mersed, and pedo-baptists are not; therefore, there is no conscience in relation to the command, nor obedience to it except among the Baptists. These things are said, adds Mr. S. " in a spirit of brotherly kindness." Should a second edition of his book be demanded by the public, we sincerely hope that he will add to his brotherly kindness, CHARITY!

ARTICLE IX.

ASTRONOMICAL VIEWS OF THE ANCIENTS.

By Professor TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., University of New York.

No. II.

[Concluded from' page '316.]

THE doctrine of the earth's sphericity was, of course, accompanied by the belief in the existence of antipodes, or, at least, of antipodal regions, whether regarded as inhabited by men, or wild beasts, or monsters of the deep; for the determination of these latter points belonged more properly to practical geography, than to any astronomical theory of the earth's figure. The word antipodes, avizodes, does not occur in Aristotle's Treatise De Coelo, although he uses other terms evidently implying the same thing. It may be found, however, in Plutarch, and in Strabo's description of India, lib. xv. c. 1.; where he also speaks of the Brachmans holding the same opinions about the world's sphericity, &c., as are maintained by the Greeks. Περὶ πολλῶν δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ὁμοδοξεῖν,—ὅτι γὰρ γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ φθαρτὸς λέγειν κακενίους, καὶ ὅτι agaiçoeids. "For they say that the world is generated, (or produced in time,) and perishable, as likewise that it is spherical; in the middle of which is situated the earth"-yỹ d' ¿v μéoợ idovrai tov лaviós-and, of course, corresponding to it in form, according to that conception of Hesiod to which we have previously adverted, page 309.

One of the most striking uses of the word &rtinovs, may be found in the Timæus of Plato, 63 a. Lips. vii. 63, where the philosopher had been reasoning about the true nature and meaning of up and down. "When anything," he says, "is of a similar nature on all sides, or in every direction, how could one rightly apply to a perfectly similar relation, contrary names?" And then he makes the following supposition: "Should there be a solid body, such that every part of the whole tended equally towards the centre, (loonales) there would be no relation to or from any extreme part in one direction that did not equally exist in another; but should any one travel round it in a circle, (πορεύοιτό τις ἐν κύκλῳ) although often standing antipodal (in regard to previous positions)

(nolháxis av oràs artínovs) he would, nevertheless, everywhere speak of up and down in the same relation to himself."

Thus it will be seen that the common or vulgar objection has always been the same, and that it has always been met by the same common-sense answer of the sufficient or insufficient reason. If it were said, that bodies would fall from the earth's lower surface, the reply would be at once made by the queryTowards what would they fall ?Ποτ ποτ' οισθήσεται ? If not to the centre, why in one direction rather than in another? When once there is clearly held in the mind the idea of such a centre, it is directly seen that up and down are terms that have no meaning, except in relation to it. This is the answer given by Aristotle, showing that he perfectly understood the whole philosophy of antipodes, and rendering idle and hopeless any attempts to excuse the absurd and blundering ignorance of Swedenborg respecting his opinions. The best possible explanation of the common difficulty would be found in his own language. wards the centre," says he, "we call down, and from the centre towards the extremities or superficies is up."-De Coelo, iv. 1. 4. And from this he proceeds to explain our conceptions of gravity; "since by the term heavy, or weight, we mean only the tendency to the centre, and by light the contrary"-tò μẻv ảñò tov μέσov φερόμενον ἄνω λέγω φέρεσθαι, κάτω δε, τὸ πρὸς τὸ μέσον—wherefore he says again: ἁπλῶς μὲν οὖν κουφον λέγομεν τὸ ἄνω φερόμενον καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἔσχατον—βαρὺ δὲ, τὸ ἁπλῶς κάτω, καὶ πρὸς τὸ μέσον.

