Riccieli cites the following additional texts. Genesis, xv. 12 : "And when tho sun was going down," &c. Gen., xix. 23 : "The sun was risen upon the earth.' Gen., xxxii. 31 : " The sun rose upon him." Judges, xix. 14 : " The sun went down upon them." Matthew, v. 45 : " He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good ; " with several others to the same purport. Also Psalm lxxv. 3 : " The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved : I bear up the pillars of it." He adds all the places in which "heaven above" and "earth beneath " are mentioned.
The Copernicans, besides the very few passages which they could find alluding to a motion of the earth (and that only an unusual one), brought forward texts in which admitted errors exist ; such as the Mosaic definition of the firmament, the circumference of Solomon's brazen sea (which, the diameter being ten cubits, must have been upwards of thirty-one cubits in circumference, and not thirty, as stated), and the like. To this the general answer was, that there is a great difference between stating round numbers, according to usual measure ment, and absolutely asserting untruth. Riccioli however lays it down that the obvious literal sense of the Scripture is to be taken, except where it is manifestly false ; that Archimedes had shown the propor tion of ten to thirty to be false, but that no one had actually shown the earth to move. This was evidently convenient, but unfair ; the motion of the earth was the thing in question, and could not be proved false by assuming a literal interpretation, which, it was admitted, might be rejected if the earth's motion were true.
Upon a review of the passages cited, it is cleat• enough that, if there be any astronomical system at all in them, it is that of an immoveable earth and a moveable sun ; while if there be no astronomical system, it follows that vulgar notions are adopted in the modes of expression, which represent appearances without reference to their truth or false hood. On one horn or other of this dilemma, all our modern Urbane must be content to abide : will they go back to Ptolemy, or forward with the advance of science ? Can they show any reason why the astronomical system of the old Testament should be rejected, and those passages which appear to favour one geological theory rather than another should not only be received, but be enforced upon others by °honour' of latitudinarianism, infidelity, and all those reproaches by which (and fortunately, by which only) untolerated differences of opinion are punished f 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 poet. Not even the Church of Rome will ever again dictate on a question of fact, and in Protestant countries (and Catholic too, we suspect) public opinion must and will support abeoluto proof against doubtful interpretation. The opponents in this matter are,
some of them, men of learning, like Fromond and Riocioli ; others men of conceits, like Morin.* The former seize 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 miscellaneous party.
The declining days of what was called the Aristotelian philosophy had their spell 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 Ptolemaists than of their opponents the Copernicans. The latter were taught that rational mechanics must precede simple astronomy ; and it is no exaggeration to say that not an inconsiderable portion of that power over nature which we now have, can be traced in its 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 have 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 assert 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 tho 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 bo 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 fail directly under the point which it leaves ; an arrow shot towards the cast 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 bo 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 effect upon the latter • the excessive greatness of the fixed stars on the same &:. &e.