorant about such a simple matter, of which his God had already spoken, and yet be the leader of a people called out of Egypt by God; not knowing whether the sun or the world moved; and must not the Scripture which distinctly states that the sun was made to stand still, be very absurd, if the sun always stands still?

Then again, Christ is said to have been shown all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. This is admittedly literal. But if the passages which refer to the world standing still be symbolical, and the world be moving, turning upside down in fact, it would have been quite impossible for Christ to have seen all the kingdoms of the world in a moment, as some of them would be far below the horizon, on the other side of the revolving ball.

If the Christian thinks that the Scriptures are symbolical in this matter, the infidel, who searches the volume in order to find discrepancies, knows that it is very literal; and comparing one passage with another very soon discovers that, from Genesis to Revelation, there is a marvellous consistency of teaching that the world is at rest and that sun, moon, and stars move around and above it. He therefore concludes that, inasmuch as Bible teaching is opposed to what he is pleased to denominate the "ascertained facts of science," the Bible must be untrue in matters scientific, AND THEREFORE, UNTRUE IN EVERY PARTICULAR. And if the reader will just apply the ordinary rules of common-sense, he will see that if the Bible be not true in some things, it cannot be true in any, and, therefore, must be rejected in toto. If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system." But the Bible does teach that there was a universal deluge, and that is admittedly literal. Not only so, but Christ refers to the deluge. If, therefore, no deluge ever happened, it would be very inconsistent to ask any one to believe in Christ, who ratified that that great catastrophe actually took place. In our present enquiry, therefore, we must leave the whims and prejudices of those who say they believe the Bible, and yet accept as truth the teaching of modern astronomy, which is the direct opposite of, and gives the lie to, Bible teaching; and see where the acceptation of the globular theory has led men to. If it were consistent with Bible teaching, it would naturally lead them to the Bible and the Christ of the Bible; inconsistent with the facts of the Bible, it could only lead men to doubt and deny that Book.

In Lucifer, of 23rd December, E.M. 287 (i.e., 1887 A.D.), the following occurs:

"We date from the first of January, 1601, This era is called the Era of Man (E. M.) to distinguish it from the theological epoch that proceeded it. In that epoch the earth was supposed to be flat, the sun was its attendant light revolving about it. Above was heaven, where God ruled supreme over all potentates and powers, below was the kingdom of the Devil, Hell. So taught the Bible. Then came the NEW ASTRONOMY. It demonstrated that the earth is a globe revolving about the sun; that the stars are worlds and suns; that there is no 'up' and 'down' in space, VANISHED THE OLD HEAVEN, VANISHED THE OLD HELL; the earth became the home of man. And when the modern cosmogony came, the Bible and the Church as infallible oracles had to go, for they had taught that regarding the universe WHICH WAS NOW SHOWN TO BE UNTRUE IN EVERY PARTICULAR."

In Reynolds' Newspaper, of 14th August, 1892, under the heading of "Democratic World," the following appeared:

"We are trembling on the eve of a discovery which may revolutionise the whole thought of the world. The almost universal opinion of scientific men is that the Planet Mars is inhabited by beings, like or superior to ourselves. Already they have discovered great canals cut on its surface in geometrical form, which can only be the work of reasoning creatures. They have seen its snowfields, and it only requires a telescope a little stronger than those already in existence to reveal the mystery as to whether sentient beings exist on that planet. IF it be found that this is the case, THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WILL CRUMBLE TO PIECES. THE STORY OF THE CREATION HAS ALREADY BECOME AN OLD WIFE'S TALE. HELL IS NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY WELL-INFORMED SOCIETY OF CLERGYMAN; the devil has become a myth. IF Mars is inhabited, the irresistible deduction will be that all the other planets are inhabited. This will put an end to the fable prompted by the vanity of humanity that the Son of God came to earth and suffered for creatures WHO ARE THE LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF MONKEYS. It is not to be supposed that the Hebrew carpenter, Jesus, went about as a kind of theosophical missionary to all the planets in the solar system, re-incarnate, and suffering for the sins of various pygmies or giants, as the case may be, who may dwell there. The astronomers would do well to make haste to reveal to us the magnificent secret which the world impatiently awaits."

