He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs

the earth on nothing. He binds up the waters in his thick

clouds, and the cloud is not burst under them. He
encloses the face of his throne, and spreads his cloud on
it. He has described a boundary on the surface of the
waters, and to the confines of light and darkness. The
pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his rebuke.
He stirs up the sea with his power, and by his
understanding he strikes through Rahab. By his Spirit
the heavens are garnished. His hand has pierced the swift
serpent. Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways.
How small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder
of his power who can understand?”
~ Job 26: 7-14, World English Bible
 FIFTY REASONS:
COPERNICUS OR THE BIBLE

Philosophy and vain deceit or true science?

Which is right?

The Bible and Practical Astronomy or the Babel of

theoretical, poetical, Newtonian fiction?

_________________________
“When the Christian layman in Geology or Astronomy
finds a discrepancy between the Scriptures and what
confronts him as a result of scientific work, the proper
thing for him to do is to abide by the Scriptures and lay
that thing of science aside as erroneous.”
Dr. A. L. Graebner, “Quarterly” VI. 42.
_________________________

Here are fifty reasons for believing the Bible

BY F.E. PASCHE,
MORRIS, MINN. 1915

2
 FIFTY REASONS
COPERNICUS OR THE BIBLE

Modern Edition
Public Domain
Formatted & Edited by Cathy Dunson

Cover Art: Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still

upon Gibeon by John Martin (1816)

Firmament Avenue Press

3
 Preface
The author of this booklet has risked a tilt with Science.
That is a venturesome undertaking in these days of ours
where Science reigns supreme, a veritable goddess before
whom millions of faithful worshippers bow their heads in
childlike trust. Science has become the masterword to
conjure with because it claims to have laid down a firm
foundation for a Weltanschauung which happily eliminates
all those troublous concepts of sin and guilt, of eternity and
a responsibility to an almighty God. Whoever dares to touch
this beloved and admired idol with an unfriendly hand, with
the nefarious purpose of exhibiting its brazen worthlessness,
must expect to be caught up in the vortex of a crushing
whirlwind of fanatical vituperation. For Science with its
high priests and devotees is intolerant to the last degree.

But let it be remembered that our author is at odds only

with Science; he has no quarrel with science which is
content with a lower-case initial. Just plain science is a
valuable aid to man since it diligently assembles knowable
facts and marshals them into some logical order for
purposes of study and application. Its domain is that of
observation, and it rests content with recording what it
actually sees and hears. It goes no farther beyond the
individual perceptions than to express in general, abstract
terms a summary of known facts announcing the so-called
"laws" which may be deduced from observed occurrences.
Plain science is continuously reaching forward into the
region of the unknown, seeking to increase the actual store
of human knowledge; but as it never pretends to know what
is unknown, so does it never attempt to overstep the
boundaries which are set between that which is knowable

4
and that which is naturally un-knowable. Briefly, just plain
science is real knowledge, not fancy.

But Science, the fetish of the modern world,

reincarnation of the ancient idol Philosophy, scorns the
boundaries which will forever mark the limit of plain
science. From some bare foothold in fact, Science vaults
into the saddle of that spirited steed Imagination and sets
out to uncover the veiled mysteries of the universe. This
adventure would be more promising if the steed were of
pure pedigree. But no high priest of Science could ever
command the services of an undefiled imagination; the
steed is always a sideling jade, variously afflicted with
pantheism, materialism, evolutionism, atheism, or a
combination of these ailments. Thus, every foray is doomed
to failure at the outset. This fact, though sufficiently
vexatious in all conscience, would not necessarily discredit
those attempts at reaching the unattainable, if it were
generally understood that the fanciful flights of Science
were meant for pastime only. But it is an unfortunate habit
of Science to proclaim as facts the alleged discoveries made
in the trackless realms of fancy. Oh yes, Science will
always tell us that this and that is an hypothesis; but
Scientists and their unthinking followers, quickly losing
sight of the difference between the finest hypothesis and the
most insignificant fact, will just as surely insist, after a little
while, that what entered the world as a guess becomes a fact
by many repetitions. To mention but one instance; the
hypothesis of evolutionism, having been adopted by
Scientists generally, is not only used as a fact, but insisted
upon as such, though to this day no investigator has been
able to observe a single case of actual evolution. Hence
plain science is compelled to record habitual untruthfulness
as one of the deplorable characteristics of Science.
5
 While plain science is not, and never can become,
dangerous to a Christian believer, Science has been
determinedly at work to over-throw the foundations of faith,
and has succeeded in deceiving thousands to their eternal
detriment. An accomplishment of which Science is
especially proud is the successful destruction of faith in the
Scriptures as the real revelation of God. Disguised as
astronomy and geology, Science has demonstrated
triumphantly that the very first chapters of the Bible contain
nothing but myths, which are of no greater historical value
than the cosmogony of any pagan people. This was the
inevitable result of scientific speculation. No mind imbued
with the errors of pantheism, deism, or monism, could by
any possibility reconstruct the history of creation along the
lines laid down in the record of which God is the author. It
matters not that all the real facts of astronomy and geology
agree very well with the Mosaic presentation and the point
of view prevailing in the whole Bible; since Science has
decreed that these facts shall be utilized for deductions
based upon other points of view, and has declared its
deductions to be facts, thousands of deluded sinners have
been led to discard as antiquated the entire revelation of
God in the Bible, including the Savior and His salvation.

Thus, since Science (not plain science, mind you!) is at

war with the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith, it
follows that all true Christians must be at war with Science.
They cannot sit complacently by while the vain imaginings
of the princes of this world are offered as true answers to
the most vital questions with which every human being is
concerned. It is in this spirit that our author makes his attack
upon Science. Sure of his foothold in the inerrant Word of
God, he, in particular, aims to show up the fatal weakness
of the vaunted deductions of Astronomy (not astronomy,
6
please!). The reader may not agree with the writer in every
argument. He may, for instance, admit the possibility that
the statements of Scripture referring to the sun as a moving
body, were not meant to say that the sun does really move
(though such an admission is much like playing with fire!).
But he will surely agree that the writer has successfully
arraigned Science for untruthfulness in allowing the
impression to prevail that its astronomical hypotheses have
attained the dignity of facts, whereas they can never be
established as such. If it is too much to hope that this brief
treatise will actually bring back some erring hearts to
certain faith in the Bible, it will surely be welcomed as a
fearless witness of the truth by those who, though certain of
their footing in Holy Scripture, are yet conscious of the
unholy power of Science to corrupt the heart of a believer.
Wauwatosa, Wis., March 27, 1915.
J. SCHALLER.

Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD-- that you
alone are the Most High over all the earth. - Psalm 83:18

7
 The Flammarion engraving is a wood
engraving by an unknown artist, so named
because its first documented appearance is
in Camille Flammarion's 1888 book
L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire
("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology)

8
 Index

1. The earth stands fast 12

2. The pendulum experiment 13
3. Job 26, 7 16
4. Our atmosphere 16
5. The Trade Winds 18
6. A law of nature? 19
7. Ocean currents 21
8. Contradicting the hypothesis 22
9. Earth, the central body 23
10. Gravitation against rotation 24
11. The flattened poles 25
12. Falling bodies 27
13. Richer's discovery 28
14. The sun moves 30
15. What does "shemesh" mean? 31
16. Zodiacal light 32
17. Earth older than sun 33
18. Waters above firmament 34
19. Biblical plan more rational 36
20. The vapors of water 37
21. Scientists baffled 40
22. Conservation of energy 41
23. Agrees with chemistry 43
24. Copernican difficulties 45
2S. Comets against them 46
26. Orbit around the sun 48
27. An impossibility 49
28. Sun through space 51
29. Attraction and repulsion 53
30. Results of theory erroneous 54
31. Fundamentally false 55
9
32. Elliptical orbits crushed 55
33. Against nature of earth 58
34. Motion natural for sun 59
35. Very plausible 59
36. Parallax of stars 60
37. Roemer's discovery 62
38. Bradley's observation 63
39. Spectroscope favors Bible 65
40. Biblical view explains more 67
41. They minister to the earth 69
42. Bible implies reality 71
43. Ps. 74, 16; Eccl. 1, 4. 5 72
44. No insignificant things 75
45. No erroneous conceptions of men 75
46. Only one, the literal sense 77
47. We must accept literal meaning 80
48. Appearance ("Optice”) 82
49. Full conviction 87
50. Theory and superstition 90

10
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics
for experiments, and they wander off through
equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.
- Nikola Tesla

11
 I consider thy heavens, the work of
thy fingers, the moon and the stars,
which thou hart ordained.
- Psalm 8:3
1. According to the Bible, the earth stands still in
space. Psalm 93, 1: "The earth stands fast that it cannot be
moved." I Chronicles 16, 30: "The world also shall be
stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104, 5: "He hath
founded the earth upon its base, that it should not be
removed forever." As a builder constructs a house on a base
or a foundation that it stands firm against the storm, even so
has the heavenly architect firmly founded the earth, this
great building, upon its base, so that it can never be moved
from its place. Psalm 119, 90: "Thou hast established the
12
earth, and it standeth." These are only a few passages out of
many. It is the literal truth of the Bible. And Jesus, our
Redeemer, endorses it by saying: "And the Scripture cannot
be broken." (John 10, 35.) And through his apostle he
states: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine." (2 Tim. 3, 16.) Should we not, then,
accept the above passages as divine truth?

2. But did not Foucault's pendulum prove that the

earth revolves in twenty-four hours upon its axis? In the
introduction to Ray's Elements of Astronomy Mr. Peabody
calls it "a beautiful experiment." Andrew White
triumphantly exclaims: "And in 1851 the great experiment
of Foucault with the pendulum showed to the human eye
the earth in motion around its own axis." (Warfare, 1900, I,
p. 157.) Let us glance briefly at the instrument called the
pendulum. Foucault's pendulum had a sixty-one pound ball
on a steel-wire 223 feet in length. If we let a pendulum
oscillate in a direction north and south, then will its even
oscillation, as Foucault assumes, be unaffected by the
13
rotation of the plane, and consequently the earth will move
ahead below its swinging-line. Now, if this is to prove the
rotation of the earth, the deviation of the earth below from
the swinging-line of the pendulum must be in all cases the
same. But the trouble is, the deviation is not the same with
all pendulums. The heavier the bob, the slower becomes the
deviation of the pendulum; the lighter the bob, the more
rapidly the deviation. Since the rotation of the earth upon
its axis, if existing, must be a uniform one, necessarily with
all pendulums the deviation should be uniform; but this is
not the case. Or does the earth move with different velocity
under different pendulums? Dr. Schoepffer, an eye-witness
of the experiment, says: "In an introductory speech Dr.
Menzzer at Quedlinburg showed that until then there had
been no proof for the Copernican hypothesis, the so-called
proofs being, after close investigation, just as many
confutations, until the Foucault pendulum showed the
rotation of the earth uncontrovertibly. The pendulum was
tied, the string was burnt, the swingings began, but the
pendulum deviated to the left, instead of to the right. It was
hastily brought to rest. New burning of the string. This time
the deviation was the one desired, and we were invited
again to be present in the church the next morning at eight
o'clock, to be convinced that the deviation agrees with the
theory. On the following morning, however, we saw that the
pendulum during the night had changed its mind, and had
from the deviation to the right again returned to the left. To
me this new proof did not seem to be quite in order. My
belief in the Copernican doctrine was shaken by the speech
of Dr. Menzzer, and I concluded to go to Berlin for an ex-
planation. After seeing the pendulum-experiment here also
and, strangely, again with a deviation to the left, I went to
Alexander v. Humboldt, who was indeed ever the first
refuge of those seeking information. He received me very
14
friendly and spoke the memorable words: I have known,
too, for a long time, that as yet we have no proof for the
Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to
attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will but bring
upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude."

Furthermore, I have found, by careful experiments,

that a skillful experimenter can let the pendulum deviate
either to the left or to the right. And we must not overlook
the fact that the deviations may be caused by air-currents,
electricity, earth-magnetism, special apparatus, and perhaps
many other causes. Blunt and Cox observed the most
curious and contrary swingings. Phillips of New York
found very great hourly deviations in the swinging-line.
Walker observed a peculiarly swift deviation when the
pendulum swings in the magnetic meridian. D'Oliveira at
Rio de Janeiro stated that the pendulum deviates to the right
in the direction of the meridian, but to the left in the
direction of the parallel. This deviation, diametrically
opposed to the theory, was seen very often. And sometimes
the pendulum does not deviate at all. Much more could be
said against this "beautiful experiment." Though beautiful it
15
may seem to the theorist, it certainly is far from being
irrefragable evidence for the earth's motion.

3. But how is it possible that the ponderous earth can

stand still hanging on nothing, some Copernican will
exclaim. Yet just that is the case; for we read Job 26, 7: "He
stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth
the earth upon nothing." To this Matthew Henry remarks in
his commentary: "The vast terraqueous globe neither rests
upon any pillars, nor hangs upon any axle-tree; and yet, by
the almighty power of God, is firmly fixed in its place,
poised with its own weight. The art of man could not hang a
feather upon nothing, yet the Divine Wisdom hangs the
whole earth so. It is ponderibus librata suis—poised by its
own weight, so says the poet; it is upheld by the word of
God's power, so says the apostle." The Bible denies a
motion of the earth. Ecclesiastes 1, 4: "The earth abideth
(Hebrew: amad=stands, rests) forever."

