406 
verging to a centre ! But this is, after all, quite in keeping 
with the extent of “ the fall of the moon from the tangent to her 
orbit,” being computed from an unreal fall from an imaginary 
tangent to an orbit that could have no actual existence (unless 
the earth were at rest), and with gravity acting in parallel 
directions , instead of towards a centre ! (§32.) 
39. But I feel that it is now time to bring this paper to a 
close. I must apologise for its great length, and yet observe 
that it is far too brief to do full justice to so large and com- 
plicated a subject. My remaining words, also, like those with 
which I commenced, must further partake of an apologetic 
character. I know very well from experience, that two 
remarks are likely to be made off-hand, both about this paper 
and what will be called “ my peculiar views.” Some of your 
“ scientific ” friends may tell you very plainly, that “ they 
know I am all wrong”; and others may ask, what may 
seem to be a very pertinent question, namely, How the 
astronomers can make their accurate calculations of the 
positions of the planets and of the periods of eclipses, if all 
their astronomy is as wrong as I wish to make out?” Now, 
I must reply, that this question could not be put by any 
one, however “ scientific,” who understands the subject, and 
knows the difference between theoretical and practical as- 
tronomy. And I venture to say that neither such questioners, 
nor those who would fain decide with a word of authority 
that I am wrong, are likely to enter the fists in order to 
exhibit to you my errors. If they do, however — and they 
are at least fairly challenged, — I shall be agreeably surprised, 
and will feel greatly indebted to them. My delusion, if I am 
wrong, must be even greater than theirs ; for they can plead 
great names, a long tradition, and that most powerful cor- 
rupter of the human intellect, inveterate prejudice, as 
all on their side ; while I — unfortunately, I must admit, 
with seeming presumption — stand almost alone, and contra 
mundum ! Let me then plead, in these circumstances, at 
least, — for refutation and enlightenment and unsparing 
criticism. I beg for this, much rather than for observations 
which may be confirmatory of any of my arguments, on the 
present occasion. Not that I despise the latter; for I am 
about to cite a few words from a recent pamphlet “ by a 
Wrangler,”* which may serve as the best answer to the 
question, which I have anticipated might be put by some, as to 
the calculations of astronomers. The “ Wrangler ” says : — 
* The Theories of Copernicus and Ptolemy. (Loncl. : Longmans, 1867.) 