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper in the Modern Review for October, 1880, protests that science has excluded God from Nature. He says:

"While, however, the idea of Government by a God IS NOW EXCLUDED BY GENERAL CONSENT FROM THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE, the notion of Government by law has taken its place, not only in popular thought, but in the minds of many who claim the right to lead it; and it is the validity of this notion which I have now to call in question . . . PHILOSOPHY FINDING NO GOD IN NATURE NOR SEEING THE WANT OF ANY."

"The advanced philosophy of the present times goes still farther, asserting that THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A GOD IN NATURE."

These conclusions are the inevitable result of believing the current theories regarding the evolution of the world in opposition to Bible statements, that it is the product, not of evolution, but of special creation. Thin is the conclusion to which the world is fast hastening—NO ROOM FOR GOD IN NATURE. And when natural truth is rejected to keep pace with unnatural and fictitious science, no marvel if spiritual truths as revealed to man by his Creator, are rejected also. The one is the natural outcome of the other.

S. Laing, in his "Modern Science and Modern Thought," tells us that:

"Attempts to harmonise the Gospels and prove the inspiration of writings which contain manifest errors and contradictions, have gone the way of Buckland's proof of a universal deluge, and of Hugh Miller's attempt to reconcile Noah's Ark and the Genesis account of creation WITH THE FACTS OF GEOLOGY AND ASTRONOMY."

The words "the facts of geology and astronomy" reveal the whole of the case for the infidel. He supposes that his assumptions are true. He assumes that his assertions are facts and THEREFORE the Bible, which tells against his so-called "facts" must be untrue.

I have already shown that astronomy has not yet chronicled one fact regarding this world; that the "facts" of astronomy regarding the enormous size, and by consequence the immense distance of the stars, are fictitious every one; that, in fact, modern astronomical "science" is untrue altogether and unworthy the credence of any man, THEREFORE THE GREAT OUTCRY made by the "scientific" world against the Bible HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION.

On pages 178 and 179 of Draper's "Religion and Science," it is said:

"In his 'Evening Conversations' he (Giordano Bruno) had insisted that the Scriptures were never intended to teach science, but morals only; and that they cannot be received as of any authority on astronomical and physical subjects. Especially must we reject the view they reveal to us of the constitution of the world, that the earth is a flat surface, supported on pillars; that the sky is a firmament—the floor of heaven. On the contrary we must believe that the universe is infinite, and that it is filled with self-luminous and opaque worlds, many of them inhabited."

Bruno, like many now, was afraid of incurring the wrath of the priesthood by stating that the Bible was untrue, so he made a kind of compromise, as the above extract shows. But his argument does not require a second reading to show that if the science of the Bible be untrue, its moral teaching must be equally so. Mr. Laing further tells us:

"Now it is absolutely certain that portions of the Bible, and these important portions relating to the creation of the world and of men are not true and therefore not inspired. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE SUN, MOON, STARS AND EARTH WERE NOT CREATED AS THE AUTHOR OF GENESIS SUPPOSED THEM TO HAVE BEEN CREATED .... IT IS CERTAIN THAT NO UNIVERSAL DELUGE EVER TOOK PLACE SINCE MAN EXISTED."

And on pages 278 and 279 he adds:

"It is as certain as that two and two make four, THAT THE WORLD WAS NOT CREATED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN GENESIS; THAT THE SUN, MOON AND STARS ARE NOT LIGHTS PLACED IN THE FIRMAMENT OR SOLID CRYSTAL VAULT OF HEAVEN, TO GIVE LIGHT UPON THE EARTH . . . ."

This "absolute certainty" is the creation of the imagination, for there is not one FACT in nature that modern science can bring forward in support of the contention. The whole thing, from start to finish, is a myth, as we have abundantly demonstrated, and must be rejected.

Mr. Laing further says that:

"The conclusions of science are irresistible, and old forms of faith, however venerable and however endeared by a thousand associations, have no more chance in a collision with science than George Stephenson's cow had, if it stood on the rails and tried to stop the progress of a locomotive."

From purely practical data we have already seen that "the conclusions of science" are as unreasonable and fallacious as it is possible for the human mind to conceive. A mixture of infidel superstitions and gross absurdities constitute the most of present-day science respecting the world we live on. Its relation to truth is as darkness to light. Science has as much chance in a collision with TRUTH as a rotten ship would have in a collision with an ironclad.

Even professedly Christian people are hoodwinked and befogged by modern hypothetical science.