4. Further incontestable proof for the fact that the

earth stands fast is our atmosphere. The air which surrounds
16
us, always tends to expand. We have proof for an immense
height of the air. When Humboldt stood on Mount
Chimborasso in Ecuador, South America, that mountain
being 20,648 feet or nearly four miles high, he saw a condor
soaring far above him like a little speck. Scientists tell us
that the atmosphere or aeriform fluid surrounding the earth
is about fifty miles high. We are told that under the equator
everything moves eastward with a speed of 1,250 feet in a
second because the earth rotates. Were it possible that the
ever expansive air should be able to follow such speedy
motion? Assuredly not; it would be retarded and seem to
rush westward 1,250 feet in a second, which would more
than ten times surpass the velocity of the most fearful
hurricane.

Add to this a motion of the earth around the sun and

another of the sun through space, and you have the
astounding speed of fifty miles in a second! Must not by
this the air be entirely lost, or at least follow the earth like
the tail of a comet? Copernicans tell us that just by the rapid
17
motion the air is pressed tight to the earth. But can they
show us where the pressure begins or takes place? We
certainly ought to feel or notice something of a pressure so
fabulous and enormous. However, we feel it not in the least.
We see the smoke rise free and unmolested up into the air,
calmly the clouds sail to and fro far over us, the air-ship
rises and ascends above the clouds: but nowhere is the swift
motion of the earth or that mysterious pressure felt. Where,
then, is it?

5. Our opponents have felt that argument. They

clearly saw that the great pressure caused by the earth's
rotation ought to be noticed somehow. For that reason, they
have always urged that the Trade Winds in the hot belt are
caused by the swiftly moving earth. While the earth moves
eastwardly, the Trade Winds move westwardly. However,
not only are these winds much too unstable to prove the
earth's steady motion, but this theory is also thoroughly
refuted by other air-currents, quite regularly moving
eastwardly, in direct contrast to the theory. Now, after
accurate meteorological observations of more than sixty
years it is generally known that, as a rule, the winds in the
temperate zone do not move westwardly like the Trade
Winds, but eastwardly. In the cold zone however they
move, as a rule, toward south-east. Therefore Prof. Joseph
Henry of our Meteorological Institution at Washington
carefully called this proof of the Copernicans a mere
hypothesis and admitted: "The effects produced by the air,
the water, and the land, are however of a much more
complicated character, and like the problem of the mutual
action of all the planets on each other, have never yet been
submitted to a successful mathematical analysis."
(Scientific Writings, II, 44f.) As early as March 11, 1861,
the director of the Smithsonian Institution wrote to an air-
18
ship sailor by the name of Lowe: "It has been fully
established by continuous observations for ten years
collected at this Institution from every part of the United
States, that as a general rule all the meteorological
phenomena advance from west to east, and that the higher
clouds always move eastwardly."

But that is directly opposed to the theory. It is high

time for Copernicans to learn that the direction of the winds
is not referable to the rotation of the earth upon its axis in
the sense of receiving its impetus from that motion. In our
scientific and enlightened age, it ought to be known that
change of atmosphere, temperature, cloud-formation,
rainfall, direction of the winds, and other weather
phenomena and meteorological elements, are dependent
principally upon the influence of sun and moon.

6. If the Foucault pendulum is not disturbed by the

earth's rotation, how, then, is it that the atmosphere must
obediently follow that motion? May we not deduct from the
"beautiful" pendulum-experiment, that an eagle soaring up
in New York must after two hours come down in
California, having, together with the surrounding air, been
undisturbed by the rapidly moving earth? Or, if that
dreamed of great pressure of our atmosphere really existed,
19
must not a balloon in which the air is extremely extenuated,
crush together in consequence of such pressure and
tendency of the surrounding air? Is it not, after all, the most
natural thing that, because of its great expansibility, the air
should press, not downward, but upward into open space?
We cannot put a limit to the atmosphere above us. We must
accept it as a fact that the whole space around us is filled
with air. It is a well-known property of the air to fill all
empty space.

The air possesses a tendency toward expansion. As to

hydrogen the Copernicans themselves must admit, against
their theory, that the earth cannot hold its hydrogen. It is
produced abundantly on the earth, but does not remain here.
Where does it stay? It escapes into space. And this seems
very natural, since, according to modern science, a material
medium called ether, a fine elastic sub-stance, fills all
20
space. Why not, then, call it by one name and say, our
atmosphere extends into all surrounding space connecting
the earth with sun, moon, and stars, and being the carrier of
light and electricity. True, this does not agree with the
embraced theory, but it agrees very well with science and
the Bible.

7. Further, Copernicans say that ocean-currents

demonstrate a diurnal rotation of the earth. But to be
consistent with the theory all the currents should move
westwardly. But this is far from being the case, it being the
notorious fact that they move in every possible direction.

All the rivers and springs of water continually flow

into the water of the ocean which surrounds the world
like a ring but the ocean is not filled and to the place is
where the rivers continually flow, they return there in
order to flow from the spouts of the deep. ~
Ecclesiastes 1:7, Targum

21
 The true causes of the ocean-currents are summed up
by Prof. Henry, that learned scientist, thus: "Heated water is
constantly carried from the equatorial regions towards the
poles, and streams of cold water returned . . . The continued
action of the wind on the surface of the water would
evidently give rise to a current of the ocean in the belt over
which the wind passed. The regularity of their outline will
be disturbed by the configuration of the deflecting coasts
and the form of the bottom of the sea, as well as by islands,
irregular winds, difference of temperature, and above all, by
the annual motion of the sun as it changes its declination."
(Joseph Henry, Scientific Writings, II, 14. 61.) When a
Copernican writer in the Tivoli Times, September 7, 1900,
held that the "mysterious power" of the earth's rotation
deflects the Gulf Stream, General J. Watts de Peyster, after
clearly showing the fallacy of the argument, correctly
added: "To say the least, the attempt to introduce an effect
of the earth's rotation here, as an additional agency of the
same kind, is entirely superfluous. But if the earth rotates,
there should be such an effect; so that the failure to perceive
it is an argument against the Copernican theory." Also, this
difficulty falls down the moment the imagined rotation of
the earth is discarded. One of the strong arguments
advanced by Dr. Schoepffer in his excellent book "The
Earth Stands Fast" (Berlin, 1869) against the rotation theory
is that such a movement should produce both air-currents
and ocean-currents of a powerful and decided type, such as
do not, in fact, exist!

8. The forms of our continents contradict the

hypothesis of the rotation of the earth. Were there such a
rotation, these formations would have been built up in the
main directions, from east to west; whereas, in reality, we
find their longitudinal development from north to south.
22
This argument is greatly strengthened by the modern theory
of tidal friction, which has led physicists to the conclusion
that during its early formative period the earth performed its
axial rotation in two hours! Is it not strange that the trend of
continents should be so absolutely opposed to the cherished
theory? Ponder this fact.

9. That there are no fixed stars proper has been

demonstrated by the peculiar orbital motions which those
fixed stars have in addition to their daily course about the
earth. The astronomers have therefore sought in vain for a
central body, the attraction of which would keep those stars
in their course. But there must be such a central body, and it
must be our earth. This was also the conclusion attained,
after the most profound and comprehensive investigation of
this problem, by Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, a man of
acknowledged scientific ability. A time ago, in The
Fortnightly Review, this learned author and much honored
scientist told a startled world that the solar system is the
23
centre of the universe, that the earth is the only inhabited
globe, and that the entire creation was ordered and designed
for man's sole benefit and accommodation. And
corresponding to the greater formation of land upon the
northern hemi-sphere, the greater number of stars is found
on the northern half of the heavens.

10. "Newton announced to the world the great law of

universal gravitation." (Emma Willard, Astronomy.) Which
is this 'great' law? Newton said, "The centres of all bodies
are attracted towards each other, directly as the quantity of
matter, and inversely as the square of their distance." Dr.
Schoepffer, General de Peyster, and Frank Allaben are
absolutely correct in saying that this Newtonian gravitation,
if consistent with the other laws of nature, would prevent
the axial rotation of any body which by gravity is
maintained in equilibrium in an orbit of revolution about an
attractive centre, with the exception of a single rotation
during the orbital revolution. Thus, we know of the moon
24
which is nearest to us, that she actually does not rotate, but
always shows us the same familiar face. Tack a string to a
ball, hold the other end of the string in the fingers, and
swing the ball in a circle with sufficient velocity to keep the
string taut: here you have the resolution of attractive pull
and centrifugal tendency known to nature. Because the
attracting pull is constant, throughout its orbit of revolution,
the ball ever keeps one and the same face to the attracting
power. This is what we find in the case of the moon, whose
attracting centre is the earth. This argument is now notably
emphasized by the conclusion of Schiaparelli, Lowell and
others, attesting the like phenomena in the orbital
revolutions of Mercury and Venus about the sun. Thus, if
the moon, Venus and Mercury conform in this particular to
the theory that all the atoms of each are attracted by all the
atoms of sun and earth, then it is certain that the axial
rotation of the earth is in direct violation to the ruling
Newtonian theory. Really, this Newtonian dream of
gravitation is a "great" law!

11. Already Newton pointed out that in virtue of the

daily rotation, the earth must be flattened at the poles.
25
Evolutionary astronomers tell us this flattening at the poles
took place when the earth's crust was cooling in an early
period of its formation. In his book on astronomy p. 76
Prof. Ball, the great Copernican, calls this "a remarkable
confirmation" of the earth's rotation. And it really is very
remarkable that the flattening at the poles should be caused
by the rotation of the earth; for this is not the case with
other bodies, as for instance the sun. The sun too rotates we
are told. But Prof. Ball tells us p. 185: "The most careful
observations have not afforded reliable indications of any
elipticity in the figure of the sun." According to the theory,
however, the earth must be flattened at the poles. And
measuring the meridians of the earth, it was found by some
that they are longer toward the poles, although the
measurements made on various occasions do not in the least
agree.

Writes Sir Norman Lockyer: "The polar diameter is

41,709,790 feet; but the equator is not a circle, the
equatorial diameter from longitude 8° 15' west to longitude
188° 15' west is 41,853,258 feet; that at right angles to it is
26
41,850,210 feet; that is, some thousand yards shorter. The
earth, then, is shaped like an orange slightly squeezed."
(New York Sun, 1901.) According to Ray, Elements of
Astronomy, p. 78 one earth-diameter at the equator is 8,968
feet, or about 1 3/5 miles shorter than another. Thus, the
measurements of the degrees have failed to prove the
rotation of the earth. And may not the larger degrees near
the poles, if they really exist, be due to a lengthened pole,
and the earth have the shape of a lemon? We have here
another alleged proof of the rotation of the earth which I
cannot accept, and which has been repudiated by others
before me.

12. As early as 1679 Newton advanced the idea that

bodies falling from a high steeple would in virtue of the
earth's rotation fall somewhat east of the straight line
downward. In the steeple of St. Michael's Church at
Hamburg, Benzenberg in 1804 dropped thirty balls from a
height of 235 feet and reaped much applause in the
"scientific" circles. And Andrew White triumphantly brings
the old story in his renowned "Warfare," vol. I., stating:
"Benzenberg has experimentally demonstrated just such an
aberration in falling bodies as is mathematically required by
the diurnal motion of the earth." But which are the facts?
Those thirty balls fell toward every cardinal point, so that
all possible deductions could be drawn from that
experiment. Benzenberg himself stated that a draught of the
air in the steeple caused the failure. This, then, explains the
general silence about the experiment, when recently that
church burnt down. What, then, has Benzenberg
"demonstrated"? This: we cannot perceive the rotation of
the earth in any way. We cannot demonstrate it! Or was that
draught of air in the steeple due to the earth swiftly
rotating? There are no air-currents which we can justly
27
regard as consequences of such rotation. These facts ought
to be proof enough against the existence of a rotation of the
earth.—More recently experiments are said to have been
made in the shafts of the copper mines at Calumet,
Michigan. But in the first place it must be said that these
shafts or entrances to the mines are much too narrow for
such experiments, and further, that, to be convincing, such
experiments must be made at many other places, because
the deviation of the metallic balls may be caused by
minerals, earth-magnetism, and last not least (like
Benzenberg's draught of air in the Hamburg steeple) by—a
draught in the shaft!

