HAVING had, for many years, some doubts respecting the earth's annual revolution round the sun, the elevation of the poles con­tinually being the same to me hath been an insurmountable difficulty; and, notwithstand­ing the opinion of learned men, and their exact calculations as to the conjunctions and of the heavenly bodies, and the concurrence of persons of science of every age and country, I could not but conclude that there must be an error somewhere. I knew that all the works of God were perfect; I was also satisfied that as to knowledge all mankind were imperfect; therefore, seeing that all things are liable to error, and following the maxim—never to receive any thing as a truth from the authority of any one, with­out it carries its own evidence with it—if the matter be relating to nature, then, if reason supports it, I have the greatest obligation to re­ceive it as truth; if it be of a spiritual na­ture, [Page 2]then, if it hath the scriptures to confirm it, I have the authority of the scriptures to consider it as certain.—On these principles I set out to endeavour to come at the know­ledge of the true motions of the heavenly bo­dies and that of the earth also; and, after the most diligent search I have been able to make into the Copernican system, I cannot find any support it hath, in common sense, for the ex­actness of the planets, periods, &c. Every other proof it pretends to have is not sup­ported by reason, but clashes with it, as, I trust, will appear, from clear and evident demon­stration, in the ensuing work, to every dispas­sionate reader who will give himself the trouble properly to weigh them.

In order that I may be as concise as pos­sible, I shall begin with my own hypothesis, and contrast it with the other as I proceed. In the first place, I believe the centre of gravity to be fixed directly between the two poles; that all the matter, of which the globe, with its atmosphere, consists, gravitates to this centre, and that round it the earth hath its continual motion, and moves once round it axis in 23 hours 56′ and 4″: other motion than this, it appears, from the clearest evidence, it hath [Page 3]none.—Therefore, as the different seasons of the year are produced either by the motion of the sun or earth, I am persuaded, from the clearest proofs demonstrated from reason, that the sun doth really, as well as apparently, revolve round the earth; that the centre of the earth's gravity is likewise the centre of the sun's orbit; this orbit of the sun is exactly the same from the equinox as the supposed earth's orbit; in this orbit the sun moves 59′ 8″ every 24 hours; as the sun's motion is obliquely from west to east, and his daily progress being 59′ 8″, just 59′ 8″ doth the earth go more than once round her axis in 24 hours, which she performs, in 3′ 56″. These two motions, that is, the sun's annual and the earth's diurnal motions, account for the phenomena of nature respecting the signs in the zodiac, the sun's place, the precession of the equinoctial points, &c. with more cer­tainty than the Copernican system doth with the earth's supposed threefold motions. As to the motions of the planets, it appears they have the sun for their centre; so that, while they are revolving round the sun in their orbits, the sun is revolving round the earth in his orbit. The sun's orbit, or the ecliptic, being invariably fixed, the sun being the centre of [Page 4]the orbits of the planets, these are constantly varying as the sun is continual in his motion: therefore the sun in his orbit, and the planets in theirs, are always in the same position with the earth, now fixed as to annual motion, as they are when the sun is supposed to be fixed, and considered as the centre of the earth's orbit, as well as the planets; and thus each hypothesis answers exactly the same with re­spect to the times of the conjunction and op­position, &c. of the planets; as figure the first, I think, will clearly prove.

In order to explain this figure, that it may appear in the clearest point of view, I have drawn an equinoctial line from east to west, another, at right angles, from north to south, that is, as supposed, from pole to pole: where these lines intersect, I have described the earth, with the moon; on the equinoctial line, I have described the sun, with all the planets in their orbits; the earth is likewise in her supposed orbit, though I have described her between the poles. I then take the distance from the centre of the earth to the centre of the sun for a radius, and describe the orbit of the sun; I then, according to the Copernican system, suppose the earth to be in motion, de­parted from the equinox, and arrived at 90°, [Page]

[Page 5]the lower part of the orbit; then, at that in­stant, I suppose her to stand still; then I sup­pose the sun, moon, and all the planets, in the same position, as described by the black spots, according to the solar system; then I suppose the earth to be fixed, and the sun to move and to depart from the equinox at the same in­stant, and arrive at the 90° upward, or the upper part of the orbit, at the time the earth was supposed in the like situation; then will the sun be due south of the earth, and the moon and every planet be exactly in the same position in the one system as the other, which, I think, is a full proof that the Coper­nican system may be wrong; and, if it hath nothing else but the exact calculations of the periods of the conjunctions, oppositions, &c. of the heavenly bodies to support it, which, I think, appears demonstrably clear it hath not, it certainly is wrong.