A. Giberne in "Sun, Moon and Stars," says, when speaking of the Moon:

"All is dead, motionless, still. Is this verily a blasted world? Has it fallen under the breath of Almighty wrath, coming out scorched and seared?"

The "lesser light" that God declares He made to "rule the night" is set down as a blasted world, and that by a professed Christian! To this end the teaching of modern astronomy tends to "attract" all who receive its dicta, and cannot, therefore, be retained in the same mind with the Bible.

A noteworthy feature of the present day is the fact that many so-called Christian ministers are joining hands with the enemies of the Bible to teach the people that the Old Book is so very unscientific that it can no longer be regarded in the light of a word from God at all.

In the Christian World Pulpit, of 14th June, 1893, the Rev. C. F. Aked is reported as saying, at Pembroke Chapel, Liverpool, that: "No student of science is able to believe that any such flood as that recorded in the early chapters of Genesis ever took place in the history of the human race . . . . The Flood story IS A MYTH, 'not history.'"

This gentleman has arrived at this conclusion by supposing that science is truth, and he is logically forced to believe that the Bible is a myth. Then what say the avowed enemies of the Book of God? Says the Freethinker, of 16th October, 1892:

"There is something in Christianity calculated to make it hostile to science. Its sacred books are defaced by a puerile cosmogony, and a vast number of physical absurdities; while its whole atmosphere, in the New as well as in the Old Testament, is in the highest degree unscientific. The Bible gives a false account of the origin of the world; a foolish account of the origin of man; a ridiculous account of the origin of languages. It tells us of a universal flood which never happened. And all these falsities are bound up with essential doctrines, such as the fall of man and the atonement of Christ; with important moral teachings and social regulations. It was therefore inevitable that the Church, deeming itself the divinely-appointed guardian of Revelation, should oppose such sciences as astronomy, geology, and biology, which could not add to the authority of the Scripture, but might very easily weaken it. Falsehood was in possession, and truth was in exile or a prisoner."

This is clinched by the Public Press which teaches people to think. Reynolds' Newspaper, of 13th October, 1895, says:

"The most noteworthy feature of the British Association this year is that the assembled savants—representing religion, science, philosophy, politics—have surrendered hands down to views which, if accepted by anyone ten years ago, would be sneered at as a mark of disgrace. The Church has had to give in because geology and biology have been too strong for the Book of Genesis, which is no longer to be accepted as a real account of the Creation, but merely a symbolical one. The incontestable experiments and experiences of the practical scientists have proved that Darwin was right, and that evolution is as certain a law as that of gravitation. What a number of the 'learned' books of a few years ago opposing evolution must now be ignominiously withdrawn from circulation? And how small must the controversial parson and the lay evangelist, who would prove to you in 'two jiffies that science was all bosh,' feel at the thunders of competent scholars!"

While the Press is filled with suchlike articles, the people who do not think for themselves take for granted that science is right, and as a consequence, reject the Bible. If I were asked to state the main cause of Modern Infidelity, I should say SCIENTIFIC FALSEHOODS INCULCATED AS TRUTH. In the "Earth Review" for January, 1893, the following is found:

"HONEST AND NOBLE CONFESSIONS.

When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary and central 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 SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour, WHICH WE HAVE NOT; it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system .... However perfect our theory may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth that, IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED AND OUR FACTS CHALLENGED, THE WHOLE RANGE OF ASTRONOMY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROOFS OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.—Dr. Woodhouse, a late Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge."

Those who believe the plain and provable facts of the Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where the lunacy really lies.

John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the men of the modern astronomical school, although most of his followers do. In his Journal he writes:

"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth, some affirm it to be only three, and others ninety millions of miles."

In Vol. 3 of the work which records his Journal, "Extracts from the works of Rev. J. Wesley," page 203, the following 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 the magnitude, I will not say of a fixed star, but of Saturn or Jupiter—yea, of the Sun or Moon."

In Volume 13, page 359, referring again to the subject of theoretical astronomy, he says:

"And so the whole hypothesis of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into thin air."

At page 430 of the same volume we find that:

"The planets revolutions we are acquainted with; but who to this day is able 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?"

Thus, this admittedly great and good man stands out in bold contrast with many of the present day "reverend" gentlemen. The Bishop of Peterborough is another notable example. He says:

"I have no fear whatever, that the Bible will be found, in the long run, to contain more science than all the theories of philosophers put together."