13. We now go on to the last consideration by means

of which the rotation of the earth is thought to be
demonstrated. We read in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The motion of the earth can, indeed, never be made an
28
object of ocular demonstration, but after Richer's discovery
of the diminution of gravity towards the equator, it was
impossible to doubt longer of the existence of its rotary
motion." It is this. The Frenchman Richer observed in the
year 1672 that a pendulum clock going normally in Paris
lost daily two and one-half minutes in Cayenne, five
degrees north of the equator, and he had to shorten the
pendulum by one-eighth of an inch to make it go correctly.
Therefore, it was argued, the gravity or attraction under the
equator must be less, since the pendulum there makes
slower oscillations; and it was concluded that the
centrifugal tendency caused by the motion of the earth upon
its axis reduced the gravity, and consequently made the
movement of the pendulum slower. But this conclusion
again lacks infallibility, for we may just as well suppose
that the attraction of the earth diminishes with the distance
from its centre, which is at the same time the centre of
attraction. The earth's diameter at the equator is, as the
Copernicans themselves say, 26 miles longer than the
diameter at the pole. According to this we are at the equator
thirteen miles farther away from the centre of the earth, and
hence the decreased attraction and the slackening of the
oscillations of the pendulum in the middle latitudes and
upon high mountains. Further, it is a fact—which seems to
be unknown to many philosophers, although most of the old
village schoolmasters were aware of it—that the quicker or
slower movements of the pendulum do not depend
exclusively upon its length, but also upon the weight of the
bob. Hence, we may obtain the same result by increasing
the weight of the bob, instead of lengthening the rod of the
pendulum. The larger the weight of the bob, the slower the
oscillations of the pendulum. The deductions from these
observations, carried out by Laugier with the utmost care,
are as follows: (a) The laws of Galileo in regard to the
29
oscillations of the pendulum are not exactly correct; (b) the
decrease of the attraction of the earth toward the equator,
inferred from the decrease of the velocity of the pendulum,
is probably wrong; (c) the laws of falling bodies, so far
universally accepted, are also probably not exact; (d)
calculations of physical laws in general are always
untrustworthy, as only experience can decide. (Published in
the "Comptes Rendus de l'Academie Francaise," vol. XXI,
pp. 117-124.) Indeed, we wholly lack a consideration
indicating rotation which can be substantiated. Must it not
appear almost absurd that we, preoccupied, as we are, by
what they have taught us in school, should accept a theory
of the rotation of the earth which neither is, nor can be,
proven? Must we not wonder at the readiness of the learned
of nearly the entire world, from the time of Copernicus and
Kepler, to accept the conception of the rotation of the
earth—and then search afterwards, now for nearly four
centuries, for arguments to maintain it, but of course
without being able to find them?

14. While the Copernican hypothesis refers the daily

revolution of the celestial bodies to a rotation of the earth,
the Bible refers that daily revolution to the celestial bodies
rather than to the earth. The Scriptures everywhere and
consistently ascribe the daily motion to the sun, moon, and
30
stars. Isaiah 40, 26: "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold
who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host
by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of
his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth."
Psalm 148, 3. 6: "Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him,
all ye stars of light. He upholds them forever and ever: he
hath made a decree which they shall not trespass." They
always accurately keep their prescribed course. Ecclesiastes
1, 5: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and
hasteth (margin: panteth) to his place where he arose."

And the days, Uriel showed me; the angel whom the Lord of
glory appointed over all the luminaries. Of heaven in heaven,
and in the world; that they might rule in the face of the sky, and
appearing over the earth, become Conductors of the days
and nights: the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the ministers of
heaven, which make their circuit with all the chariots of heaven.
~ Enoch 74:7-9

15. The sun moves in a spiral line, or winding like a

screw, around the earth, southward from June till December
and northward from December till June. He therefore daily
31
stays behind the stars about four minutes, thus marching
through all the stars within a year. The Hebrew word for sun
is shemesh, and he is called thus because of his swift
motion. The verb shamash means to run hastily, to move
very fast. Now, since all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God and "holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1, 21), since even the single words
were inspired by God, 1 Cor. 2, 13: "Which things also we
speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth," must not the Creator
Himself be Anti-Copernican? He undoubtedly is. Then,
ponder this fact!

16. The zodiacal light is in favor of the sun's daily

motion. The cause and nature of the zodiacal light have
never been explained in a satisfactory way by Newtonian-
Copernican astronomers, although this is one of the puzzles
to which ingenious investigators have addressed themselves
since the days of Kepler. The zodiacal light has the
appearance of a huge, faintly luminous cloud of matter,
which attends the sun in his daily circuit of the earth. After
32
sundown, it appears in the western sky, the point where the
sun has disappeared behind the horizon being the centre of
its base, from which it slants to an apex often extending
upward for ninety degrees. Our American astronomers
Newcomb and Holden confess in their text-book of
Astronomy p. 387: "Its origin is still involved in obscurity."
Prof. Norton of Yale College writes (Astronomy. Fourth
edition, p. 178): "At Quito the light was seen every
favorable night, at all hours, to extend as a broad luminous
arch, entirely from one horizon to the other."' Miss Agnes
Clerke, History of Astronomy, fourth edition, p. 177, says:
"The peculiar structure at the base of the streamers
displayed in the photographs, the curved rays meeting in
pointed arches like Gothic windows, the visible upspringing
tendency, the filamentous texture, speak unmistakably of
the action of forces proceeding from the sun, not of
extraneous matter circling round him." How, then, can the
Copernicans account for this fact in nature? They have as
yet failed to do so. But the moment we assume as true the
Biblical plan of the sun's daily movement round the earth,
this difficult problem receives a solution so simple and
obvious that it becomes in turn a powerful argument in
favor of the Biblical view. Ponder the fact! Remember, that
all facts are infallible. If there were but one fact to sustain
the Bible statements, there is not one fact to sustain the
statements of the Copernican astronomers.

17. That the earth is older than the sun, is fully borne
out by the first chapter of Genesis. But the theorists
maintain that the Copernican system necessitates the
assumption of millions of years of sidereal existence and
excludes the possibility of the creation of the sun and the
moon and the stars on the fourth day of the hexaemeron and
after the appearance of vegetation on the earth, and that,
33
consequently, the Mosaic record of the creation must be laid
aside as untenable. What, then, is the duty of every
Christian? Answer: "Every intelligent Christian and every
convention of Christians ought to be competent and ready
to stand by the truth of the plain words recorded in Genesis
against the opposing errors advanced in the name of
science." (Graebner, Theol. Quarterly, 1902 p. 42.) The two
beliefs—modern science and the Bible cannot possibly be
held together in the same mind. He who thinks he believes
both, knows little of either.

18. The Copernican plan is an impossibility. Genesis I,

7. 8: "And God made the firmament and divided the waters
which were under the firmament from the waters which
were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called
the firmament Heaven." The firmament is the space through
which sun, moon, and stars move. This we clearly see from
verses 14 and 15: "And God said, Let there be lights in the
firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night . . .
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so." And a little further
it is said of the birds that they fly "in the face of the
firmament of heaven" i.e. under the firmament. This
34
meaning is substantiated by the whole context. In verse 2
we hear that at first earth and water were mixed. According
to verse 6 God on the second day created a firmament
between the waters which should "divide the waters from
the waters." And according to verse 7 he divided the waters
under the firmament from the waters above the firmament.

Then in verse 8 this division is called the firmament of

heaven, and in verse 14 we are told that on this division
between the waters below and above, or in other words: into
the firmament of heaven, he put the celestial lights. Nothing
is clearer than this context. Our meaning is also borne out
by other passages. Psalm 148, 3-5: "Praise ye him, sun and
moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye
heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the
heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he
commanded, and they were created." Also Psalm 104, 3
those waters are mentioned, but as not the same as the water
in the clouds. That the clouds or rain-water cannot be
meant, we see from Genesis 2, 5. 6 where we are told that it
35
had not rained before the third day when the plants were
made, and now we read: "But there went up a mist from the
earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." This
shows that it was no fog or rain-water which God put over
the firmament on the second day. At the close of the second
day it was said: "And it was so." What? The waters were
gathered under and above the starry skies; but fog and rain
there was not until the third day. But conceded that by the
expression "firmament of heaven" the air were meant, even
then clouds and rain-water could not be above the
firmament, for these are in the air, never above the air.
Genesis 1, 7 however decidedly speaks of the waters above
the firmament. Again, the firmament is spoken of as a
division between the waters below and above so that they
cannot come together. But does not the rain come down
from the clouds, and are not immense quantities of water
continually drawn up into the clouds by evaporation? So
much to corroborate the Bible truth that there are vast
oceans of water above sun, moon, and stars. And this has
always been the position of the better part of the
theologians, especially of Luther and the learned Lutheran
theologian Dr. Aug. Pfeiffer, also of the late Dr.
Stoeckhardt. You see at once that in view of this Biblical
astronomical system the Copernican theory becomes an
impossibility.

19. But far from being absurd, this Biblical

astronomical system explains many problems in astronomy
much more rationally than the Copernican view. This
Biblical system fully solves the puzzling problem of the
conservation of energy which has baffled the ablest
physicists of our enlightened age. All man's experimental
attempts to establish a perpetual transformation of energy
have been baffled by the dissipation of energy. The scientist
36
has concluded that the dissipation of energy is a law of the
universe, and that in the course of time the great physical
clock-work of this world must run down. Scientists have
always felt, that, could the Newtonian and Copernican
hypothesis help us to formulate a rational conception of
how the physical universe might self-subsist indefinitely,
this would go far toward demonstrating their truth. Laplace
thought he had effected this. But time has demonstrated the
failure of Laplace, as well as of his predecessors and
successors, as Prof. Hall concedes; while through the lack
of such a demonstration physicists have been forced to the
other extreme of postulating the principle of the dissipation
of energy, involving the ultimate relapse of the universe
into passivity and immobility. But when we accept the
Biblical system, and conceive the waters above sun, moon,
and stars to be the grand reservoir of potential energy which
it is constantly giving forth to the swiftly revolving celestial
bodies, it becomes perfectly rational to think of the sun and
the other luminaries as receiving again all the energy which
they dissipate in the process of doing work, and that thus
the whole mechanism of the universe is maintained.

20. How can water do that? This is easily

demonstrated by the following simple experiment. We pour
water into a U shaped tube and let an electric current go
through it. At once the water diminishes and little bubbles
rise from it to the surface, but at one end of the tube twice
as many as at the other end. We now light a match which
extinguishes at that end of the tube where there are less
bubbles, but flares up into a large flame at the other end
where there are twice as many. How is this? By the electric
current the water was decomposed into its two elements: 1.
into oxygen, and: 2. into hydrogen, an inflammable gas. Of
the latter water contains twice as much as of the first. May
37
not, thus, also the waters above the firmament be
decomposed into their elements feeding the swiftly moving
heavenly bodies? Is not this a very plausible conception,
and does not thus the Biblical view become very rational?
Lately the scientists come very close to the Biblical view.
Dr. Tyndall writes: "Up to the present point, I have omitted
all reference to the most important vapor of all, as far as our
world is concerned—the vapor of water. This vapor is
always diffused through the atmosphere. The clearest day is
not exempt from it: indeed, in the Alps, the purest skies are
often the most treacherous, the firmamental blue deepening
with the amount of aqueous vapor in the air. It is needless,
therefore, to remind you that when aqueous vapor is spoken
of, nothing visible is meant. It is not fog; nor is it cloud or
mist of any kind. These are formed of vapor which has been
condensed to water; but the true vapor, with which we have
to deal, is an impalpable transparent gas. . . The aqueous
vapor which absorbs heat thus greedily, radiates it
copiously. . . Of the numerous wonderful properties of
water, not the least important is the power which it
possesses, of discharging the motion of heat upon the
interstellar ether." (Heat a Mode of Motion. Sixth Edition.
N. Y. 1883 p. 373f.) Then arose the two great standing
enigmas of meteorology: What is the color of the sky and
the polarization of its light? Says Dr. Tyndall: "But there is
still another subject connected with our firmament, of a
more subtle and recondite character than even its color. I
mean that 'mysterious and beautiful phenomenon'
(Herschel's Meteorology, art. 233), the polarization of the
light of the sky. Brewster, Arago, Babinet, Herschel,
Wheatstone, Rubeson and others, have made us masters of
the phenomenon, but its cause remains a mystery still." (p.
485f.) Sir David Brewster: "The more the subject is
considered, the more it will be, found beset with
38
difficulties." Sir John Herschel: "The reflection would have
to be made in air upon air! Were the angle of maximum
polarization 76°, we should look to water, or ice, as the
reflecting body, however inconceivable the existence in a
cloudless atmosphere, and a hot summer day, of
unevaporated particles of water." (p. 489.)

Dr. Williams: "As the examination of the sun and

stars proceeded, chemists were amazed or delighted,
according to their various preconceptions, to witness the
proof that many familiar terrestrial elements are to be found
in the celestial bodies. But what perhaps surprised them
most was to observe the enormous preponderance in the
sidereal bodies of the element hydrogen." (Nineteenth-
Century Science, p. 286.) But hydrogen, an inflammable
gas, is one of the elements of water. Does it not seem very
natural then that this element, drawn from the waters above
the firmament, feeds and sustains the heavenly bodies? Not
39
only are there vast quantities of this element in the sun, but
also in the other heavenly bodies. "If the sun were a solid
mass of coal, he would be totally consumed in about five
thousand years. As no such decrease in size as this implies
had taken place within historic times, it was clear that some
other explanation must be sought." (Williams, p. 436f.) The
Biblical system fully offers it. Does not therefore the
astronomical plan of the Bible seem very natural?