"To

Pliny's reasoning is of the same kind-that is, he meets the common objection, not by any scientific interpositions of airs and fluids, as the school of Anaxagoras would have done had they held a similar theory, nor by any doctrine of attractions, such as with hardly any more meaning would be presented in some books of modern science, but by going directly to the sufficient reason, as exhibited in our ideas of the necessary relations involved in the terms up and down-these being regarded as ever having reference to a centre, and as having, in fact, no meaning, and implying no direction, without it. Ingens hie pugna literarum, contraque vulgi circumfundi terrae undique homines, conversique inter se pedibus stare, et cunctis similem esse coeli verticem, ac simili modo ex quacumque parte mediam calcari illo quaerente, cur non decidant contra siti: tanquam non ratio præsto sit, ut nos non decidere mirentur illi. Sed quid hoc refert alio miraculo exoriente? pendere ipsam, ac non cadere nobiscum, ceu spiritus vis mundo praesertim inclusi dubia sit: aut possit cadere, natura repugnante, et quo cadat, negante. "Here is the great controversy between the learned and the vulgar mind; the one maintaining that men are spread over all sides of the earth-that they stand with their feet turned towards each other-that to all there is a vertex of heaven above, presenting the same appearance,

and that, in a similar manner, from every part of the earth, the centre is directly under foot; whilst the other is ever asking, why then do not they fall off who are situated on the opposite side? as though the reasonable reply were not ever at hand, that our not falling off may be, perhaps, just as much a wonder to them. Yet what is the use of any explanation which only gives rise to another and another miracle (or inexplicable phenomenon), such as that it is suspended, and does not fall down with us, because there may be, as it were, some doubtful or obscure power of air or spirit enclosed within the mundus;' since it is enough for us to say, that nature herself is opposed to any notion of its falling, by denying that there is any one direction in which it should fall rather than in any other."

Pliny's expression here, natura repugnante, may appear to some not only very unphilosophical and very unscientific, but also very absurd. It would seem to have a resemblance to that old maxim, nature abhors a vacuum, which has so long been a theme of jest to the modern lecturer, and which furnishes so apposite an illustration of the mistakes that are often made in respect to the spirit of ancient science, that we cannot resist the temptation of briefly dwelling upon it as being somewhat kindred to our main subject. The maxim, and the anecdote by which it is set forth, are generally given with embellishments and variations. A pupil, it is commonly said, once inquired of one of the old philosophers, why water rose in the pump. Nature abhors a vacuum was the sage and scientific reply. But why then does it rise to the height. of thirty-three and a half feet only? Because nature abhors a vacuum to this extent of thirty-three and a half feet, but from that point her abhorrence proceeds no farther. Now this may all do very well for the purpose of pleasantly impressing on the minds of classes the scientific fact; yet, certainly, an injury is done to the intelligence of the student of far more consequence than any that is inflicted on the reputation of ancient science, if the impression is really conveyed, that Aristotle, and others who used language similar to this, are justly chargeable with the nonsense thus imputed to them. They were, it is true, ignorant of some of the scientific steps, a few more of which, and a very few indeed, have been so revealed as to enable us to proceed an inch or two further in the process of explanation. They saw indeed a few less links in the vast chain of which we yet, with all our science, see so very little. But this did not stand in the way of that à priori tendency of the ancient mind, which has been so much contemned because it has been so little understood. They reached forth at once to

The idea of the theory to which Pliny alludes, would seem to be, that some universal fluid, enclosed within the mundus, keeps the earth in its place, by pressing upon it equally on all sides; which would be in fact a theory of impulsion instead of attraction