Let me supplement this remark by stating that the Bible, and the Bible only, is THE scientific book of the Universe. It is the only volume which can be proved true from start to finish. I am not now going into the details of Bible Psychology, Zoology, History, Philology, Ethnology, and the like. If time and space allowed all these could be proved as true as Bible Astronomy, and every one of them consistent with the facts of Nature, as I have shown Bible Cosmogony to be.

I shall now quote another infidel and reverend gentleman. In the Christian World Pulpit, of 29th March, 1893, the Rev. G. St. Clair, F.G.S., of Cardiff, contributes a sermon headed "Where is Heaven?"; the text being taken from Acts i., 9: "And as they were looking He was taken UP, and a cloud received him out of their sight."

This wolf in shepherd's clothing goes on to say:

"In 1492 Columbus sailed westward to search of the East Indies, and 30 years later Magellan actually sailed away from Europe in one direction and returned in the other, having voyaged all round the world. It was thus shewn that the world is a globe. Previously the common notion had been that the earth was flat, and heaven a little way above the clouds, and the place of the dead—the wicked dead, if not all the dead—somewhere underneath. These were ancient ideas and the fact that we find them in the Bible is one proof that the Bible is an ancient book. The Bible writers had been educated to believe that God had laid foundations for the earth, or supported it on pillars. Heaven was His throne, the earth His footstool."

According to this preacher the Bible writers had been educated to believe a pack of lies. But, as I have already shown, what they believed, and what every consistent Christian believes today, is in perfect agreement with the great book of Nature, which lies open to every man who will believe its evidence. Good advice is given to theologians by Dr. W. B. Carpenter in the "Echo" for 4th May, 1892, as follows:

"If theologians will once bring themselves to look upon nature, or the material universe as the embodiment of the Divine Thought, and the scientific study of nature as the endeavour to discover and apprehend that thought, they will see that it is their duty, instead of holding themselves altogether aloof from the pursuit of science, or stopping short in the search for scientific truth, wherever it points towards a result that seems in discordance with their preformed conceptions, to apply themselves honestly to the study of it, as a revelation of mind and will of the Deity, which is certainly not less authoritative than that which He has made to us through inspired men, and which is fitted to afford its true interpretation."

Moses has been much maligned by modern scientific infidels. The "Muses" of December, 1895, has the following:

"Moses has given his crude ideas as to the age of the world, but modern philosophers and scientists have clearly an equal right to give their deductions and opinions, especially as they produce evidence in which department Moses was very much at a disadvantage."

In the minds of unthinking multitudes science has carried all before it, as the following from Dr. Carpenter's work, "Nature and Man," pages 365 and 366, shows:

"The geological interpretation of the history of the earth has taken the place of the Mosaic Cosmogony in the current belief of educated men, notwithstanding all the denunciations of theological orthodoxy."

The "Agnostic Journal," of 5th January, 1889, shows clearly that it is quite impossible to believe the Bible statements AND Modern Science:

"The account of creation in Genesis is obviously inconsistent with the real facts, both as regards the relations of the earth to the sun, moon, and stars; the crystal vault separating the waters; the manner and order of succession of vegetable and animal life, and numerous other points. It can be defended only on the plea that the inspired revelation was not intended to teach ordinary facts, such as those of astronomy and geology."

"The account of a universal deluge and the destruction of all life, except that of a few pairs of animals preserved and living together for a year in an ark of limited dimensions, from which the earth was re-peopled, involves not only physical impossibilities, but is directly opposed to the most certain conclusions of geological and zoological science."

"The true history of the human race has been the direct contrary of that given by the Bible."

How long will it be ere professed friends of the Bible bestir themselves to read the book of Nature in order to discover whether the Book they profess to believe, because it gives evidence of its Divine Origin, is in accordance with the facts of Nature as we find them today?