21. The Biblical plan must be the more acceptable,

since science, or rather, the scientist is totally baffled and
confesses: Here we are ignorant. Says C. A. Young: "Time
was when there was no such solar heat as now, and the time
must come when it will cease." (The Sun. Second Edition,
p. 275.) Sir William Thomson: "Will the sun, then, keep up
for ever a supply of this force? It cannot, if it be not
replenished, and at present we are ignorant of any known
means." S. H. Parkes: "What material source of supply has
science discovered for the replenishing of that enormous
waste which must have been going on? Many attempts have
been made during the past century, to answer these
questions. . . One of the grandest and most complete
theories hitherto propounded was one which the late Dr.
Siemens brought before the Royal Society." (Unfinished
Worlds, p. 61f.) And Dr. Young says: "Dr. C. W. Siemens,
of London, has recently proposed a new theory relating to
the source and maintenance of the sun's heat, which, on
account of the eminence of the author, is exciting much
interest and discussion in scientific circles." (The Sun, p.
315.) Which is this theory? The fundamental conditions of
Dr. Siemens's theory are the following, in his own words:
"1. That aqueous vapor and carbon compounds are present
in stellar and interplanetary space. 2. That these 'com-
pounds can be dissociated by radiant solar energy, while in
40
a state of extreme attenuation.' And 3. That these
dissociated vapors are capable of being compressed into the
solar atmosphere by a process of interchange with an equal
amount of reassociated vapors, the interchange being
effected by the centrifugal action of the sun itself." But
whence do these vapors come? The Newtonian-Copernican
theory knows no answer, while the Biblical system has a
very good answer. Should not scientists, then, seriously
reconsider the Biblical plan of the universe?

22. Dr. Siemens's theory has been opposed by some

scientists because it seemed to them somewhat
'complicated.' But that should be no reason for them to
reject it. The learned Prof. E. S. Holden (formerly director
of Lick Observatory) answers them as follows: "Many
modern theories are complex to a degree, but this is no
proof that they are not true. . . We in our day have learned a
patient tolerance of opinion; wait, these theories that seem
so baseless may, perhaps, come to something, as others
have done in the past. To what especial and peculiar merit
do we owe this acquired virtue of tolerant patience? It is
owed solely to the experience of centuries. We have so
41
often seen the impossible become the plausible, and at last
the proved and the practical." (Popular Science Monthly,
1904, p. 332f.) Though complex the Biblical record of
waters above the firmament and the theory of Dr. Siemens
may seem, yet we must accept both as true. Of the latter Dr.
C. A. Young in his celebrated book "The Sun," p. 166 has
well said: "It may be said in the first place, that there is
nothing absurd in it. . . If space is filled with composite
vapors, and if rays of light and heat can decompose them
again into their elements, then, to some extent, the theory
not only may be but must be true.

A hot revolving globe moving in a space filled with

such vapors, must necessarily produce such currents as Dr.
Siemens indicates, and must maintain a continual fire upon
its surface." By the Biblical scheme of waters above the
firmament as reservoirs of energy, the energy of the
universe is never diminished and the great problem and all-
important law of the conservation of energy is most
42
satisfactorily solved. Taking the so-called physical forces in
what seems to be a convenient order of transformation, we
have a circular chain which returns into itself as follows:
heat produces light, light produces chemical action,
chemical action produces electricity, electricity produces
magnetism, magnetism produces mechanical motion,
mechanical motion produces heat. Scientists have puzzled
over the postulate of some universal energy behind this
circle. Which is it? The Biblical scheme points to the sun
himself as "the greater light" on the firmament and to the
waters above the firmament. Is this plan "complicated"? On
the contrary, it is clear and simple.

23. 2 Pet. 3, 5: "They willingly are ignorant of, that

by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth
consisting out of the water and by the water." That the
world even now is sustained by water agrees perfectly with
modern chemistry. Only one-fourth of our globe is land, the
rest is water. Vapors of water are all around and above us in
the atmosphere, and waters are above the firmament. These
waters are vast reservoirs necessary for the maintenance of
the universe. This and the so-called Neptunian theory,
according to which the solid parts of the earth were formed
from aqueous solutions, agrees well with the Scriptures. But
how does the Copernican plan together with the so-called
Plutonic theory, according to which the earth once was a
glowing mass, agree with the Bible? Not in the least. Nor
does Newton's idea of an attractive energy, proportional of
the particles involved, which operates constantly and
uniformly between the atoms of matter, agree with it. Also,
the modern chemist knows nothing of such attraction or
gravitation. The astronomer and physicist who work
downward on the basis of Newtonian hypothesis, and the
chemist who works upward by deductions based upon
43
experimental facts, do not arrive at a common conception of
the properties of matter. The chemical affinities of atoms
and molecules, investigated by the chemist, exhibit
phenomena of an entirely different order. He finds that each
kind of atom and each kind of molecule reveal attractive
affinities peculiar to that kind, attracting certain other kinds
of atoms or molecules, but not all particles of matter,
irrespective of their chemical character, nor yet any in a
simple proportion to their weight. Knowledge of the
properties of matter gained by experimenters does not agree
with the theory of matter required by the Newtonian-
Copernican scheme.

And indeed, we have no need of Newton's fictitious

"occult energy of gravitation," for this energy can
apparently be rationally accounted for by the operation of
forms of energy experimentally known to us, such as
electrical and magnetic attraction. We reject therefore the
Newtonian "gravitation" so full of amazing
44
contradictions—and resort to an electrical theory in
accounting for the attractions of the universe as well as for
its repulsions. In making choice between the regent vague
and contradictory astronomical conception and the scientific
chemical investigations I unhesitatingly take my stand upon
the experimental science of the chemist.

24. The Newtonian-Copernican theory presents

difficulties, so far insoluble, which have accumulated since
the days of Laplace, Newton's successor. Discrepancies
between observed phenomena and Newtonian theory—for
instance the phenomenon of repulsion in place of attraction
in the case of the tails of comets when those bodies
approach and recede from the sun—present problems which
now at length have produced an undercurrent of skepticism
among the theorists themselves. Prof. Henry A. Rowland of
Johns Hopkins University takes Newton's law of gravitation
(popularly supposed to be the one theory of the scientist
which has been infallibly demonstrated if no other has) and
shows that, on the contrary, it remains mere hypothesis,
unsusceptible of demonstration. He remarks that the so-
called "proofs" of Newton's law are all erected from
premises in which the law is assumed without proof, and
therefore do not demonstrate it. "Thus, a proof of the law,"
he says, "from planetary down to terrestrial distances is
physically impossible." (In his address as President of the
Physical Society of America, delivered October 28, 1899,
and printed in the American Journal of Science, for
December, 1899.) In nature, we find phenomena which can
in no wise be referred to Newton's law of gravitation—
phenomena due, in fact, to an energy diametrically opposed
to such gravitation, being repulsive instead of attractive.
Newton's hypothesis that every particle of matter in the
universe attracts and is attracted by every other particle has
45
no place in nature, and already a vague unrest is apparent
against it and begins to produce an attitude of doubt toward
all Copernican-Newtonian theories. Newton himself once
said of the gravity idea: "It is to me so great an absurdity,
that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
(Newton's third letter to Bently, cited in the Annual Report
of the Smithsonian Institution for 1876.) But later Newton
embraced that same great absurdity that he had denounced
in 1693, in his prime. Thus, Newton in his old age lost the
competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. And
what a commentary upon all his devoted followers since,
whose faculty of thinking in philosophical matters has been
so incompetent that they, too, have fallen into the same
great absurdity!

25. Comets do not comply with the Copernican-

Newtonian system. They have no uniform direction, as the
planets have. They as often move in an opposite direction.
They never stand still or move backwards like the planets
do, but unchangeably keep the same course. The great
comet of 1858 was seen 269 days, and was not retrograding
or going backwards for a time. But this must needs have
been the case, if the Copernican theory were correct. For
46
they claim that the planets are retrograding because the
earth moves about the sun. The fact that comets never
retrograde is, as also Tycho pointed out, an indisputable
argument against the Copernican hypothesis. So, undeniable
is this fact that the theorists have not even tried to refute it.

Even their "higher calculation" which so often helped

them out, in this case was quite impotent. Baffled by these
wanderers of the sky, the Copernican writer Joseph
Hamilton exclaims: "The comet cannot belong to our
system." (Other Worlds. 1903, p. 104.) But that does not
remove the difficulty! — Further, the sun is not the centre
of their orbits. Comets do not obey his laws. They are
largely independent of his attraction. They rush almost
close to the sun, and break away again into space. If ever
they come back, it is not in obedience to the sun's attraction.
The law of attraction is not universal as Newtonians claim.
There is more variety in the universe than their philosophy
has dreamed of. The fault with too many scientific men of
today is that they sometimes generalize too quickly.
47
 26. The Copernican assertion that the earth, revolving
in a year around the sun, is kept in its course by the force of
the sun's attraction, contradicts most positively the laws of
gravitation. According to the Newtonian theory, every
molecule of the earth's mass attracts and is attracted by
every molecule of the sun's mass. Thus, the earth and sun
should always present the same faces toward one another,
as if a network of taut wires connected all their molecules;
for the direction of gravity with each body must be
perpendicular to the point from which the gravity of a larger
body works upon it.

Similarly, the direction of gravity of our earth should

be constantly toward the sun, on the supposition that there
is an attraction working from that orb upon it. Yet this is not
the case, for if the earth moves in an orbit around the sun,
the direction of its gravity necessarily must be changing
each moment. What power could cause this constant
change? The astronomers and philosophers will have some
trouble in naming a force so powerful as originally to have
inaugurated, and since to have maintained, a revolution of a
mass of molecules which must needs continually overcome
48
the gravitational pull of each molecule toward the sun. But
while the Newtonian theory leaves us in the dark, the
Biblical system avoids the difficulty attendant upon a
postulate of the translation of the earth through space.

27. An orbit of the earth around the sun, together

with a rotation on its own axis in twenty-four hours, is an
impossibility. On June 21st, the earth is said to be
diametrically opposed to the position it occupies on
December 21st, having moved halfway round the sun. Now,
the Copernicans say: "Each position of the earth's axis is
parallel to all the other three." As the poles maintain their
parallelism—the south pole pointing to the sun in winter
and the north pointing to the sun at midsummer—the effects
produced from these causes must be exactly opposite to
each other. In other words: a diagram of the reputed orbit of
the earth combined with the parallelism of the poles shows
the sun almost as far to the north of us in the summer as it is
to the south in winter; and that is where we should see it if
the theory evolved by the Copernican system were correct.
This is the Scylla which the Copernicans cannot avoid.
Further, the revolution of the earth is inconsistent with the
theory of tangential impulse. If we turn to some Newtonian
text-book upon the subject we find, that impulse is
supposed to have been given to the earth in the direction of
a tangent, in a straight line. They say: "This original
impulse was imparted to it when it began its orbital
motion." But if this were true, the earth's axis could not be
parallel in all four positions. On the contrary, one and the
same end would always point away from the sun. But if this
were the case (as it must be according to the laws of
motion) how will the Copernicans account for the change of
seasons? This is the Charybdis which threatens with
shipwreck every Copernican theorist. The Biblical system is
49
not at a loss to account for the four seasons. But the
Copernicans must contradict a law of nature to account for
them.

For it is a well-known law that each rotating body

which moves from its place receives the direction of its
movement from the kind of its rotation, and vice versa, the
direction of its rotation from the direction of its movement.
If the earth rotates toward the east, it must also move to the
east. But while the earth is said to rotate always to the east,
from September 22 to June 21 it revolves around the sun in
quite varying directions, the combination of the two
movements thus becoming utterly absurd! If a body rotates
in an eastern direction, it must also move to that direction.
And if at the same time another force acts, enforcing
another movement, perhaps to the west, then the one of the
two forces which is the stronger must neutralize the other.
What would follow in the case of the earth? It always would
show the same face to the sun, as the moon does to the
earth. It is a remarkable fact that this is also the case of both
Mercury and Venus, whose revolution about the sun is a
matter of ocular telescopic demonstration.
50
 28. Everyone knows that the laws of Kepler and the
hypothesis of Newton, with the mathematical solutions
developed by Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Adams and
Leverrier, are all in explanation of the mechanism which
would result from a fixed sun, holding in equilibrium about
himself planets moving in elliptical orbits which practically
re-enter themselves with every revolution of the respective
planets. But observations which have been carefully
registered for many years show that the fixed stars, so-
called, seem gradually moving apart in one part of the
heavens, while in the opposite part they seem gradually to
be coming together. On the Copernican postulate, this
indicates a swift movement of our solar system toward the
part of the heaven where the stars appear to be moving
apart. Prof. Newcomb estimates the velocity of this motion
at ten miles per second. Mr. Fison thinks it is between
twelve and eighteen miles per second ("Recent Advances in
Astronomy," London, p. 47.) The orbital velocity assigned
to the earth during her annual revolution about the sun, on
the Newtonian-Copernican hypothesis of a fixed sun, is
about nineteen miles per second. In addition to this motion,
and to her daily rotation, we are now to credit her with a
forward velocity through space which is one-half her orbital
velocity, or more. In the case of the moon, this translation
through space is to be taken into account, together with the
moon's velocity in her own orbit about the earth, and her
much greater velocity in moving with the earth in the orbital
revolution about the sun. We see at once that by this
supposition Kepler's ellipses are completely swept away. It
means the complete collapse of nearly all the current
estimates of astronomy. And it also means, as Gen. de
Peyster has correctly said, "The contradiction of
observations." (The Earth Stands Fast, New York, 1900 p.
66.) If the earth not only speeds around the sun in an orbit
51
of about six hundred millions of miles, and with the sun
through space at a rate of ten miles per second or more, then
really it requires a little care to realize the quandary and
perplexity in which the modern astronomer is placed.