I come now to give some undeniable cir­cumstances, that clearly prove that the sun is not the centre of the system, but that he moves round the earth.—First, The earth cannot move round the sun in an orbit of such vast extent, and have her poles always in the same direction to the poles in the heavens; for, if [Page 6]the north pole of the earth be directed to the same pole in the heavens, while she moves in her orbit her south pole must be directed to­ward the south-east, if she be in the east part of her orbit, but if in the west part, then to the south-west. This is supposing the sun to be fixed in a direct line between the poles: otherwise, if the sun be supposed to be fixed, the distance of the sun from the earth, on one side of a direct line, imagined to pass from pole, and the sun being on the west of that line, then, at the time the earth is in the east part of her orbit, her axis would be due north and south; but, when the earth is in the west part of her orbit, her axis, when pointing to the north pole in the heavens, the south pole of the earth, would be direct from the north pole, south-west and by south. But this last supposition is so vague and uncertain that I cannot think men of science, who consider what they say, will affirm it, though I have met with one who asserted that the sun was not in a direct line between the poles in the heavens. But let the sun be supposed to be fixed ac­cording to either, what I have said would be the case, which I prove thus: first, I sup­pose that though the poles of the heavens [Page 7]extend ad infinitum, I likewise conjecture that their influences both meet in the centre of the earth, and that there is a certain point of in­tersection, to which the eye is directed from the different meridians of the earth, which point of intersection is at the same distance from the earth as the sun is, which is a demonstration evidently clear; for, when the sun is in the equinox, to a person on the equator, behold­ing the sun in the horizon, his antipode, and two more, one under each pole, these four would behold the sun in the horizon at one and the same instant of time; likewise to four persons, one on each quarter of the equator, the poles will be in the horizon to each of them: therefore, as the person who is on the equator, if he travel north till he bring the pole in his zenith, every degree he travelled so much would the pole be elevated, till he brought the pole to his zenith; so likewise a person on the equator, when the sun is in the equinox, and he beholds the sun in the horizon, and remains till the sun is in his zenith, every degree the sun rises, so much is the sun ele­vated to him till it is in his zenith. Or, for a further illustration, suppose both the sun and the earth to be fixed, while the person on the equa­tor, [Page 8]who beholds the sun in the horizon, tra­vels east to bring the sun in his zenith, then every degree he travelled, so much would the sun be elevated, until he reached ninety de­grees, when the sun would be in his zenith. —From all which it appears, in the clearest manner, that the sun and poles in the heavens are at nearly the same distance from the earth.

Again, with respect to the motion of the sun; to a spectator on the equator, when the sun is in the equinox, and he beholds the sun in the horizon, if the poles were as visible as the sun, he and his antipode might behold the sun and both the poles in the horizon at the same time, at equal distance from them, the one north, the other east, the other south; consequently the sun must be at right angles with the poles, and so they continue all the day, and likewise all the year; for, though it appears more clear to our view while the sun is in the horizon, when we consider that the sun is always in that position to one part of the equator or other all the revolution, it will manifestly appear that he is at right angles with the poles all the year: when the sun is in the equinox, both legs of the angle are equal, but in his declination the legs of the [Page]