that ultimatum of science which presented itself as legitimately to their limited, as to our more extended knowledge of facts. Overleaping all intermediate stages, which may be ever so numerous, they recognised directly the presence and pressure of that great physical power which binds and holds together the universe, and which is felt in the smallest as well as in the largest movements of nature. This, they maintained, allows of no xevov, or vacuum, which its energy did not reach, and penetrate, and pervade, however destitute that portion of space might be of other material powers or substances. We have taken a step here in advance of Aristotle, (although even this, if we may judge from some parts of his works, is rather doubtful,) in regarding the rise of the water as resulting from the weight or pressure of air as the proximate cause. But what, it may be asked, makes the weight and consequent pressure of the atmosphere? The attraction of gravitation, which, in plain Anglo-Saxon, is simply the drawing of weight, or in other words neither more nor less than what Aristotle defines as the tendency to the centre. But what makes the attraction of gravitation? A fluid, it is answered, pervading the system, and pressing inwardly on the sun and subordinate central points. But what produces motion in this fluid, and ever interrupts its tendency to quiescence and equilibrium? Another fluid, or the same fluid as its resistless flow comes pressing in from the immense ab extra spaces of the universe. Now what is this but getting round at last, to the old maxim, nature abhors a vacuum-she shudders at emptiness-she allows of no absolute rest. There is, moreover, no part of space in which she is not always energising. All matter is itself an energy, and so also everywhere, between all visible tangible matter, there is ever operating an unceasing energy. Every effect or power in one part of the universe, is producing some effect in every other; and this must be diffused everywhere in just proportion; otherwise disorder, anomaly or unevenness, (arouania) would ensue; or to use Aristotle's strange language, (Physic Ausc. IV. 9 5.) zúpavɛí ó oparós—the heaven, or outward

'The natural tendency not only of some of the old philosophical theories, but also of certain aspects of modern science, greatly favors the thought that nature in herself, and aside from all idea of the supernatural as a counteracting power, is a series of immense cyclical periods. If so, what is now a flow inward, may at some remote period reach its maximum, and thenceforth become an ebb, separating, dissolving, and dispersing into infinity what it now binds into systems and harmonious organizations. Nature, in herself, gives but little countenance to the doctrine of eternal progress. She sheds darkness instead of light over the moral destiny of man, and even in respect to the future physical prospects of the race, she is a veiling, an obvelation, rather than a revelation, as she has been so boastingly styled. Blessed are those who have a better light, and who, in respect to all the higher interests of our world and species, trust implicitly in the Holy Scriptures, as a lamp shining in a dark place.

bound of the great spherical kosmos, would swell out and wave like the rising and falling billows of the ocean.

But, to return from this wide digression, to our more immediate subject of the antipodes, we may express a doubt, whether, in regard to this matter, there is that great difference between the scientific and the untaught, which is generally imagined. With all the standing witticisms in respect to popular notions, and notwithstanding the fondness which some men of small science often manifest for magnifying what they would call the popular ignorance, we can hardly believe that any plain unscientific man of common sense ever found the least difficulty in the explanation, when once clearly presented to his mind. The stale anecdotes of rustic wonder, which form so prominent a topic with lecturing sciolists, and the stupid reasoning respecting the impossibility of hanging with the head downward, from which Swedenborg found it so difficult to drive even Aristotle himself, may be regarded as about on a par with the old tales, to which we have alluded, of the elephant, the serpent, and the tortoise.

We must, however, distinguish the doctrine of antipodal regions from the question, whether, or not, they were actually inhabited. In determining the latter point, other than astronomical reasons had place. According to the most common and popular histories of Columbus, the ecclesiastics who opposed him, are said to have denied the existence of antipodes on the authority of Saint Augustine. We have seen paintings of this kind, in which the bold navigator is represented, standing in the presence of Caiphas-looking men who scowl indignantly on his heretical doctrine, and, for his refutation, point in bigoted and priestly triumph to the open tome of this orthodox father. Now this is merely the way in which some writers and painters ever choose to represent science as persecuted by what they would style narrow-minded religious intolerance. Facts, however, would show, that when this feeling has in some degree existed, and even where it has displayed its darkest aspect, it has generally been called out, not so much by any dislike to discovery per se, according to the usual charge, as by the irreligious attitude which the pride of a little advance in knowledge has almost always generated. We do not think that this was the case with the devout discoverer of America; although the feeling has been most abundantly manifested since, by many among whom he is the standing theme of eulogy. In the case, however, of the famous Italian astronomer, an attentive examination of the facts, we think, will bring the candid mind to the conclusion, that the bigotry was not all on the side of the priests, intolerant as they may have been. Under all the meekness of the supposed martyr, there might be seen to lurk a feeling of satisfaction at the thought of being wiser than the records of our faith, and of the same nature with that which has, in more modern times,