MOT10X OF THE EAHTH. 



MOTION OF THE EAHTH. 



- j 



amMtm- tbuuld not only be received, bat be enforced upon others by 

 clamour* f Utitudinarianism, infidelity, and all those reproaches by 

 which (ami fortunately, by which only) untolerated difference* at 

 opinion are puniahad ( 



That the attempt to enforce a system of science derived from an 

 interpretation of the Scriptures will signally fail, should be taught by 

 the history of the past. Not even the Church of Home will ever again 

 dictate on a question of fact, and in Protestant countries (and Catholic 

 too, we suspect) public opinion must and will support absolute proof 

 against <U>ubtful interpretation. The opponents in this matter are, 

 some of them, wen of learning, like Fromond and Kiccioli ; others men 

 of conceits, like Morin.* The former seise the stronger parts of their 

 own case, but they will find that it requires a better foundation than 

 imposition of interpretations to bear the* sort of support which the 

 latter afford. A compact college of cardinals might more safely make 

 the attempt than a Tnisfitllanftous party. 



The declining days of what was called the Aristotelian philosophy 

 had their span much shortened by the glaring light into which it was 

 thrown when held up against the results of the philosophy of Galileo ; 

 and this not more by the exhibition of the Ptolemaisto than of their 

 opponents the Copemicans. The latter were taught that rational 

 mechanics must precede simple astronomy ; and it ia no exaggeration 

 to say that not an inconsiderable portion of that power over nature 

 which we now have, can be traced in it* earliest growth to the 

 necessity of finding stronger weapons to oppose the. old system than 

 were forged in the philosophical workshops of the age we liave been 

 considering. 



The physical arguments of the time consisted much in supposing 

 inclinations, propensities, and almost feelings of privilege and place, 

 to exist in different sorts of matter. A comet, says Fromond, is " not 

 such an obscene ape of the planets that nature should have manufac- 

 tured a sphere and a heaven for it to revolve in ;" and the proper pride 

 of a comet was the sufficient reason for one motion rather than another. 

 The arguments for the sun's motion and the earth's stability may be 

 condensed as follows. Aristotle and Ptolemy assert it ; the Scrip- 

 tures savirt it (Fienus puts them second) ; the heavenly bodies are 

 made for man, and the servant comes to his master, not the master to 

 the servant ; the natural motion of earthly bodies (as when falling) is 

 in a right line ; a body cannot have two natural motions, therefore the 

 earth cannot move in a circle ; if the earth moved, an arrow shot 

 upwards could not fall on the spot from whence it was shot ; the air, 

 differing from the earth in substance, cannot be moved at the same 

 rate, consequently, mountains, towers, &c., would produce a wind if 

 the earth moved : a stone let fall from a height would not fall directly 

 under the point which it leaves ; an arrow shot towards the east would 

 go much farther than one shot towards the west, the first having the 

 air with it, the second against it ; houses, and the earth itself, would be 

 broken to pieces by so rapid a motion, which however the heavens can 

 bear, being made of iron, according to Homer, while the earth is soft and 

 friable ; the immensity of the distance which must exist between the 

 orbit of Saturn and the fixed stars, if the whole orbital motion of the 

 earth produce no efiect upon the latter ; the excessive greatness of the 

 fixed stars on the same supposition ; &c. 4c. 



The Copernicans contended generally for the greater simplicity of 

 their system, and the incredibility of the enormous velocity which the 

 sphere of the fixed sUrs must have if the Ptolemaic hypothesis were 

 true : to which it was answered, that Ood " doeth great things past 

 finding out, and wonders without number;" that the earth would 

 corrupt and putrefy without motion, whereas the heavens are in- 

 corruptible : answer that wind. Ac. give sufficient motion; that the 

 most moveable part of man is underneath, since he walks with his feet ; 

 whence the mot unworthy part of the universe (which all parties 

 called the earth) should be moveable : answer, that the Copsrnicans 

 were absurd (as in fact they were) for taking the earth out of the centra 

 of the universe upon an argument the force of which was derived 

 from its being in the centre (or lowest part) ; also, which is theore- 

 tically true, that if the earth move, the head of a man moves faster 

 than his feet ; that rest is nobler than motion, and ought therefore to 

 belong to the sun, the nobler body : answer, that for the same reason 

 the moon and all the planets ought to rest ; that the lamp of the 

 world ought to be in the centra : answer, that a lamp is frequently 

 hung up from a roof to enlighten the floor ; that there is a cause of 

 motion (magnetism) in the earth : answer, that no t'opemicans had 

 examined the sun, or they might perhaps have found as good causes of 

 motion there ; that the Hebrew word for the earth has a root which 

 signifies motion which on the other side was contended to apply to 

 the motion of animals upon its surface. 



Such were the more common arguments of the Copernicans ; others 

 may be seen in a paper entitled ' Old Argument* against the Motion of 

 the Karth,' in the Companion to the Almanac for 1886.' We do not 

 charge 7 CT y on*, either of the Ptolemaists or Copernicans, with all the 

 absurdities above noted ; but we have not found one of either side 



This worthy, to . great capacity for anedrawn deduction, iddcd the power 

 of u Mtrolofrr, and MOW art In extricating Mmwlf from the icrape of an 

 unfulBlled prophecy. When Oaawndl remained allrc after the time which 

 Moris bad poatUTtly lied for hi. dnaUe, the latter perabtsd that the non. 

 taUlamt of Ike prophecy ... la DoassqnsBcs of the warning which It fare 

 OsMSwdl, whoee health wai declining to try change of air. 



free from such d priori' attempts at a knowledge of the nature of tilings. 