[Page 9]angle are unequal. For a more clear expla­nation see figure the second, where the earth is fixed between the poles, the circle repre­sents the horizon, the sun is shewn in the equinox, in both points of the heavens, and likewise in both tropics, the sun is supposed to revolve round the earth in a circle, whose di­mension is the same as that described for the horizon, and whose plan is according to the ecliptic that is shewn in the figure, and may be conceived to be perpendicular to the hori­zon; so that, when the sun is in the equinox, he will appear in the horizon as shewn in the figure; when in the tropic it appears the same as shewn in the figure to a person on the equa­tor, and in the intermediate part between the equinox, and the tropic; wherever the sun is in the ecliptic, that distance the sun is from the equinox, the same will he appear in the horizon. This figure plainly shews that the apparent mo­tion of the sun is not only the apparent, but the real, motion of the sun. Now to suppose the sun to be fixed, and the earth to move round the sun, is not only to invert nature, or turn things upside down, but inside out, forasmuch as the sun encircles the earth in his revolu­tions, and not the earth the sun. To sup­pose [Page 10]the earth to move round the sun, we must take the distance of the sun from the earth for a radius to describe the orbit of the earth; but where is the sun to be fixed for the centre, so that the whole of the revolution, the poles in the heavens, shall have always the same elevation, and the sun to be at right angles with the poles at all times? If the sun be supposed to be fixed between the poles, then the earth must be where I have marked the sun to be, and the sun where I have sup­posed the earth; if so, in what manner are we to frame our conceptions, so that the sun (which is, according to this supposition, in a direct line between the poles) may appear at right angles with the poles at all times: how is this to be reconciled to reason? The im­mense greater distance of the poles from the earth, than the sun is supposed to be, nor the parallelism of the earth's axis, in her supposed revolution, will not reconcile this contrariety in nature; because it is evident to clear de­monstration that the poles in the heavens, or these invisible points to which the eye is direct­ed to from the different parts of the earth, in a proper elevation, and looking direct north or south, according to which pole we are ob­serving; [Page 11]I say it is evident that these points in the heavens cannot be seen from the earth in one part of the earth's diurnal motion, though it may be in other parts, that is on the sup­position of the earth's annual revolution, and the parellelism of its axis. To demonstrate this, see figure the second, where the earth is represented in her supposed orbit, with her axis parallel to an imaginary line passing from pole to pole. Now if we suppose the axis of the earth always parallel in the whole of the revolution, the axis of course must form an ellipsis, though the orbit be an exact circle; and that because of the obliquity of the plane of the orbit, which is according to the ecliptic. As the earth is supposed to move round this orbit, it must be granted that one meridian of the earth or another is always directed to the centre of the orbit, or the imaginary line from pole to pole; of course the opposite meridians must be direct the contrary way; therefore two persons on the same parallel of latitude, but op­posite meridian, when these two men are view­ing the invisible point in the heavens their eyes or sight intersect at that point. Now foras­much as the axis of the earth is always parallel to the imaginary line from pole to pole, that [Page 12]point of intersection to which the observers are directed to, will be at the same distance from the poles as the earth is from the centre of her orbit: and, with respect to the consideration of the immense distance the poles are supposed to be from the earth, so far as that the orbit of the earth subtends no more than a point, I will grant that the observer who faces the line from pole to pole, or the centre of the orbit, may see the invisible point in the hea­vens; but the observer, whose back is towards the centre of the orbit, cannot see the same point in the heavens, no not if the poles are supposed to be so far from earth that her orbit would subtend but half a point; because the further his sight is carried beyond the point of intersection, so much the further from the object; but some may object and say,—‘Can­not I move my eye, and see the point where the pole is?’ I answer, No: a man cannot behold an object and look from it at the same instant; and, when a person beholds an object in the heavens, there is a disk around that ob­ject that is within the compass of the sight, therefore the object looked at is always the centre of that compass; for which reason the earth in her supposed orbit revolves round it. [Page 13]The one half of the globe of the earth must be within the orbit, the other half without; then that observer of the orbit on the outside, if his eye be directed to the opposite meridian where the other observer is, looks directly into the orbit; and the examiner, if he look to the opposite observer, sees directly out of the or­bit; but if they elevate their sight to the exact elevation of the pole, their sight will intersect at one point; and round this point each ob­server will behold a like compass of the heaven surround this point, and then it will not be exactly alike in the same part of the heavens, but in a measure opposite; therefore that person on the inside of the orbit, when endeavouring to view the pole from the earth, could not see the pole in the heavens, were the earth to move in the supposed orbit. This I presume is so clear, that no man under the influence of reason, however great and learned, can deny.