The creed of the Agnostic—the know-nothing man—is briefly summed up by the "New York Independent" as follows:

"I believe in a chaotic Nebula self-existent Evolver of Heaven and Earth; and in the differentiation of this original homogeneous Mass. Its first-gotten Product which was self-formed into separate worlds, divided into land and water, self-organized into plants and animals, reproduced in like species, further developed into higher orders, and finally refined, rationalised, and perfected in Man. He descended from the Monkey, ascended to the Philosopher, and sitteth down in the rites and customs of Civilisation under the laws of a developing Sociology. From thence he shall come again, by the disintegration of the culminated Heterogeneousness, back into the original Homogeneousness of Chaos. I believe in the wholly impersonal Absolute, the wholly un-Catholic Church, the Disunion of the Saints, the Survival of the Fittest, the Persistence of Force, the dispersion of the Body, and in Death Everlasting."

Not only is there no room for God in what scientists are pleased to term "Nature," but there is no want of such a Being, as the following from Carpenter's "Nature and Man," page 385, tells:

"'The laws of light and gravitation,' wrote Mr. Atkinson to Harriot Martineau 30 years ago, 'extend over the universe and explain whole classes of phenomena'; this explanation, according to the same writer, is all sufficient, PHILOSOPHY FINDING NO GOD IN NATURE, NOR SEEING THE WANT OF ANY."

"The Earth and its Evidences," of 1st October, 1888, has the following:

"The attempt to harmonise the Mosaical and the modern or professional system of the universe, is plainly to attempt the communion of light with darkness. How often has failure waited on such incongruous unions! But, still, some there are who never seem to recognise the hopelessness of the task. They cannot divest themselves of the idea that science must have been some-what justified in setting up her authority against that of the scripture records;—that humanity could not be so deceived as to adhere to a system of cosmogony, for more than a century and a half, which has been talked about and read and studied by some of the profoundest of modern thinkers, and to be proved, at last, no better than an old wives' fable, and as baseless and untrue, from the first line to the last, as if it had been invented by a class of village school children. If modern theories were only partially true, there might have been some consolation in thinking that humanity is doomed to err, and that the foundations of their vaunted science, were based upon facts. But this plea is utterly hopeless, and the very beginning of their complicated system is the most faulty of the whole. They are without excuse; for they deliberately abandoned the only clue given them at the very outset of their inquiry. The first chapter of Genesis supplied them with the outline of the entire system of physical cosmogony. That the earth was not a 'planet' was shown by the very first verse in the Bible. The two systems are kept most distinct throughout the whole of the sacred volume. The Almighty never calls himself the God of the sun or of the moon or of the stars; but in innumerable instances does he style himself the 'God of all the earth,' the 'Lord and King of all the earth.' St. Paul declares that 'there are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.' This is so emphatically enforced through every page and chapter of the Bible, that to ignore or argue it away, is simply to treat the word of God as a lie from the beginning to the end. If the universe is composed of nothing but planets, then the whole of a house is its roof, and the whole of the sea a dewdrop. All the planets were made on one and the same day, 96 hours after the creation of the earth. Many astronomers wonder why the earth was ever mentioned at all. 'A little insignificant dot of a planet,' about as proportionate in size to the sun, as a honey-bee to a buffalo. And what is their authority for this astounding assertion—this impious contradiction to every word of inspiration? We ask what and who is their authority? Some Smith or Jones or Robinson, that is all! And Christianity has bowed its head in meek submission to these upstart oracles, and treated the Word of God as dung, and with the same contempt that a philosopher would the intelligence of a magpie or a jay!

"Hugh Miller truly said that 'the battle of the evidences will have to be fought on the field of physical science and according to the logic of demonstrable facts,' This is the conflict to which we are fast hastening, this the last great war of opinions, which every day is bringing nearer and nearer to our doors. The issues are most momentous, and as wide as the world in interest and importance. If 'science' wins the day, religion is the greatest bugbear that ever befooled humanity! If, on the other hand, the facts as narrated in the inspired records are infallibly and demonstrably true, then has Christendom been the victim of the most impious and baseless imposture that ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed to.

"Modern science and religion cannot work together! Those who think they can cannot possibly believe or understand either! No man can eat bread and fancy he is drinking water. So no one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept the Scriptures as a divine revelation. And to teach them side by side, in our schools and class rooms, is just to instill into the mind of the children that science is far superior to sense, and that falsehood and fraud are more desirable than truth and fact.