But does it not seem the height of absurdity to apply

to the mechanism of a system, whose controlling sun is
conducting his planetary satellites swiftly through space, the
explanations framed for a system whose controlling sun was
considered practically fixed in space, holding his satellites
in elliptical orbits, one outside the other, about himself as
their common centre? But if the laws of Kepler are quite
false, representing appearances but not facts, and if New-
ton's law is out of the question as applicable to the actual
plan of the universe, must we not then reject them? The
Bible plan avoids all those difficulties arising from a
postulate of the translation of the solar system through
space, and it renders a rational explanation in the premises.
Should not then, all astronomers accept it and thus restore
that confidence in the Bible which they as a class have
labored so zealously to destroy?
52
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them
in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
~ Genesis 1:16:17, King James Version

29. Copernicans say that the moon moves slower

when nearer to the sun, because then it is more attracted by
the sun. But of the earth they say that it moves faster when
nearer to the sun, because then it is more attracted by the
sun. Thus, the stronger attraction retards the motion of the
moon, but accelerates that of the earth. And to reverse,
when the sun is more distant and his attraction less, does the
moon move faster, but the earth more slowly? Do you
understand it? But Laplace informs us: "Though the results
seem to contradict each other, yet they suffice to show that
the sun's attraction of earth and moon is the only true cause
of these irregularities." That certainly means 'bringing into
captivity' our reason. Yet, that sacrifice must be brought,
53
because the theory of Newton must be defended under all
circumstances. The above reminds us of a sentence in
"Popular Astronomy" (XIII, p. 171): "The law of attraction
and repulsion of matter is the reverse of the theory of
Newton." That Newton's law of gravitation is only
approximately correct, has been evidenced from Newton's
time to the present. The moon is the only celestial body
whose distance can be measured by means of a base line
drawn on the earth's surface. Hence if discrepancy between
theory and observation is found in the case of the moon,
where our observations are the most exact possible, it
requires a strong bias in favor of theory to inspire
confidence in the apparent harmony between theory and
observation in the case of more remote bodies.

30. But the moon does not afford all the

discrepancies. The three celestial bodies, whose respective
distances from us make them the most competent, after the
moon, to bear witness, namely Mars, Venus and Mercury,
are the very ones which also disclose discrepancies, while
our own earth likewise fails to respond to theory in certain
respects. Great faith is required of those who in the face of
such facts still esteem Newton's formula to be the exact
mathematical expression of a great natural force! Prof.
Asaph Hall, the well-known American astronomer, also
concedes the inability to account for all the observed
phenomena on the basis of Newtonian hypothesis. When
Laplace died in 1827, it was thought by many that nothing
remained to be done. But the passing years have changed all
that. We are tempted to apply to Laplace one of his own
mottoes: "Time destroys the fictions of opinion, and
confirms the decisions of nature." Time, in fact, which tests
all things so severely, has shown that many of the results of
theoretical astronomy are erroneous. For instance, "The
54
major axis of the planet Mercury is moving faster than it
ought from the action of the known forces. In this case, it is
very certain there is no defect in the theory, and we are
obliged to search for a force that can produce this motion."
(Hall, in Popular Astronomy, May, 1897.)

31. The fact that Newton's law evidently expresses

the equations of the solar mechanism with approximate
accuracy is the reason given by Prof. Newcomb and most
others for still believing that the postulate of universal
attraction cannot be fundamentally false. But there is an
explanation which reconciles every fact in the case. We
must remember that Newton had Kepler's empirical laws
before him —laws deduced from the well-nigh daily
observations of Tycho Brahe, which had been carried on
with remarkable accuracy through many years, and
therefore gave a close approximation to a true mathematical
statement of the planetary motions about the sun.

32. The old Ptolemaic system had the epicycles, or

curves like those made by a point in the rim of a forward
running wheel, to explain the retrograde movement of the
planets. But Proctor, the greatest Copernican writer of the
last century, informs us: "The great astronomer Kepler
55
found in the seemingly capricious motions of the planet
Mars the means of abolishing at once and for ever the
cycles and epicycles, the centrics and eccentrics, in which
astronomers had so long put faith." (Our Place Among
Infinities, 1897, p. 186.)

For Kepler held that the motions of all planets

around the sun are ellipses. But time had its revenge. Soon
astronomers taught, as we have seen, that the sun, too, was
moving. Herschel gave him a velocity of 20,000 miles an
hour. Now astronomers make it over 300 millions of miles
in a year. As soon as the sun himself was seen to move in
space, those dreamed of ellipses were totally swept away.
They were no longer ellipses, but instead a number of long-
stretched epicycloids. And "if the elliptical orbits be
crushed out of shape by further modern theories, the
underlying and overlying (also ever lying) theory of
gravitation must go with them." (Albert Smith, Kepler's
Laws of Motion.) The Copernicans were in no small
dilemma. For do they not now have the epicycles in their
56
own system which so often and so vigorously they had
denounced? How must they feel when reading the words of
their goliath Proctor that the 'great astronomer' Kepler has
'at once and for ever' abolished the epicycles? How did he
manage it? Still, in a certain way Kepler was right, namely,
in as much as the earth does not move in epicycles. And she
neither moves in ellipses or any other orbits, to be sure. But
have the Copernican writers made it plain to the general
public that the earth no longer moves in ellipses? An
examination of treatises rather exhibits a studious avoidance
of frankness here. Time and again they speak of Kepler as
having given us "a proper conception of the solar system
and the motions of the planets," and of the laws of Kepler as
being "established" (Science History of the Universe, New
York, 1909, vol. 1, pp. 76. 78) though they must know that
Kepler's 'conception' does not in the least agree with
modern research. Why do Copernicans so often and
repeatedly use that authoritative language? They try to hide
their own weakness by the claim of authority and
infallibility. Prof. Pearson characterizes this weakness and
deficiency in his well-known "Grammar of Science" in the
following frank expression: "The obscurity which envelops
the principia of science is not only due to an historical
evolution marked by the authority of great names, but to the
fact that science, as long as it had to carry on a difficult
warfare with metaphysics and dogma, like a skillful general
conceived it best to hide its own deficient organization.
There can be small doubt, however, that this deficient
organization will not only in time be perceived by the
enemy, but that it has already had a very discouraging
influence both on scientific recruits and on intelligent
laymen. Anything more hopelessly illogical than the
statements with regard to force and matter current in
elementary text-books of science, it is difficult to imagine."
57
 NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and
spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun,
spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous
670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an
alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of
670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at
simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of
these motions to exist whatsoever.

33. The Copernican theory of the earth's motion is

against the nature of the earth itself, because the earth is
cold and indisposed to motion. Already by Polacco, Tycho,
and Dr. Schoepffer and many others this has been pointed
out. This argument has also widely been admitted by the
Copernicans themselves in the case of the sun, arguing that
the sun himself is a dark body with only a photosphere
around him. This hypothesis they embraced to strengthen
their heliocentric theory. But when by the aid of the
spectroscope it was shown that the sun and stars are
glowing, gaseous bodies, and when further it became
58
apparent to astronomers that they are moving through space
with an enormous velocity, they needs dropped that
argument.

34. But while the earth must needs be immovable in

virtue of its cold nature, modern scientific investigations
have made it clear that sun and stars are heated, fiery,
electrical bodies. It therefore must appear very natural to
us that they should move very swiftly. It is the nature of heat
to produce light, chemical action, electricity, magnetism,
and mechanical motion.

35. Do you question, how it is possible for the

heavenly bodies to fly round the earth in twenty-four hours
to compass their daily courses? Is it not hard to conceive a
speed so enormous? In our times this objection is without
force. In our days such great velocity is very plausible. Tell
a country lad, in a place where there is yet no railroad, that
we can make a mile in one minute, and he will think this
utterly impossible. And yet we know that light and
electricity travel over 186,000 miles a second. Therefore,
that argument is rendered void. The celestial bodies having
59
the nature of light and electricity are splendidly fitted to
have such swift velocity as to finish their course around the
earth in twenty-four hours.—But are not the stars too far
away? There is not a vestige of truth in these distances. The
entire calculations of the distances and sizes of the stars are
reduced to nothing as soon as we look upon the earth as
stationary.

36. The earth does not move round the sun each year,
since no parallax or change of position on the starry sky is
perceptible. Already the illustrious Tycho de Brahe, the
father of our modern practical astronomy, the 'Prince of
Astronomers' as he is called by the celebrated Bessel, urged
this argument against the Copernican theory. He said if the
earth were speeding north, the stars would go south, and
vice versa. But lo, the stars never change their positions.
According to the Copernican theory, on December 21 the
earth stands 185 millions of miles away from the point
where it stood on June 21, while yet a star which you have
seen through the telescope culminating on December 21,

60
you will see through the same telescope on June 21
culminating on the same spot of the firmament.

When so many millions of miles away, we do not

notice anything. Besides the sun, too, is rapidly speeding
through space, and the earth again must follow. That
increases the rate of our earth's speed to over 100,000 miles
per hour. But no changes whatever in the stars above us!
We are 5,000 millions of miles away from the place where
we were 4,000 years ago, and yet Job saw the stars in the
very same places where we see them to-day! Says Prof.
Newcomb: "To the oldest Assyrian priests Lyra looked
much as it does to us to-day. Among the bright and well-
known stars Arcturus has the most rapid apparent motion,
yet Job himself would not to-day see that its position had
changed." No change of position among the stars! Indeed,
the mechanism of the Copernican theory is an
incomprehensible absurdity. "No star has yet been found for
which this great orbit diameter of 185 millions of miles
subtends an angle greater than about one second of arc."
(Prof. Harold of Columbia University in The New
International Encyclopedia, New York, vol. 2, p. 143f.) For
this reason, men of intellect like Sir Francis Bacon,
Shakespeare, Milton, and a vast cloud of others rejected the
Copernican postulate, projected by the imagination. The
Copernican astronomers point to the great distances of the
61
stars, because they need such fabulous and inconceivable
distances to prop their system. They are a requisite of their
doctrine; but they are only a popular delusion and
hallucination. They exist only in the brains of Copernican
astronomers and of the unthinking folk and become void as
soon as we return to the belief in the stability of the earth.

37. In 1675, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer

discovered that light has not always the same, but a varying
velocity, which he measured by the eclipses of the moons of
the planet Jupiter. At certain times, it was observed that
these moons became dark. And after these regularly
occurring eclipses were once recorded, it was easy to
predict them for any time in the future. This was done. But
now it happened that they always were behind the predicted
time—sometimes up to sixteen minutes. Only one came
regularly at a certain time. To Roemer now came an idea
which made every Copernican shout with joy, namely—he
pronounced that difference to be due to the annual
revolution of the earth. Because the earth, he said, is 185
millions of miles farther away after half a year, it takes a
longer time for the light to reach us from the Jupiter moon.
The Copernicans are very proud of this argument. But it,
too, may be viewed from another side. For we may assume
just as well that the difference is brought about by the
epicyclical motion of the planet Jupiter instead of that of the
earth. The epicycles, at regular intervals, bring Jupiter
nearer to the earth and again carry him away. Or that
difference may have yet other causes. By the way; Roemer
used the diameter of the earth's annual orbit for a base-line
in his calculation; but as this diameter constantly varies, the
result that light travels 186,000 miles in a second, must be
also uncertain, even from the Copernican stand-point. If,
however, the annual revolution of the earth is an illusion,
62
Ole Roemer's entire calculation falls to the ground. The
great Italian astronomer Cassini never admitted it.
Fontenelle declared it to be "a seductive error." (Draper, p.
173.)