I shall now endeavour to prove that the third supposed motion of the earth, viz. the poles of the world, revolve round the poles of the ecliptic, which is supposed to account for the apparent motion of the equinoctial points, is groundless; neither can I conceive it to be consistent with truth: for if the earth's axis [Page 14]departs from its parallelism, and its equator move with its axis, and the ecliptic remain invariable, then of course the angle of the ecliptic from the equator must continually vary; and though it be but slowly, it will, though in a slow degree, alter the sun's de­clination. Neither can I conceive how the poles of the world are to revolve round the poles of the ecliptic without confusion. For if it be supposed that in the beginning both poles of the earth pointed to the poles in the heavens, and then began to revolve round the poles of the ecliptic, then, though the motion be slow, the angle of the earth's axis from the poles in the heavens would increase; for if one pole of the earth set off towards the east, the other must set off towards the west; and when the poles of the earth had gone half their revolution, then one would be east and the other west. Now if the ecliptic pole be the centre of the tract which the poles of the earth point out, then would the axis of the earth from an angle from the poles of the heavens of 47°. But if in their revolution they only point at the ecliptic poles, and take them in the tract as they point out, then the angle could not be less than 23° 30′; this [Page 15]would make the angle of the ecliptic from the equator 47°, or reduce it to nothing, for­asmuch as the ecliptic is invariable; but if it be supposed that the poles of the earth, in their revolution round those of the ecliptic, from the beginning were always opposite each other in their revolutions, and the ecliptic poles the centre of the tract they point out, then would the axis of the earth be always at an angle of 47°, from an imaginary line from pole to pole in the heavens;—each of these suppositions appear contrary to nature. I think the real cause of the apparent motion of the equinoctial points evidently appears to proceed from the sun's annual revolution and the earth's diurnal motion round her axis, and is simply thus: I suppose, as before, that the sun moves round the earth in his orbit, at the rate of 59′ 8″ in the space of 24 hours; just so many minutes and seconds does the earth move more than once round her axis in 24 hours: but as the earth's motion is from west to east directly, and the sun's but obliquely, so, therefore, tough the sun comes to the same point in the heavens exactly every revo­lution, he, on account of his oblique motion to the earth, gains on that of the earth some­thing [Page 16]every revolution, but in process of time will appear; for, though the sun comes to the same point in the equinox, exactly the same time every revolution, the same star will not appear in the horizon at the same instant of time as it did some years before, because the earth does not keep pace exactly with the sun in her rotations.

Now, as the equinoctial points have ap­parently moved since the time of Hipparchus 30°, and as he lived some time before the Christian aera, I suppose the difference of time between his observation, and those which were made when the difference of the equinoctial points was discovered to be 30°, near 1800 years; if so, then as 30° are 1800′, the sun comes to the same point in the equinox one minute in the year before the same meridian of the earth in her rotation arrives to the same star it was under the year before.—This, I think, is so clear, that, after a careful investi­gation, it cannot be denied by any person of learning, candour, and probity.

I have made several attempts to communi­cate my thoughts to men of science, hoping to meet with their concurrence, after a due exa­mination of the facts herein contained, but all [Page 17]without effect: therefore, being confident of the truth of my hypothesis, and also believing that no man is able, on just and reasonable grounds, to refute it, I take this method of publishing them, convinced that, from being exposed to the world, they may fall into the hands of some dispassionate readers, who will vouchsafe to contemplate and weigh my ar­guments; and if they find them agreeable to truth, will not despise them on account of the meanness of the publisher; nor be ashamed to become my advocates, because error hath so long prevailed, and does still prevail. From these considerations, I hope some of the learned will investigate my hypothesis, and from thence determine whether the time of the conjunctions, oppositions, &c. do or do not answer exactly the same as in the Copernican system. If they should prove the same, I think it will be a sufficient evidence that it is founded on truth, because so many contrarieties are removed, and harmony runs through the whole.

I am persuaded that my hyothesis, though it should prove to be according to truth upon the clearest evidence, will, notwithstanding all that can be said in its support, meet with great opposition. The different dispositions of men will cause them to oppose it from dif­ferent [Page 18]motives; some will condemn it on ac­count of the ability of its author, others from mere envy; and many who may see the truth of it, if they could by any means claim it as their own, would vehemently contend for it; if they could not claim it as their own by any means, they would oppose it. Of this last sort I have reason to think there may be many, having met with such treat­ment in another matter of a public nature, wherein I trusted to the honour of the party, being no ways suspicious of any one's taking the hint that I gave, and appropriating it to their own use. Had I been aware of such treatment, and so secured it to myself that no one could have deprived me of it, I am fully persuaded it would have met such opposition, that it would not have been put into execu­tion; however, it was and is a secret satisfac­tion that I was in any wise useful, though I lost the honour that was my due, and some pounds, in endeavouring to recover it.—Such was my reward!

I shall now endeavour to prove the truth of my hypothesis, by answering the reasons and de­monstrative proofs given in Middleton's Dic­tionary of Arts and Sciences to prove the solar system to be the only true system.

[Page 19]1st Reason. It is most simple and agree­able to the tenor of Nature in all her actions: for by the two motions of the earth all the phenomena of the heavens are resolved, which by other hypotheses are inexplicable, without a great number of other motions contrary to philosophical reasonings.

I answer, It is more simple and more agree­able to the tenor of Nature, in all her actions, to suppose that the sun moves round the earth, according to my hypothesis; because every ob­stacle is removed, and the whole phenomena of the heavens resolved agreeable to truth, with not so many motions by one, and exactly con­sonant with right reason.