"Modern philosophy begins to attack the very first verse in the book of Genesis; and asserts that a pre-Adamite earth existed before the one subsequently referred to; that the seven 'evenings' and seven 'mornings' so accurately and particularly and distinctly specified in that first chapter, were not periods of twice twelve hours, but incalculable ages of time, of which no record exists, and are only made known to us through the laborious deductions of the more than inspired geologist! If this is so, then the 'seventh' day was an age also; and the Jews ought to have observed it, for a thousand years at a stretch! But if they were right in accepting it as a period of only 24 hours, then the remaining six must each have had exactly the same length, and the frantic geologist has to account for his 'stratas' and 'deltas' on some other supposition. It is important and highly necessary that we dwell a little on this, the first point that the modern theorist has assailed. If he can prove that he is right in his conjecture or rather in his positive assertion that days do not mean days, then is the infidel fully justified in laughing to scorn every other phrase and every other statement, from the first verse to the last in the Bible. And the theologian and the evangelist only expose themselves to derision and pity when they plead for any reverence for a book compiled on such vague and meaningless and delusive principles, and in language which has to be interpreted by pagan astrologers and infidel professors, before we can comprehend what is intended or ought to be understood! If the 'seven days' of Creation's week do not mean just what we understand by seven days, then all the Bible is symbolic, and is to be read upside down, and we must believe the very contrary to what is expressed.

"Till after the sixth day, all that was done, was not accomplished by any effort of nature, but by the personal agency of the Creator alone.

"Thus it is seen that Moses only begins to speak of Nature, or natural operations, after the seventh day. When, therefore, it is said that 'God rested,' it is, by natural implication, affirmed that Nature began to work or to act. And it is by losing sight of this most important fact that geology has made too many palpable blunders; and the soundness of that and all collateral sciences, in their very elementary principles, depend entirely on an accurate and distinct appreciation of this grand truth! The modern geologist may just as wisely argue that the five loaves that fed the five thousand, were made from grain that was ever grown in a field, or threshed in a barn, or ground in a mill, or baked in an oven, as to argue that what took place during those actual six days of Creation, was the effect of natural operations or of Nature's laws!

"Lord Bacon, in his 'Confession of Faith,' speaks most soundly upon this subject, as upon most others. He says, 'I believe, that God created the heaven and the earth; and gave unto them constant and perpetual laws, which we call laws of Nature,' but which mean nothing but God's laws of Creation. That the laws of Nature which now remain, and govern inviolably till the end of the world, began to be in force when God rested from his work. That, notwithstanding that God both rested from creation since the first Sabbath, yet, nevertheless He doth accomplish and fulfill His divine will in all things, great and small, general and particular, as folly and exactly by providence, as He could do by miracle and new creation; though His working be not now immediate and direct, but by compass and control; not violating nature, which is He hath ordained for His creatures."

The inspired volume declares that:

"The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein."—Psalm 111, 2.

We are fully warranted, therefore, in seeking out the book of Nature, because, when rightly understood, God's works declare His wisdom and power. But the infidel reads with the sole object of getting data for proving the book which so strongly testifies against his unrighteous ideas, a myth and a delusion.

In the Book of Genesis it is declared that God created the heaven and the earth, the lights in the heavens, the firmament to keep the waters above it from the waters below it, and in the books that follow, the foundations of the earth and other truths of like import are dealt with. The following passages show that the earth (dry land) is founded on the waters of the mighty deep, and is a motionless stretched-out structure, to which the heavens are parallel. Psalm 24: 1, 2; 136: 1-9; 102: 25; 104: 1-5; Isaiah 44: 24; 48: 13; 42: 5; Deut. 5: 8; Zech. 12: 1; Jeremiah 31: 35-37; 1 Sam. 2: 8; Proverbs 3: 19; 8: 22-30; Job 9: 1-10; 38: 1-11.

The earth has borders which are impassable by man, as Job 26: 10 declares. See also Psalm 74: 16, 17.

The movement of the sun over a stationary world is clearly shown in such passages as Psalm 24; Ecc. 1: 5; Judges 5: 31; Psalm 19.

That the stars are small is seen by the prophetic utterances of Revelations 6: 13. If they be worlds many times larger than the earth, how could they fall on it? See Rev. 8: 10.

Then 1 Corinthians 15: 40, 41, reminds us that there are terrestrial bodies as well as celestial, which truth the astronomer denies, by making the earth a celestial body:

"There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory."