38. Another Copernican argument faces us. Proctor

writes in the British Encyclopedia: "When Bradley
observed the phenomena of aberration, the evidences of the
earth's annual revolution were rendered equally
convincing." This is the pet argument of the theoretic
astronomers. They feel a thrill of ecstasy when it is
mentioned. Prof. Ball calls it "the beautiful phenomenon of
the aberration of light." Dr. White calls it "Bradley's
exquisite demonstration of the Copernican theory." This
wonderful discovery helped the Copernicans out of the rut.
Chamber's Encyclopedia even says that Bradley's theory
"furnishes the only direct and conclusive proof we have of
the earth's annual motion. - (Article 'Astronomy,' p. 799.)
So here we have the 'proof' with which the Copernican
system stands and falls. It must therefore be hard for the
63
Copernicans if this—as they themselves admit—only direct
and conclusive proof of the earth's annual motion should
fall. What, then, is that new day discovery? The thing is
this. The English astronomer Bradley, it is claimed,
discovered an annual motion of the stars. But because this
motion contradicted an annual course of the earth around
the sun, he said that we see the stars three months late, as it
takes that long for their light to come to us. Thence the
word 'aberration.' Notice, that also this supposition is based
on the Copernican dream of an enormous distance of the
stars! For were it not so, then the observation of Bradley
proves the contrary and is a strong argument against the
Copernican system, yea entirely overthrows it in case the
assertion in Chamber's Encyclopedia is correct that it is
their only direct and conclusive proof. But since the
inconceivable distances are but absurd assumptions and
conjectures, must not a theory built upon these premises be
a ridiculous guesswork and fallacy built upon a foundation
of sand? As Dr. Woodhouse, a late professor of astronomy
at Cambridge, England, confessed: "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 proof of its own accuracy."
(Earth Review, January, 1893.) But besides this, what can
force us to accept for this phenomenon as the only possible
explanation a movement of the earth under the stars? May
there not be other causes for that motion, for instance a
motion of the stars themselves, caused by that great
electrical body, the sun, or who knows by what other
causes? For there are more things in the world than our
human philosophy imagines.—But Bradley continued his
observations and found—yet another circular motion of the
stars which takes place in a little over eighteen years. This
was attributed to a rotation or motion of the earth's axis. But
64
why again must the earth be it? May not that motion—if
really it does exist—be caused by something else, say by an
electrical vortex among the stars, or by the sun's spiral
movement from north to south, and again backward, or by
many other causes yet unknown to us? And such
assumption is taken for a proof, yea the only direct and
conclusive proof for the earth's annual motion? How, then,
can they say, that Bradley's theory is an "exquisite
demonstration of the Copernican theory"?

Does not that Copernican theory thus appear to be a

hoax and a swindle just as much as that ancient mythical
speculation brought from India to Europe by Pythagoras
(hundreds of years before Christ), which Copernicus
revived? The heathenish philosopher Niketas of Syracuse,
and Aristarch of Samos (who was born 267 before Christ),
likewise entertained the Copernican view.

39. Another striking testimony in favor of the Biblical

plan is given by the spectroscope, which indicates
incandescent (white or glowing with heat) metals as the
chief constituents of the stars. This is precisely what our
present knowledge of electricity would lead us to expect.
65
Carbon is perhaps the most economical conductor of high
resistance. The incandescent electric lights of commerce are
obtained by raising to a white heat a thin strip of carbon
arranged between the poles of a voltaic battery which
generates a strong current. Carbon poles are used in the
production of the arc-light. This is a striking analogy of the
stars.

He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their

names. - Psalms 147:4, King James Version

This explains to us why the stars disclose no disks

when observed through the telescope. On this basis of a
grand electrical plant we can also account in a rational way
for the extinction of the light of some stars, to reappear
again in a short period—a fact which on the basis of the
current Copernican theory (according to which the stars are
very large bodies) cannot be explained, a fact which
66
induced the Copernican Prof. Langley to exclaim, "It is
surely an amazing fact that suns as large or larger than our
sun should seem to dwindle almost to extinction, and regain
their light within a few days or even hours; yet the fact has
long been known, while the cause has remained a mystery!"
(The New Astronomy, 1880, p. 227.) But while the
Copernican astronomer stands before this fact amazed and
perplexed as before a mystery, it is, on the other hand, very
plain according to the Biblical view and modern science.
For according to these the stars may be only at a relative
short distance from us and yet fully serve their purpose.
With the analogy of the incandescent electric light before
us, we can dismiss the immense sizes and distances which
the Copernican hypothesis compels us to assign to the stars.

40. The most rational astronomical plan is that which

embraces the observed relations most comprehensively and
explains them most simply, on the basis of the mechanics of
nature known to us on the earth, requiring the least amount
of inventions. The Biblical plan, explained on the electro-
magnetic basis, has a remarkable advantage over the other
in point of simplicity and ability to explain more of the
phenomena in the universe. William B. Taylor (Annual
Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1876)
demonstrates that not an iota of progress has been made in
two centuries toward an explanation of gravitation as a
kinetic force. To conceive of gravitation as an active force
lands us in all sorts of contradictions. But to think of work
being done by a passive force is perhaps even more
ridiculous. Hence Mr. Taylor declares that all that is left to
us is to conceive of an "occult" force of universal attraction!
In other words, this devoted disciple of Newton, in his
treatise on gravitation, comes to the conclusion that all
devout Copernicans must dethrone their reason and must
67
accept an "occult" force which repels when it should most
powerfully attract, and attracts when it is most free to fly
apart. This is the conclusion of what is probably the most
profound and comprehensive investigation of this problem
ever undertaken. But while gravitation cannot even account
for the relations between the members of the solar system,
and for the phenomena of falling bodies, electro-magnetism
not only accounts for both, but enables us to recognize that
the same force which holds the orbs together supplies light,
heat, actinic energy, and electrical energy throughout the
system.

We must prefer these known forces which are known

to produce both attractive and repulsive phenomena,
together with the Biblical system, which is demonstrable on
this basis without dethroning the human reason in the
process. The Biblical plan has a great advantage in
simplicity and credibility in virtue of explaining the entire
physical universe as one closely-related and orderly system;
whereas the Copernican hypothesis represents the solar
system as isolated, in independence of the rest of the
physical universe, with the suggestion of many other
independent systems. For this reason, the esteemed
astronomer Bandes has well said of the Biblical system: "It
68
has more truth in itself—nay, the different phenomena may
be demonstrated very easily with it."

41. The moment we are forced to 'conclude that the

most minute variations of climatic and other conditions on
the earth are results of the radiation from sun, moon,
planets, and stars, that moment it becomes most rational to
assign to these bodies a function of special service to the
earth such as the first chapter of the Bible teaches. The
special office of the sun, moon, and stars is to minister to
the earth.

These celestial bodies were ordained to divide

between the day and the night, for signs, and for seasons,
and for days and for years, and to be for light-bearers in the
firmament or expanse of the heavens to give light "on the
earth." Again, we have the very definite statement that God
set them in the expanse of the heavens, "to give light on the
earth," and to rule during the day and during the night, and
to divide between the light and the darkness. (Genesis 1, 14-
18.) It is the view of the entire Holy Writ that the earth is
the central body of the universe, that it stands fast, and that
69
sun, moon, and stars are but ministering to it. And is this
astronomical scheme of Scripture crude and primitive? So,
one would imagine from the cheap learning everywhere
abounding which sweeps the Bible aside, with a
magnificent flourish of intellectual superiority over
Christian faith, on the ground that its fallibility is fully
exposed in its astronomy! But what is the fact? All practical
astronomers are compelled to admit that the system implied
in Scripture accounts for all the observed phenomena more
competently than does the Copernican hypothesis. Even the
late Prof. Proctor, who was perhaps the most dogmatic
champion of Newtonian-Copernican orthodoxy among
astronomers of standing, as well as the most virulent in
applying it to discredit the Bible, wrote in the Encycl.
Britannica (vol. 2, p. 777): "All the observed movements,
and all the peculiarities of the observed relations were fully
explained by this system," meaning the system of Tycho
Brahe which is essentially that of the Bible.

70
 42. Scripture speaks of the phenomenal appearance of
the daily revolution of the sun and stars in a way which
implies the reality of their daily motion about the earth.
Psalm 19, 1-6: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and
the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not
heard. Their direction is gone out through all the earth, and
their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a
tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out
of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the
heat thereof." The psalmist here speaks of the swift motion
of the sun. That this is a typical speech pointing to Christ
and to the quick extension of his kingdom, is expressly
stated in the New Testament Rom. 10, 18. Christ is here in
the nineteenth psalm compared to the sun. And which is the
point of comparison? The swift motion of the sun. The
meaning is: as the sun moves around the whole earth with a
remarkable speed, thus also Christ, the Sun of
Righteousness, runs a speedy race bringing to all
inhabitants of the earth the joyful tidings: "God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." (John 3, 16.) "His word runneth very swiftly." (Psalm
147, 15.) But now we must carefully note that the point of
comparison in the Old Testament types is always taken from
the reality. Thus, the saving of the eight souls by water was
a type of the saving of souls in baptism. The slaying of the
lamb was a type of the suffering and death of Christ. The
looking at the serpent of brass that was put upon a pole, was
a type of the faithful looking upon the crucified Christ as
the only Savior. The high priest Aaron was a type of the
71
great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God. We see that the
point of comparison is never something only imagined, but
is always taken from the reality of things. The object-lesson
to be taught by the type is always found in a real fact. Just
so here. The point of comparison is the fact that the sun
runs so swiftly. Thus, Christ runs very swiftly with the
gospel of our salvation to all the inhabitants of the earth.
The Bible here treats the phenomenal, or apparent,
movement of the sun as the actual movement of that body.
In all instances of Scriptural references to the heavenly
bodies or the earth, as physical types of moral truths, the
object-lesson is ever found in the phenomenal appearance
of things, Scripture citing the phenomenal appearance as the
physical fact. All Biblical references to astronomical facts
are undeviatingly consistent in implying a certain
astronomical system and no other. Any person left to gather
his astronomical ideas from the Bible alone would
necessarily imbibe a belief in this particular scheme.

43. Psalm 74, 16 we read: "The day is thine, the night

also is thine." And which is the natural cause of day and
night? Is it caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis in
twenty-four hours? This passage has no reference to that
Copernican hypothesis. Asaph, who wrote this psalm
inspired by the Holy Ghost, believed that day and night are
caused by the daily revolution of the heavenly bodies, for
he says, "The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hart
prepared the light and the sun." Ponder the wording!
Should not remarkable contrast in this sentence induce all
believers in the Bible to earnest thinking and research
before accepting some contrary philosophy? Luther
remarks: "The sun causes daytime not so much in virtue of
his splendor and light as in virtue of his motion by which he
moves from east to west rising again after twenty-four
72
hours and making another day." (Erl. lat. I, 56.) Another
such remarkable contrast we find Ecclesiastes 1, 4. 5, where
Solomon, the wisest of all men, says: "The earth stands
forever; but the sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and
hasteth to his place where he arose."

These words are clear and unmistakable. Is it possible to

harmonize this plain Bible statement with the Copernican
assumptions, that the earth is flying around the sun at an
enormous rate, causing the surface of the earth to move a
thousand miles an hour at the equator, in order to give us
day and night? Every candid person must admit the
impossibility of harmonizing the teaching of the Bible with
the teaching of the Copernicans. What should be done in
73
such a case? Call for facts. The Bible, the evidence of our
senses, and all known facts declare that the sun moves, thus
causing day and night, summer and winter. The Bible, the
evidence of our senses, and all known facts also declare that
the earth is at rest and "stands forever." Can the
Copernicans gainsay or deny this? Listen to the honest and
noble confession of Dr. Woodhouse, the well-informed
professor of Cambridge University, England: "When we
consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary position
can account for and explain the celestial phenomena as
accurately, to their own thinking, as we can to ours, in
addition to which they have the evidence of the senses, and
Scripture and facts in their favor, which we have not, it is
not without a show of reason that they maintain the
superiority of their system. Whereas, we must be content, at
present, to take for granted the truth of the hypothesis of the
earth's motion, for one thing. We shall never, indeed, arrive
at a time when we shall be able to pronounce it absolutely
proved to be true. The nature of the subject excludes such a
possibility. . . We are 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 proof of its own accuracy! Startling as this
announcement may appear, it is nevertheless true." (The
Earth Magazine, London, No. 65, p. 9.) This frank
admission from a distinguished Copernican astronomer
should be noted. And I could here cite a score of scientists
whose names are known the world over, who admit that for
Newton's law and the Copernican hypothesis they have no
proof worth mentioning. We have the evidence of our
senses, and Scripture and facts in our favor, which they
have not.

74
 44. The Bible is the infallible truth also in natural
things, therefore also these must be accepted as important
and significant. Dr. Stoeckhardt is correct in saying: "In
fact, there are no insignificant, small, things in Scripture
which were of no importance to faith. We often hear it said
that the Bible is no text-book for the natural sciences,
history of the world, geography, etc., but a book which
teaches religion and tells about God and divine things. That
is correct. But from it never follows that the natural,
historical, and geographical references in the Bible may not
be looked at as competent and altogether trustworthy; no,
everything in the Bible, also the natural, historical, and
geographical references have, even because the Bible is a
religious book, a relation to God, Christ, faith and life of the
Christians. Everything in the Bible—also what seems to be
trivial, small, and unimportant—is profitable to us for
doctrine." (In an article "The Bible the Infallible Word of
God," Lutheraner, 1892, No. 20.)

45. The Bible never speaks according to the erroneous

conceptions of men. When the Copernicans were confronted
by the authority of Scripture which declares that the sun
75
moves and the earth stands fast, they answered, Scripture
speaks according to the erroneous conception of the people.
But this opinion is false and a blasphemy against God, who
is the divine author of the Bible. If the Bible would err in
secular and earthly matters, how could it be our guide in
matters eternal and spiritual? Says Prof. L. W. Dorn: "It is
absolutely impossible that a passage of Scripture should
intend or endorse false conceptions. The doctrine of the
Lord is perfect, says the psalmist. Thy word is truth, says
our Lord and Master Christ himself. What God has inspired,
that is correct, that is true, may it concern the way of
salvation in a restricted sense, or other things which the
Lord has spoken as truth in the Scriptures. What God speaks
through the holy men, always complies with the facts, the
real condition.