2d Reason. It is more rational to suppose that the earth moves round the sun than that the huge bodies of the planets, and the stu­pendous body of the sun, and the immense firmament of stars, should move round the in­considerable bodies of the earth every twenty-four hours.

To this I answer, That, notwithstanding the hugeness of the planets, and the stupendous body of the sun, it evidently appears, that the planets do move round the sun, while the sun is moving round the inconsiderable [Page 20]body of the earth; therefore the exterior and interior planets do move round the earth as they are moving round the sun; and, agreeable to common understanding, as to the immense firmament of stars my hypothesis is not con­cerned.

3d Reason. But that harmony, which upon this supposition runs through the whole solar system, wonderfully confirms this hypothesis, viz. that the motions of all the planets, both primary and secondary, are governed and re­gulated by one and the same law; which is, that the squares of the periodical times of the primary planets are to each other as the cubes of their distances from the sun; and likewise the squares of the periodical times of the se­condaries of any primary are to each others as the cubes of their distance from that primary. Now the moon which, in the Copernican sys­tem, is a secondary of the earth, in other hy­potheses is a primary one, and so the rule can­not take place, because the periodical time, considered as of a primary one, does not agree therewith.

To this reason I answer, That the harmony that runs through my supposition appears much more perfect, and without confusion, which can­not [Page 21]be proved to be so in the Copernican system, though it be so frequently affirmed: and, how­ever the Ptolemaic system, or any other that hath appeared in the world, is proved to be absurd, this doth not prove the Copernican system to be exactly according to truth: for, though the Copernican system come so near the truth as to discover the true motion of all the heavenly bodies except one, and that the principal one, and mistaking it, and supposing the earth to move in his room; now, though to appearance it is true, because of the exact calculation of the eclipses, &c. yet, if every obstacle be not removed, there remains a doubt; and that every obstacle is not removed apears beyond contradiction. Now if the supposition of the earth's motion round the sun answer the same to suppose the sun to move round the earth, with respect to the conjunctions, &c. of the planets, one must be erroneous; and that the earth's motion is so, I shall make use of this same author's argu­ment which he used to prove the Copernican system to be the true system, where, speaking of the word system, he goes on thus: It is sufficient to say that we are assured things may (nay must) appear to be in many cases [Page 22]what they really are not; to have such affec­tions and properties as are absolutely contrary to what they really possess. Thus a person, sitting in the cabin of a ship under sail, will, by looking out of the cabin window, see the ap­parent motion of the houses and the trees, &c. on the strand the contrary way.—This argument is just suitable for me to return; just so it was with Pythagoras, and the rest of the great and learned among the ancients; they had got on board the ship Speculation; and she being moored in the sun, as they were in motion with him, they looked out at the cabin-win­dow and beheld the earth in apparent motion, which they thought was real, and to be mov­ing round the sun; had they come upon deck they would have been able to look round them; then probably they might have disco­vered the elevation of the poles; but being in the sun, and thinking the poles at such an amaz­ing distance, they might think it too trifling for their notice, and so leaped over it.—But as all the works of the great Creator of the universe are perfect, we should so con­sider them. Thus the ancients, having dis­covered the Ptolemaic system to be absurd, founded another not free from absurdity, [Page 23]though it hath been confirmed by the con­currence of the learned of all ages, since they have all sat in the same cabin, and looked out at the same window. As to the one and the same law, that governs and regulates the motions of the planets, I must confess that I do not understand it, neither do I believe any mor­tal ever did, or ever will, while in this mortal state; and it appears plain to me, that the author of these reasons was not acquainted per­fectly with the laws of nature, forasmuch as the sun does move round the earth as well as the moon, and still the moon is a secondary of the earth.

4th Reason. Again, this simple considera­tion Mr. Whiston thinks enough to establish the motion of the earth for ever, viz. if the earth do not move round the sun, the sun with the moon must move round the earth. Now the distance of the sun to that of the moon being as 10,000 to 46, and the moon's period being less than 28 days, the sun's pe­riod would be found no less than 242 years, whereas in fact it is but one year.