 Our countryman Bishop Wilkins has less of this sort of argument than 

 any . >no except Galileo, and he deals with the scriptural objections in a 

 TOT learned and able manner. He points out the absurdities into 

 which the Fathers had fallen by a degree of literal interpretation 

 which had become obsolete even in the days of Fromond : how, for 

 instance Basil made the moon greater than any of the stars, because 

 Moses calls the sun and moon the two greater lights ; Justin Martyr 

 and several others supposed a vast body of water above the starry 

 firmament ; St. Augustine concludes the visible stars to be innume- 

 rable; many fathers assert that the heavens are not round, but 

 -t i, -T. -lied forth as a curtain; some that the sea not overflowing the 

 land was not a consequence of the usual laws of matter, but a per- 

 petual miracle ; some that the sea is higher than the land, because it is 

 called " altum," translated by us " the deep ;" some that the earth is 

 placed upon the Ma ; some -say that the stars' have understanding and 

 speech, and, according to Origen, moral responsibility. All these 

 things follow, either at once, or by the most universally admitted 

 species of inference, from the literal signification of words in the sacred 

 Scriptures. These interpretations vanished first; those who sailed 

 round the world destroyed the greater number of them; and the 

 abandonment of them was acquiesced in even by those who would have 

 nailed the earth to a Hebrew word. The earth itself was next a! 

 to move, when Galileo had established a mechanical system uhi. h 

 would reconcile such motion with terrestrial phenomena, as completely 

 as that of Copernicus and Kepler with celestial. The time came when 

 oven divines might insist on this simplicity of motion in illustration of 

 the wisdom of the architect. But the structure of the earth had not 

 been examined ; consequently when the conclusions of geological in- 

 duction began to appear, the old method was ready, the texts were 

 forthcoming, neither was interpretation wanting, nor those who would 

 raise an outcry against the results of examination and the investigators, 

 because the former would not agree with the interpretation, nor the 

 latter be fettered by its imposition. The same course will 1.x run, 

 with the exception only that the enemies of free inquiry and honest 

 statement are not so numerous nor so powerful as in the 17th century, 

 so that the effect will be less, both in extent and duration. So very 

 slight have been the scientific attainments of the opposing party 

 on this occasion, that it becomes those who are interested in the 

 history of the sciences to take some measures for the preservation of 

 their writings, since it is found that the purely theological works 

 against the motion of the earth are extremely scarce, while only those 

 which unite science, such as it was, with theology, are now* in any 

 degree diffused. 



If we throw away all the arguments which would now be considered 

 fantastical, we shall find the sense of both sides of the controversy 

 contained within very narrow limits. The strength of the Copernicans 

 lay in the simplicity with which they exhibited the celestial motions ; 

 that of their opponents, in the then unanswerable argument of the 

 throwing up of a stone. Both parties believed that the stone of itself 

 would not follow the motion of the earth ; at least such was the 

 opinion until the Galilean philosophy was fully received. Fromond 

 shows his penetration when he says that the Copernican philosophy 

 will finally be wrecked on this argument ; had he admitted an alterna- 

 tive, and assumed either that the mechanical argument would destroy 

 the motion of the earth, or the motion of the earth would lead to 

 an entire change in the principles of mechanical philosophy, no one 

 would now have disagreed with him. 



We shall close this article with a mention of the actual proofs of the 

 motion of the earth. 



1. It is difficult to believe, in the present state of mechanical know- 

 ledge, that any heavenly body is at rest, and the burden of proof must 

 lie upon those who assert rest, and not upon those who l>tli.\, m 

 motion, which a person instructed in mechanics must do, until the 

 contrary is proved. 



2. If a motion existed, a centrifugal force would arise, which \\ ..uld 

 produce an effect on the oscillation of a pendulum tried in <l 

 parts of the earth. [CENTRIFUGAL r'.im i : PENDULUM.] Such an 

 effect in found to be produced corresponding to that which Blmuld In- 

 produced by the earth's rotation ; nor have those who deny that 

 rotation ever produced any explanation of the phenomenon. 



3. An experiment has been tried, which it will be worth whil-- t 

 describe, and which Delambre says hod " a sort of success." \\ "hen 

 we say that a stone let fall from the top of a high tower should fall 

 precisely under the point from which it started, we say that which 

 ought not to be perfectly true ; the reason is as follows : The starting 

 point of the stone, being at a greater distance from the centre than 

 the point directly under on the earth, describes a somewhat larger 

 circle, and moves a little quicker. The stone therefore at the com- 

 mencement of its fall has a motion from west to east, a little iimn- 

 rapid than the under point of the earth. The resistance of the air, 

 though it exists with respect to the fall of the stone, does not uxixt 

 with respect to the motion fim west to east since the air, earth, and 



* There are, it I* well known, different degrees of scarccncu in old work*. 

 We hare met with Kiccioli, Fromond, Mm in, Kicmn, Kow, \\ilkinf, Gilbert, 

 *c., exposed for ale In Ixmdnn, within these fire yean, and with neveral more 

 than once ; but we never met with any of the purely theological authors quoted 

 by Kiccioli. 