If, therefore, it should be the case that that, which we

perceive with our senses, or which we know by our reason,
were contrary to the Word of God, we must not follow our
senses and our reason, but trust in the Scriptures that they
are right. God is omniscient; he knows all things. In nature,
in history, in all branches of human knowledge he is
acquainted with everything a thousand times better than the
76
wisest of men on earth. God cannot err. Our eyes may
deceive us, our ears may deceive us, all our senses may
deceive us. The reason of the wise and learned on earth
often wanders on peculiar and wrong roads, but God's Word
never deceives us. The true, correct, meaning of a Bible-
word never leads us to false, erroneous, conceptions. The
Bible is always right in all things. It tells the truth about all
things of which it records something, for its words are
words of the Holy Ghost." (Syn. Report, Tex., 1910, p. 68f.)
The Christian who takes Scripture as an infallible guide, is
able to take forth the precious from the vile, and to detect
unchristian hypotheses and deductions. The necessity for
some such touchstone is great in our days.

46. The intended meaning of the Holy Ghost is but

one—the literal sense. "The real and original meaning of
any passage is the one which the Holy Ghost intended and
which is given by the original meaning of the words
themselves." (J. Gerhard, de interpret., §133.) "The literal
sense of every passage is only one. Were there more literal
meanings of a passage, the Holy Scriptures would be
altogether dark; for to mean not one only, is equal to mean
nothing certain. What is spoken in a manifold sense, is
ambiguous. But to say this of Holy Scripture, is wrong."
(Aug. Pfeiffer, Thesaurhermen, cap. III, p. 140.) True, many
words of the astronomers are uncertain and erroneous. But
"we have a more sure word." 2 Pet. 1, 19. "Thy word is a
lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Psalm 119,
105. "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the
eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the
judgments of the Lord are truth and righteous altogether."
Psalm 19, 8. 9. — Dr. Graebner: "Nor is the meaning of
those words a variable quantity. The signification of these
77
signs was determined when the signs were given by
inspiration of God, and while these signs are what they are,
the signification is the same to-day and will be the same
forever. Of two or more different interpretations all may be
wrong, but one only can be right, and what the text is
thereby understood to say is true, being what God would
have us know and hold, because thus saith the Lord."
(Fundamentals of Interpretation, Quarterly, 1897, p. 434.)
"The literal sense of one and the same passage is only one.
For in every language and in every kind of speech it is a
custom that the author intends to indicate only one meaning
by the same words which stand in one and the same context,
unless he (the author) speaks with the intention to deceive."
(Baier, Comp. II, §43.)—"Holy Scripture cannot have a
manifold meaning, or it is ambiguous. Only a deceiver
ascribes to Holy Scripture a manifold meaning. God's Word
has only one meaning, although the things otherwise can
signify a thousand different things.

The Reformed Church claims that the words 'eat' and

'drink' in the Lord's Supper have a twofold meaning. They
78
mean: we receive only bread and wine, and again: we
receive the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual way. The
Papists have invented a fourfold meaning, and the modern
theologians claim Scripture to have a manifold sense. But
there is no comfort in this for a Christian, as he must always
be in doubt which is the intended meaning of the Holy
Ghost. . . It is not in the power of man to decide if a passage
is to be understood in the real, literal sense, or not. We must
not deviate from the literal sense of a word or sentence,
unless Scripture itself urges us to do so." (Syn. Report,
North, 1867, p. 40. 43.)

79
 47. The Bible must be explained by itself. We must
accept the words of the Bible as they stand there in their
plain, real, literal meaning, unless the Bible itself makes it
necessary to deviate from that meaning. Such necessity
would be if the verbal meaning were against the context or
against other passages of Holy Writ. No necessity to leave
the plain meaning would be if one urges the human reason
and common sense or the sole possibility. As from the
probability of a thing never rightly can be concluded its
reality, thus it is wrong to say that we must leave the plain,
real, meaning of the words because they may have a
figurative meaning. Luther: "I have often said that he who
will study the Holy Scriptures, must take great care to
accept with all diligence the plain words and never deviate
therefrom, unless he be urged by an article of faith to
understand the words otherwise than they read. Because
God speaks, it does not behoove you frivolously to turn his
word as you will, unless necessity urges you to understand a
text otherwise than the words read, namely, when faith does
not allow such meaning as the words give." (Sermon on
Genesis.) We insult the Holy Ghost, the divine author of the
Bible, if we carry into it the explanations and thoughts of
our own human reason or the so-called facts of Copernican
philosophy. Only he is lead by the Holy Ghost and honors
God who accepts the plain speech and words of the Holy
Ghost. Prof. R. Lange: "Never are the divine sayings by
divine weakness and frailty, as it were, mixed with any
error which human sagacity and human wisdom must
remove, as if man were to correct a divine mistake.
Everything which is carried into the words of God by a
human explanation, intended to correct and improve the
same, actually changes the divine word and the divine
meaning which is implied in that divine form. Such change
tears down the divine character and the divine origin of the
80
word; it abolishes God's Word and puts man's word in its
place." (Lehre und Wehre, Foreword, 1880.) The Bible is
very able to explain itself. There is no clearer book on earth.
The best human book as compared with the Bible is only
like a candle light before the glorious rays of the sun. How,
then, is it possible that some find in Scripture a different
meaning than the plain words involve? Answer: these are
plain words and passages, indeed, but passages and words
"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (twist, by
inserting a false meaning), as they do also the other
Scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Pet. 3. 16.
"Whoever has grammar in the highest meaning for himself
and no other clear Scripture against himself, he has the
correct understanding of a passage on his side." (Prof. E.
Pardieck, Lehre und Wehre, 1914, p. 344.)—"We must
unwaveringly adhere to the words of Scripture as they,
certainly in their context, stand there and read, even if the
whole world, our own self included, should talk against it.

81
 Therefore, Luther at Marburg wrote the words This is
my body with chalk before himself on the table. As soon as
we drop the verbal meaning of Scripture, thinking we must
do away with 'contradictions,' we are lost and put our own
opinion, or the opinion of our party, in place of the
Scriptures." (Dr. F. Pieper, Ibid., p. 254.)—The only safe
course is to have a simple faith in God's Word. It is the
Word of God, of which it still holds good that heaven and
earth shall pass away, but that God's Word shall not pass
away. God's Word is as firm and immovable as God
Himself. Oh, the foolish Christian who bases his faith upon
the fallible human reason! Nor should the foundation of our
faith be reason in some places and God's Word in other
places, nor God's Word squared with the corrupt reason of
man, but His Word alone and always, in its plain, simple,
and definite statements. This ought to be the position of
every true Christian.

48. When Scripture speaks according to the external

appearance, or in a figurative sense, this becomes clear by
the context or other passages. Thus, the phantom or
apparition before King Saul (1 Samuel 28) is distinctly
called Samuel, because Samuel was wanted, and Samuel it
was supposed to be, and Samuel it appeared to be. But that
it was not Samuel, Scripture itself indicates; for we read 1
Chron. 10, 13. 14: "So Saul died for his transgression which
he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the
Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one
that had a familiar spirit (literally: asking counsel of a
familiar spirit—a Python) to enquire of it; and enquired not
of the Lord: therefore, he slew him, and turned the kingdom
unto David, the son of Jesse." Under the name of
conversing with the dead, Saul held intercourse with
Satan—and not with God through Samuel. For the latter,
82
Saul would never have been slain, nor would Samuel ever
be called a familiar spirit, a demon.—Also the passage Joel
2, 31: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon
into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord
come."

83
 This turning into blood is called a wonder (Hebrew
mophet) in verse 30: "And I will show wonders in the
heavens and in the earth, blood" etc. The very same
expression 'wonder' is used where it is said of the waters of
the River Nile that they were turned to blood. And in both
places, too, the 'turning into' blood is called in the original
text: haphach. (Exodus 7, 9. 20.) Does not this clearly show
that in both places a real 'wonder' is meant? How, then, can
it be said by some that the prophet Joel speaks only
'optice'—according to the external appearance? How can
there arise any difficulty if we accept the literal, real,
meaning as the text, context and other passages give it?
Also the learned Dr. Pocock accepted this passage in the
literal sense and held that "before the last judgment there
will be wonders indeed in heaven and earth, the dissolution
of both without a metaphor."—Further, when it is said
Psalm 2, 8 that "the utter most parts of the earth" are given
to Christ for his possession, and Psalm 22, 27 that "all the
ends of the world" shall turn unto him, we clearly see it
must be a figurative speech, as Scripture itself indicates that
Christ has redeemed the people for his possession and that
these shall be converted unto him.

84
 Thus, we see that by the expression "ends of the
world" a great multitude of people is meant.—Or, when we
are told in Revelation 7, 1 of "the four corners of the earth,"
we see from the connection of these with the four winds,
and from the information that someone is 'holding' them,
namely, the four winds, that it must be a figurative speech.
The four cardinal points are meant. The verse reads: "And
after these things I saw four angels on the four corners of
the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind
should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
tree."—A similar passage is Job 38, 13: "That it might take
hold of the ends (wings) of the earth, that the wicked might
be shaken out of it." By the expression 'shake out,' Scripture
indicates that the word 'ends' must be taken in a figurative
sense.—But when in the Sacrament the Lord says: "This is
my body," "this cup is the new testament in my blood," we
nowhere in the whole Bible find a hint that this also is
unreal or figurative speech. The same must be said of the
many passages which speak of the earth as resting and of
the heavenly bodies as moving. Nowhere in the whole Bible
we find any contrary passages or anything which could
indicate a figurative sense, or hint to a different meaning, of
those passages. We truly can say of all those many
passages: "This is the plain meaning, which also is in
keeping with other passages of Scripture." (Apol. of the
Augsburg Confession, 159.) "What do the foolish people
expect? Do they think that Scripture repeats the same thing
in clear words so often without due reason? Do they think
that the Holy Ghost does not express his word with
certainty and carefulness, or does not know what he says?"
(Ibid., Article of Justification.) Must we not, therefore, take
all those passages in the literal, or real, sense? Were it
possible that God meant the contrary to what the words
indicate? Then, who could trust him any longer in any of his
85
words? Thus, for instance, when the Holy Ghost Joshua 10,
13 says: "The sun stood still," did he mean: "The earth
stood still"? To interpret Scripture this way is blaspheming
the Holy Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of truth and
conviction, and who never deceives us. Rightly our fathers
have said: "By such interpretation (of the Joshua passage) a
dangerous rule of exegesis is established which may make
all Scripture uncertain." (Syn. Report, East, 1868, p. 18.)

And why should we not accept the literal meaning of

those passages? Because of the Copernicans? Let Dr.
Walther answer. He says: "It has been shown that the
gentlemen admitted in clear words that they absolutely have
no evidence and no certainty for their system, that they
themselves do not believe in it and only demand of the
uninitiated faith in their infallibility." (Lutheraner 29, p.
103.) Shall we not rather ascribe such infallibility to
Scripture? Here you have a touchstone whereby you can
86
test your position regarding the doctrine of inspiration,
which is one of the most vital questions in the Lutheran
Church. All Scripture contains the view that the earth has a
central position in the universe and that the heavenly bodies
(created later) are only ministering to it. Must you not
accept this testimony of your God? Is it not dangerous,
indeed, to let the trustworthiness of your Bible depend on
the shifting views of human science? "For we know in part,
and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is
come, then that which is in part shall be done away." 1 Cor.
13, 9. 10.