To which I answer. Mr. Whiston framed this reason from the beforementioned laws, with an endeavour to establish the earth's mo­tion; [Page 24]but I think it will appear, from due consideration, that Mr. Whiston has overset or broken the notion that men had of the laws that regulated the motions of the planets, &c. rather than established them; for I think, ac­cording to plain reason, it will appear that the earth is at the same distance from the sun as the sun is from the earth: therefore, if the earth move round the sun, the sun is the centre of the earth's orbit; but if the sun move round the earth, then the earth is the centre of the sun's orbit—the distance being the same, the orbit will be the same; so that the moon being called a primary, or a secon­dary, has nothing to do with the real mo­tions; for if the sun's period would require 242 years, so would the earth require the same, the proportional distance being equal: therefore, if in fact the earth be thought to move round the sun in one year, so I think it is clear that the sun moves round the earth in one year. This and the foregoing reason have no weight in the balance of truth: and I judge, on fair consideration, this oversight of Mr. Whiston turns out more for my hypo­thesis than against it.

[Page 25]5th Reason. The sun is the fountain of light and heat, which irradiates through all the system, and, therefore, it ought to be placed in the centre, so that the planets may at all times have it in an uniform and equal manner.

I answer, That, according to my hypothesis, the sun is the centre of the planets' orbits, and always at the same distance from the earth, so that the planets, and earth also, have the same benefit from the sun as shewn in the Copernican system.

6th Reason. For if the earth be in the centre, and the sun and planets revolve round it, the planets would then, like the comets, be scorched with heat when nearest the sun and frozen with cold in their aphelia or greatest distance, which is not to be supposed.

I answer, In my hypothesis, the earth, be­ing the centre of the sun's orbit, and the sun the centre of the planes' orbits, secures the planets from these inconveniences.

7th Reason. If the sun be placed in the centre of the system, we then have the rational hypothesis of the planets being all moved about the sun, by the universal law or power of gravity arising from his vast body, and every [Page 26]thing will answer to the laws of circular mo­tion and central force; but otherwise we are wholly in the dark, and know nothing of the laws and operations of Nature.

I answer, My hypothesis is more rational, because freed from all incumbrance. As to the universal law or power of gravity and central forces, as it may respect the motions of the planets round the sun, I have nothing to say against it, as it is above my conception; but that the earth is governed by such laws, would be saying more than can be proved; for, as no man can say what matter the heavenly bodies are composed of, it appears to me to be be­yond the reach of mortals to attain to the knowledge of the law that governs them. If I might be allowed the use of the word spiri­tual, to convey my ideas, (for I know not how else) and ask the question if the heavenly bodies be of a spiritual nature, whether the sun, notwithstanding his stupendous bulk, may not be less, ponderous than the earth, as bing of a different nature, seeing that the all-wise Creator hath made the sun to be the life of the whole creation; that the pure light or fire that proceeds from it fills the whole created space, which, though infinite, nothing [Page 27]is hid from the heat, and that it penetrates even to the centre of the earth; therefore, as by ex­periment it is proved that lead, tin, or regulus of antimony, being exposed to the fire of a burning glass, though they lose much in smoke and steam, are nevertheless found to be considerably increased in weight; from which it appears, that the light which proceeds from the sun comes on the earth with great force; and if the earth was moving round the sun this force would continually remove the earth fur­ther from him. But in answer to this it may be said, this may be the centrifugal force; but then where is the law or power of gravity that arises from his vast body? To talk of centri­petal force without any proof, appears to be no­thing more than the force of imagination; and imaginary force is of no force at all;—there­fore it appears to me that it is too great a pre­sumption for sinful mortals to attempt to dis­cover how the Almighty made all things, or by what laws he governs the heavenly bodies. For as to the laws of motion, and the other laws of nature, I think the greatest of men, if they set out on this discovery with ever so much intenseness, will find themselves far short of the truth, even before they begin to [Page 28]ascend to the heavens.—If they proceed regu­larly, (and for men in pursuit after knowledge thus to proceed, is first to begin with them­selves and to study their own formation and the laws concerning it) they will in the first place consider whether they can conceive properly the law of generation, in what manner they were formed in the womb, and how the soul is joined to the body while in that state, and how every part increases; and when born, and grown to maturity, by what law they live and move. I believe, after all the inquiry men are able to make into these laws, the only just conclusion that can be made will be this: that it is ‘in God we live, and move, and have our being.’ There are many things on the terraqueous globe respecting the laws of Nature, both as to motion and the formation of the several productions of the earth and sea, that elude the search of the most diligent.