In Joshua 10: 12-14 the following language is utterly inconsistent with scientific teaching that the earth moves to cause day and night. If the sun stands still and Joshua commanded it to do what it always does, what an ignorant man he must have been, to be sure? To ask for a miracle to be performed in order that the "course of Nature" might remain as usual? Surely any person can see that it is totally unnecessary to ask the aid of miraculous power to prevent the sun from moving, if it never does move. But I shall let the passage speak tor itself:

"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of all Israel, 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the Valley of Ajalon,' AND THE SUN STOOD STILL, AND THE MOON STAYED, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. . . . . . So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Now, if the story of modern astronomy that the earth revolves and not the sun, be true, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Bible is no better than a child's school book to record such an impossibility, and that, therefore, Joshua and the whole story is a myth. But we know that the sun moves, and we further know that the earth has neither axial nor orbital motion; and we conclude, therefore, that Joshua's command was perfectly consistent with fact and with his faith in the power of God to rule and overrule in His own world. Professor Totten, of Newhaven, in his pamphlet on "Joshua's Long Day," says:

"It is the Bible that Atheists and Infidels attack—the Old Testament chiefly—for they are logical, and perceive that if the foundation goes, the super-structure cannot stand, no matter how eloquently it can be clothed in Agnostic sermons. . . . . . It will not do to doubt the universality of the Flood, and ask men to accept a Saviour who alludes to it. . . . . . If the story of Eden and the Deluge, of Jericho and Joshua are myths or fables, and not literal facts, then to the still rational mind all that follows them is equally so, and faith, lost in those who foretold his Advent, can never be savingly and logically found again in Christ and his apostles."

These words are true, and show that modern astronomy and the Bible are on either side of an impassible gulf.

The Rev. W. Howard, of Liverpool, however, thinks differently. In his pamphlet "Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still; the miracle explained and defended," he says (inter alia):

"Why did not the ocean overflow the land? Run with a pail of water until you come in contact with a wall, and observe the effect upon the liquid, how it will dash over the side; and the sudden stoppage of the rotary motion of the earth would naturally send the sea almost all over the dry land. . . . . . You know the shaking you get with the violent stoppage of an express train going at sixty miles an hour, and we ask you, please, to fancy the result to us, and to all cattle, dwelling houses, monuments, and even trees, if the earth which at the equator moves nearly 1,100 miles an hour, was brought quickly to a standstill." "I have now a FIFTH VIEW to lay before you, which appears to be both rational and simple." . . . . . "My belief is this: Joshua and his men having walked all night, as the 9th verse tells us, would be tired next morning, but God caused a great trembling to spread itself amongst the foe, and there was an easy victory. When the war had pursued the Amorites some distance, hailstones fell upon them and did much damage. At the approach to Bethhoron the hailstorm increased in fury; and Joshua, seeing the devastation produced, and being cognisant of the fatigue of his men, prayed Heaven to let the hurricane go on till total and irreparable disaster was inflicted."

This poor man in his ignorance of the Bible and Nature tries to harmonise infidel astronomy with Bible truths, but he utterly fails, as the above quotation shows. The learned Jewish historian, Josephus, in his "Antiquities of the Jews," Book v., cap. 1, section 17, says:

"Joshua made haste with his whole army to assist them (the Gibeonites), and marching day and night, in the morning he fell upon the enemies as they were going up to the siege; and when he had discomfited them he followed them, and pursued them down to the descent of the hills. The place is called Bethhoron; where he also understood that God assisted them, which He declared by thunder and thunder-bolts, as also by the falling of hail larger than usual. Moreover, it happened that the day was lengthened that the night might not come on too soon, and be an obstruction to the zeal of the Hebrews in pursuing their enemies." . . . . . "Now that the day was lengthened at this time, and was longer than ordinary, is expressed in the books laid up in the Temple."

In a note under this paragraph, Mr. Whiston, the learned compiler of Josephus' works, while hesitating what explanation to give the miracle, says:

"The fact itself was mentioned in the Book of Jasher, now lost, Josh. 10: 13, and is confirmed by Isaiah (28: 21), Habakkuk (3: 11), and by the son of Sirach (Eccles. 46: 4). In the 18th Psalm of Solomon, ver. ult. it is also said of the luminaries, with relation no doubt to this and the other miraculous standing still and going back, in the days of Joshua and Hezekiah. 'They have not wandered from the day He created them, they have not forsaken their way, from ancient generations, unless it were when God enjoined them (so to do) by the command of his servants.' See Authent. Rec. part 1, page 154."