49. Luther: "They should know that one word of God

is all, and all are one." If the Bible is false in one, it is false
in all. This is a just and logical saying. "If the Bible errs in
astronomy, geology, physics, chronology, etc., then you can
also in theological questions believe in it only so far as you
have from other sources convinced yourself of the
correctness of its statements." (Prof. Bente, L. & W., 1904,
p. 87.) If the Copernican system is correct, then Genesis is a
myth. Is Scripture which has enlightened the world for
thousands of years now to be eclipsed by a science which
has erred so often and is altogether fallacious in so many
things? Much, indeed, is at stake. Satan is bold. A false
principle of an immense import is practiced, namely: "They
falsify Scripture by totally ignoring words that do not suit
them, or by discarding the right and obvious meaning and
sense and by inserting a different meaning." (Dr.
Stoeckhardt, L. & W., 1905, p. 8.) Let us be true
philosophers and not blindly follow the teachings of either
old or modern astronomers and their many wild
assumptions—but let us ever follow the truth! The
conjectures of the astronomers of today are, for the most
part, preposterous conceptions which read very much like
87
stories from Laputa—conceptions which do not lie in front
nor behind the telescope or spectroscope, which are neither
written in the starry sky nor anywhere on earth, but which
can only be found in Dreamland. "There is no steadfastness
in their mouth." Psalm 5, 9. However, "let every man be
fully assured in his own mind." Rom. 14, 5. We must be
fully persuaded and convinced. Will the dreams and
assumptions of modern astronomers give us that
conviction? Of Kepler's laws of motion the American
author, Edgar Allan Poe, said: "These vital laws Kepler
guessed—that is to say, he imagined them." (Cameo
Edition, 1904, vol. IX, p. 19.) Will Kepler's 'imagined' so-
called 'laws' make us fully assured? Indeed, not! That can
give us little comfort and assurance. “A Christian
conscience cannot come to rest before it is in full harmony
with the Scriptures in everything it believes—believes for
the reason that Scripture says so. The sooner the rag of
speculation tears from the garment, the better. It may
otherwise become very dangerous in the hour of death. The
devil may whisper to me: What is right for one clear word
of Scripture, is right as well for the other. Have you treated
a clear passage from Scripture as if it did not exist for you
in Scripture, how is it, that you trust in words like: The
blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from all
sin?" (Dr. F. Pieper, L. & W., 1905, p. 16.) Luther:
"Nothing is more blessed than conviction, and nothing is
more wretched and nearer to hell than uncertainty." (7 Cal.
26.) "Good consciences cry after truth and the right
instruction from the Word of God, and to them death is not
so bitter, than bitter it is to them to be in doubt about
something." (Apol. of Augsb. Conf.) Let us, then, not be
wavering. "For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed." James 1, 6. Let none of us
teach, hold fast, advocate or defend the Copernican system
88
with a wavering conscience not fully assured.—May the
following testimony prompt our assurance. The Bible Ex-
planation of Dr. Wilischen, 1742, comments on Joshua 10,
13: "We can impossibly explain and understand these words
differently without open injury to the divine truth. The Holy
Ghost narrates such miracle in two verses with the same
Hebrew words. How should we expect this Spirit of Truth,
who guides us into all truth (John 16, 13), to speak
otherwise than he means? How should we believe that he
puts his speech according to the false conception of the
common people? If we admit this error which is greatly
unfavorable to the divine honor and the essential veracity of
God, it will be said of many more other passages of
Scripture that the Holy Ghost only speaks according to the
feeble conception of men and their foolish opinion, but not
according to the essence and real being of a thing. Here we
urge not so much the antiquity of this opinion (though in
Holy Writ it was taught and confirmed long enough),
namely, that the whole large globe of the world with land
and water stands immovable according to the arrangement
and preservation of its all-wise Creator; the sun and moon,
however, have their prescribed orbits, real rising and
setting. The system of Copernicans has as many difficulties
as that of the ancient Ptolemy and that of Tycho de Brahe
which here cannot be shown at length. Enough! We adhere
to the clear words of Holy Writ, urge also other plain
passages which otherwise from the Copernican stand-point
must, in fact, be very much abused and explained against
the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Against this may our dear
Lord Jesus, who is the Truth Himself (John 14, 6), protect
us!"—Bettex spoke well, when he said: "The Magna Charta
of a Christian is the Word of God explained by itself." And
likewise the illustrious Lutheran dogmatician John Gerhard,
who said: "They dishonor the Word of God by saying that it
89
accommodates itself to the human opinions." "In a word,
there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any
considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this
only, I have reason to believe; this I will profess; according
to this I will live; and for this, if there be occasion, I will not
only willingly, but even gladly lose my life, though I should
be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me
anything out of this Book, and require whether I believe it
or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human
reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing
no demonstration can be stronger than this: God hath said
so, therefore it is true."—Works of Wm. Chillingworth, M.
A., Oxford University Press, 1838, Vol. II, pages 410. 411.

50. By the Copernican system credulity and

superstition are enthroned and unbelief and infidelity
invited and encouraged. The well-known Dr. Valentine
Ernest Loescher said: "No sooner was the very uncertain
90
doctrine brought up that the sun is at rest and our globe
revolves around him, than the contempt of Holy Writ and
infidelity notably increased. On the other hand, vanity was
rampant, and the desire to accept and circulate absurd
opinions." (His Life, by Engelhardt, 1856, p. 283.) The
celebrated Dr. Walther wrote: "As is well known, the
modern astronomers or stargazers claim that by the
Copernican system (according to which the earth moves
round the sun) the Bible—according to which the sun
moves round the earth—is completely refuted and
overthrown. And yet these gentlemen demand that the
Christians now should believe just as much in the
Copernican system as before they did in the Bible.

For they say that he who is no professional

astronomer, has no right to judge their teaching; and
therefore, it were a great shame that yet there are people
who, though not experts in astronomy like themselves, do
not believe everything they say. By these edicts and bulls of
the would-be infallible astronomical popes the worldlings,
indeed, are now generally frightened; not to come under the
ban of the stargazers, and to be recognized as enlightened
they, in blind credulity, repeat everything that those
'infallible' popes tell them. They patiently admit that they
understand nothing about astronomy, and therefore cannot
91
judge in this question; but if they want to be counted for
wise, they must close their eyes and have a strong faith. But
with the Christians it is different. However strong their faith
may be in the word of their God, they are very slow in
accepting opinions of men. Here they must be convinced by
indisputable arguments, or they will not believe." (Luth.
1873, p. 103.) Astronomy has driven God from heaven—
such is the last word of modern rationalism, such the latest
utterance of that science that has arrayed itself against the
Bible. "Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton
came—and when their work was done the old theological
conception of the universe was gone. These five men had
given a new divine revelation to the world." (Dr. Andrew
White, Warfare, I, 15.) "The New Astronomy came—and
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." (Lucifer, Dec. 23,
1887.)—So the real question is not one of astronomy, but of
God, faith, and salvation. "The foundations are destroyed."
Psalm 11, 3. True, there are many Copernicans who do not
embrace the extreme Copernicanism with its arrogant
unbelief; but also with them this is a question of the greatest
importance, because the authority of Scripture is at stake
even with them. This was clearly seen by Prof. Lindemann,
Sen., of the Teacher's College at Addison, Ill., and there-
fore he emphasized it in the beginning of his booklet against
the Copernican system, saying: "Because the truth of Holy
Scripture is at stake, therefore the above question is to me
of paramount importance." Already Luther has clearly seen
it. But he was not frightened by the Goliath of modern
astronomy. When he heard of Copernicus who died three
years before him, Luther said: "That fool would turn the
whole art of astronomy. But, as Holy Writ indicates, Joshua
told the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Erl. 62, 319.)
92
And again, he says: "The Word of God must not be
mocked. I am caught, cannot come out; the text is too
powerful. Therefore, I say: clean and clear, believe all or
believe nothing!" So near to the four-hundredth anniversary
of Reformation-Day, let it be our motto: Back to Luther!
Let us take him for our model also in this question
concerning Copernicus. Luther called him a fool. And must
not the same be said of the Copernicans of to-day?
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Rom. 1, 22. Must not every Christian—like Luther—reject
Copernicanism on scriptural grounds? We have seen, not
one proof can be brought to uphold the Copernican system.
But must we not mainly reject it, because it is against the
Bible? It is, indeed, the solemn duty of every Christian to
do so; for, what are we profited, if we defend the walls of
the Church, but leave the gate wide open, through which the
whole modern anti-biblical topsy-turvy error with all its
superstition, vanity, unbelief, and boastfulness crept in! So
let us leave the Copernican tomfoolery, and be it our battle-
cry: Back to Luther! Was not that learned Altorfian
professor right who said: "The nearer to Luther, the better
theologian"? He certainly was.

So, "Back to Luther!" I am calling

To the stragglers of the herd.
Follow, or you will be falling—
Deviating from the Word.
Build the prophet's tomb by giving attention
To his word without restrain;
Hold to Scripture with a firm apprehension—
Thus will Luther's fame remain.

93
 Epilogue

Right or wrong, some adhere to that which is

popularly taught under the sanction of high-sounding titles;
and though they may proudly reject revelation, they seem to
suppose that 'science' is infallible! This attitude shuts out all
calm and earnest investigation for truth, and leaves the mind
a prey to the delusions of a cleverly concocted scheme.

Many know that there is no proof for the Copernican

hypothesis, but they are blinded by the cry: "It is accepted
throughout the civilized world!" (Dr. Carl Pierson, "The
Grammar of Science," 1892.) The most common objection
raised against the Biblical system is the general agreement
of the learned. But voices must be weighed, not counted.

Goethe, the most wonderful intellect of the

nineteenth century, says: "Be it as it may, it must be laid
down that I curse the accursed lumber-room of this modern
conception, and certainly some young, ingenious man will
94
arise who has the courage to oppose this universal, crazy
nonsense. The repeated assurance which all natural
philosophers have had in this same conviction is the most
outrageous thing you can hear. He, however, who knows
men, knows how this happens. Good, able, keen brains
make up such an opinion on the basis of probability; they
assemble proselytes and disciples; such a mass gains
literary power; one magnifies the opinion, exaggerates it,
and carries it out with a certain passionate excitement;
hundreds and hundreds of well-thinking normal men, who
are active in other branches and also wish to see lively
working in their surroundings, honored and respected—
what can they do better and wiser than to give these ample
scope, and to consent to what is not their business? And this
is then called general agreement of scholars!"

The following words of Alfred Russel Wallace (a

champion of modern astronomy) are worthy of being
remembered: "Official advocacy, whether in medicine, law
or science, is never to be accepted till the other side of the
case has been heard." (Man's Place in the Universe.)

And which is the result that "the other side" has

found after a conscientious investigation of the pending
documents? Which is the result? Here it is:

"Our result is: the Copernican system is not at all

proven. All exertions of science cannot make the Biblical
view of the relation between the bodies of the universe in
the least doubtful; on the contrary, what has been found,
only helps to confirm the fact that Scripture is the truth also
in such questions, and that also there it never accommodates
itself to the erroneous conceptions of men." (Lehre and
Wehre, St. Louis, 1898, p. 334.)
95
 If the above reasons enable even a single soul to
throw off the shackles of mere superstitious reverence for
the Copernican dogma, and of blind subserviency to a
scientific priestcraft which abuses its authority most
shamefully, the consequence for good may be incalculable.
Released from the humiliating despotic thralldom, our soul
can soar up and sing: "The proud waters had gone over our
soul. Blessed be the Lord, who hath not given us as a prey
to their teeth. Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare
of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped."
Psalm 124.

96
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
BIBEL UND ASTRONOMIE
Proof that not a single one of about sixty verses, in which
the earth is said to stand still, and the sun and all stars are
said to move, may be interpreted in such a way, as if really
the reverse were the case. In German. 410 pages, 8°, 1906.
Good muslin binding. About twenty illustrations. $1.00
post-paid. Order from: Rev. F. E. Pasche, Morris, Minn.

"Der Bekenner": The author stands on a strictly Anti-

Copernican standpoint. Undoubtedly, he has searched and
worked diligently, and his expositions are interesting and
convincing. "Rundschau": Pres. A. F. Breihan has favorably
recom-mended this book in a foreword.

"Kirchenbote fuer Australien": We bring this nicely

appareled book to your notice with the firm conviction that
by its publication a great, highly to be appreciated, service
has been rendered to all. The author is well known among
us as a devoted student of Scripture and natural history by
his book "Christliche Weltanschauung." (I have no more
copies of this first book. Author.) The contents of this new
book are very rich, and every part is interesting and
fascinating. The whole has a genuine Lutheran character.
We wish for the book the widest circulation.

"Haus und Land": We admire the arduous diligence of

Rev. Pasche. The book contains a whole library. Whoever is
interested in the subject—and who should not be interested
in it—can very likely find in no library of America an
equally fascinating, copious, and instructive work on this
theme which must highly interest every thinking man.
97
"Lutherische Botschafter," Oakland, Cal.: Two extremely
interesting books! However, the author does not intend to
bring something new and interesting, but to emphasize that
we Christians can and should keenly believe in the clear
words of Holy Writ even then, when it speaks certain things
about the origin of the world or about astronomy—the
movements of the heavenly bodies, and their relations
toward each other, in the orbits which God has prescribed
for them. To enable the reader to defeat the philosophers
with their own weapons, who contradict Holy Writ by
proclaiming their own opinions in cosmogony and
astronomy as truth, the author furnishes him with numerous
citations from the writings of these men, and at the same
time shows how unscriptural, foolish, and untenable their
propositions are. By the attentive reading of these books our
faith in the verbal inspiration of Holy Writ cannot fail to be
strengthened—our faith, founded on the Word of God
which says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."
"And the scripture cannot be broken." "Which things also
we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."-We, therefore,
recommend to our readers (also especially to our young
people in their societies) the reading of these books. To
make a wide circulation possible for both books, the author
offers them at a very reasonable price.

98
"Immanuels-Bote," Grand Rapids, Mich.: Perhaps also
some of our dear congregation members have been attracted
by the "Illustrated Lectures" in astronomy as also by some
articles in the papers. Now, such inconceivable fables may
be quite interesting for the pleasure-seeking children of this
world, but a Christian must be painfully touched by seeing
his dear Bible publicly and boldly struck in the face, and the
God of Israel defied. Now a booklet has been published
which bravely encounters this scoffing goliath of modern
science, and battles him successfully with his own weapons,
and especially with the sword of the Spirit, which is the
word of God. This booklet is: Bibel and Astronomie.

99
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
works of thine hands: - Hebrews 1:10, KJV

100