If the greatest men are strangers, and can give no reasons, so as to account for the laws of Nature concerning themselves, can it rea­sonably be supposed they can account for the formation of the earth or heavenly bodies, or the cause of the respective motions?—It is an inestimable blessing that the all-wise Creator [Page 29]has given sufficient wisdom unto men to enable them to understand the operation of Nature, so as to prove useful to mankind in general; but as to the laws of Nature, they are a secret that be­long unto God. I cannot but make the same conclusion with this author, when he says, that if it be otherwise than what he asserts, we are wholly in the dark, and know nothing of the laws and operations of Nature. As to the laws of Nature, I believe all men have been, and now are, wholly in the dark; but as to the operations of Nature, they have great but not perfect light; for I believe many things will be discovered that now lie hid.

8th Reason. But happily we are able to give not only reasons, but demonstrative proofs, that the sun does possess the centre of the system, and that the planets move about it at the distance and in the order assigned in this and other places.

The first is that Mercury and Venus are ever observed to have two conjunctions with the sun, but no opposition, which could not happen unless their orbits lay within the orbit of the earth.

This reason my hypothesis denies; but with the demonstrative proof it agrees, only by leaving out the words orbit of the earth.

[Page 30]9th Reason, and second Proof is, That Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, have each their conjunc­tion and opposition to the sun alternately and successively, which could not be, unless their orbits were exterior to the orbit of the earth.

With this Reason and Proof my hypothesis agrees also, with only leaving out the words orbit of the earth.

10th Reason and third Proof. The greatest elongation or distance of Mercury from the sun is 20°, and that of Venus 47°, which an­swers exactly to the distance in this system; though in the Ptolemaic system they might and would sometimes be seen 180° from the sun, viz. in opposition to him.

Between this Reason and Proof there is not the least disagreement with my hypothesis.

11th Reason and fourth Proof is, In this dis­position of the planets they will all of them be sometimes much nearer to the earth than at other times; the consequence of which is, that their brightness and splendour, and also their apparent diameters, will be proportionably greater at one time than another; and this we observe to be true every day. Thus the ap­parent diameter of Venus is near 66″ when greatest, but when least not more than 9″ and [Page 31]a half; of Mars when greatest it is 21″, but when least no more than 2″ and a half; whereas, by the Ptolemaic hypothesis, they ought to be always equal.

To this Reason and Proof my hypothesis exactly agrees.

12th Reason and fifth Proof is, That when the planets are viewed with a good telescope they appear with different phases, or with dif­rent parts of their bodies enlightened. Thus Venus is sometimes new, then horned, and af­terwards dichotomized; then gibbous; after­wards full; and so increases and decreases in the same manner as the moon, and as the Co­pernican system requires.

I answer, That my hypothesis requires ex­actly the same in every respect as the Coper­nican does, with regard to the different phases, &c. &c.

13th Reason and sixth Proof is, That the planets all of them do appear direct in mo­tion, sometimes retrograde, and at other times stationary. Thus Venus, as she passes from her greatest elongation westward to her greatest elongation eastward, will appear direct in motion, but retrograde as she passes from the latter to the former; and when she is in [Page 32]those points of greatest distance from the sun she seems for some time stationary; all which is necessary upon the Copernican hypothesis, but cannot happen in any other.

I answer, That all these motions of the planets and appearances my hypothesis agrees to; and not only the planets' retrograde and direct motions, but likewise those of the sun and earth; though not apparent to the eye yet clear to the understanding. My hypothesis supposes the sun to move in his orbit from west to east, and from east to west, as to the west and east points of the heavens; and, to an eye placed in the ecliptic pole, it would appear so, though never would appear stationary; so to a person on the equator beholding the sun in the horizon when the sun is in the equinox, if he look east, his antipode beholds the sun at the same instant while he is looking west; so likewise as to the earth in her diurnal motion, suppose the meridian of London, according to appearance as to its motion we are looking east to see the stars rise, but when the meridian comes under the east point of the heavens, from that instant we are going west, as to the hea­vens; therefore all have their constant motions round their orbits, and the earth round her [Page 33]axis, and sometimes in direct, and sometimes in retrograde, motions; and to an eye square from the plane of the orbit there would be no stationary appearance, it being the obliquity of the plane of the orbit to us that the sta­tionary appearance of the planet seems to be. As to the planets being at a greater distance from the sun at one time than another, my hypothesis knows nothing of it; and as to the different motions of the planets being necessary upon the Copernican hypothesis, but cannot happen to any other, I will venture to say the assertion of the author upon that subject was premature.

14th Reason and seventh Proof is, That the bodies of Mercury and Venus, in their lower conjunctions with the sun, are hid behind the sun's body, and in the upper conjunctions are seen to pass over the sun's body, or disk, in form of a black round spot, which is neces­sary in the Copernican system, but impossible in the Ptolemaic.