The lights that God made for the use of this the only world, move above it, and in Joshua's long day the God of Creation hearkens to the voice of a man and causes the sun to stand still. The miracle needs no defending. IT ONLY NEEDS BELIEVING.

THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE (except in portions where it is very evident from the context that a symbolical meaning is to be attached to it) and MODERN ASTRONOMY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

"Parallax," in his invaluable work "Zetetic Astronomy," says:

"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 system of 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 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 interrogative—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, love and truth, are unchanging and reliable as ever! Let Christians at least—for sceptics and atheists may be left out of the question—to whatever division of the Church they belong, look to 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 teachings of Scripture, and yet 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 interfere 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 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 tempted by Satan and fell, and by his fall involved all the other worlds in his guilt.'

"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 experimentally demonstrated to be 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 teaching of the Scriptures may be completely destroyed. The doctrine that the earth is a globe has been proved, by the most potent evidence which it is possible for the human mind to recognise—that of direct experiment and observation—to be unconditionally false. It is not a question of degree, of more or less truth, but of absolute falsehood. That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and therefore the Scriptures, which negative these notions and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation. If human theories are cast aside, rejected as entirely worthless, and the facts of nature and legitimate reasoning alone relied on, it will be seen that religion and true science are not antagonistic, but are strictly parts of one and the same system of sacred philosophy.

"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 absolutely true, and must have been communicated to mankind by an anterior and supernal Being.

"If, after so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, of 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 facts have been declared and recorded in a work which has been handed down to us from the earliest times—from a time in fact, when mankind had lived so short a period upon the earth that they could not have had sufficient experience to enable them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent and speculate—it follows that whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved to all generations must have been superhuman, omniscient, and to the earth and its inhabitants pre-existent. That Being could only be the Creator of the world, and His truth is recorded in the Sacred Writings. The Scriptures—the Bible, therefore—cannot be other than the word and teaching of God. Let it once be seen that such a conclusion is a logical necessity; that the sum of the purely practical evidence which has been collected compels us to acknowledge this, and we find ourselves in possession of a solid and certain foundation for all our future investigations.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen. It is a very popular notion among 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 may be admitted to convey most magnificent ideas of the universe, is purely fanciful, and may be compared to some of the 'dreams of the alchemists' who laboured with unheard-of patience and enthusiasm to discover a 'philosopher's stone' to change all common metal into gold and silver; an elixir vitae to prevent and to cure all the disorders of the human frame; and the 'universal solvent' which was deemed necessary to enable them to make all things homogeneous, as preliminary to precipitation, or concretion, into any form desired by the operator. However grand the first two projects might have been in their realisation, it is known that they were never developed in a useful and practical sense. They depended upon the third—the discovery of a solvent which would dissolve everything. The idea was suddenly and most unexpectedly destroyed by a few remarks of a simple but critical observer, who demanded to know what service a substance could be to them which would dissolve all things. Seeing that it would dissolve everything what would they keep it in! It would dissolve every vessel wherein they sought to preserve it. The alchemists had never 'given a thought' to such a thing. They were entirely absorbed with the supposed magnitude and grandeur of their purposes. The idea never struck them that their objects involved inconsistency and impossibility; but when it did strike, the blow was so heavy that the whole fraternity of alchemists reeled almost to destruction, and alchemy as a science, rapidly expired. The idea of a 'plurality of worlds' is as grand and romantic as that of the 'universal solvent' and is a natural and reasonable conclusion drawn from the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. It never occurred to the advocates of sphericity and infinity of systems that there was one great and overwhelming necessity at the root of their speculations. The idea never struck them that the convexity of the surface of the earth's standing water required demonstration. The explanation its assumption enabled them to give of natural phenomena was deemed sufficient. At length, however, another 'critical observer'—one almost born with doubts and criticisms in his heart—determined to examine practically, experimentally, this fundamental necessity.

"The great and theory-destroying fact was quickly discovered that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal. Here was another death-blow to the unnatural ideas and speculations of pseudo-philosophers.

"Just as the 'universal solvent' could not be preserved or manipulated, and therefore the whole system of alchemy died away, so the necessary proof of convexity in the waters of the earth could not be found, and therefore the doctrine of rotundity and of the plurality of worlds must also die. Its death is now merely a question of time."