work, but had hardly any effect upon him as regards matkos matical astronomy. The reader will find him doubtfully speak ing of the satellites of some of the planets, of the proportion of land and water on the globe, and the latitudes of one hundred and eight places derived from modern Uriá maps and other sources. In these he sees no reason for disbelieving what is actually observed. But where are the observed. proofs of the movements of the earth ? To controvert the theory of the movements, he has divided his arguments to the contrary into three classes. The movements are opposed to Sástric authority, to common sense, and to logical reasoning. To do him justice, I believe he would not hesitate a moment to modify his views, could he get the modern theory in all its details. He has thus rendered a service to us by compelling us to think. The same service was rendered by the heroic John Hampden who a few years ago essayed to prove that the world, instead of being a globe, was in reality as dat as * table. There is a tendency on the part of mankind, When it has established any doctrine, to assume that it cannot possibly be disputed, and so in time we even forget the argu- <ments by which the truth was established. There is thus a need for these exceptional, and more or less original hereties who challenge our accepted doctrines. But the peculiarity of his theory is that though the earth occupies the centre of the universe, the planets do not revolve round it. They revolve round the sun, and the sun taking all See V. 79 for possible satellites ; XI, 40 for phases of planets.; XVII, for foros of gravit#tíou, &o. Digitized by Google