I answer, Though it be impossible in the Ptolemaic system it is necessary in mine.

15th Reason and eighth Proof is, That the times, in which these conjunctions, oppositions, stations, and retrogradations, of the planets hap­pen, [Page 34]are not such as they would be were the earth at rest in its orbit; but precisely such as would happen were the earth to move, and all the planets in the periods assigned them; and therefore this, and no other, can be the true system of the world.

To this fifteenth Reason, and last Proof and positive assertion, I answer, That, though the times in which these conjunctions, &c. are not such as would happen were the earth at rest in her orbit, yet they will happen, and that precisely, if the centre of gravity be at rest exactly between the poles, and the earth re­volves round it as its centre, and the sun like­wise performs his annual revolution in an or­bit that has this same centre, and the planets revolve round the sun in their orbits, having the sun for the centre; and though I will not be so bold and positive as to say my system is exactly true, without any mixture of error, I will venture to affirm, that it comes nearer the truth than any other that has yet appeared; and that it is the true system of the world, I believe no man living is able justly to deny.

16th and last Reason. But the truth of this system has been abundantly confirmed by the accurate observations of the learned Doctor [Page 35]Bradley; for it plainly appears from thence, that the fixed stars have an apparent motion or aberration, and seem to describe small circles or ellipses, which cold never happen were the earth fixed in the centre, but naturally fol­lows from the motion of the earth's bearing some proportion to the velocity of light, and consequently the earth really revolves round the sun.

In answer to this last Reason, I must confess that I have not the credulity to receive the doc­trine of aberration as an article of my creed. The opinion which has been received and confirm­ed by the accurate observations of the learned Doctor appears to me to be founded on conjecture only, therefore no way fit to found an argument to establish the earth's annual motion upon; and, if the whole process of the Doctor's accurate observations be fairly examined, I think it will appear to amount to a sufficient proof that the earth is fixed as to annual motion; for, ac­cording to the account given of the observa­tions, it is said that, in the year 1725, when Mr. Mollyneux and Doctor Bradley began to observe the bright star in the head of Draco as it passed near the zenith, in order to discover the parallax of the earth's annual orbit, they, [Page 36]after repeated observations, found this star, about the beginning of March 1726, to be 20″ more sougherly than at the time of their first observation. It now seemed to have ar­rived at its utmost limit southward, because, in several trials made about this time, no sen­sible difference was observed in its situation: by the middle of April it appeared to be re­turning back again toward the north; and about the beginning of June it passed at the same dis­tance from the zenith as it had done in De­cember, when it was first observed: in Septem­ber following it appeared 39″ more northerly than it was in March, just the contrary way to what it ought to appear by the annual parallax of the stars.

From which observations I think it will ap­pear, after due inquiry into them, that they all were contrary to what they ought to be, according to the supposed annual parallax of the stars; for, by the diurnal motion of the earth, no difference can be made as to their apparent motion east or west; the only appa­rent different appearance would be from north to south; therefore, when the sun is in the equinox, the earth also, in her supposed orbit, must be supposed to be in the equinox, so that, [Page 37]whether the earth be in the east or west part of her orbit, the appearance of the star would be the same if the observations were exact, and the greatest difference would appear when the sun is in his greatest declination from north to south. But, according to the account given of these observations, the appearances were re­verse; for we are told that, by the middle of April, it appeared to return back again, and that about the beginning of June it passed at the same distance from the zenith as it had done in December, when it was first observed; which, returning back again, I think implies that the same distance from the zenith was the same apparent place in the heavens.

We are further told, that this unexpected phenomenon perplexed the observers very much, and that Mr. Molyneux died before the true cause was discovered (and, I think I may add, so did Doctor Bradley also). After this Doctor Bradley, with another instrument more exact and accurately adapted to this purpose, observed the same appearance not only in that but in many other stars: and by the great re­gularity that appeared in a series of observations, made in all-parts of the year, the Doctor was fully satisfied with regard to the general laws [Page 38]of the phenomenon, and therefore endeavoured to find out the cause of them: he was already convinced that the apparent motion of the stars was not owing to a mutation of the earth's axis. (That mention should be made of the mutation of the earth's axis on such an occa­sion, by men that think the earth's orbit to subtend but little more than a point from the distant stars, appears very strange). The next thing that offered itself was an alteration in the direction of the plumb-line, with which the instrument was constantly rectified; but this, upon trial, proved insufficient: then he had recourse to what refraction might do; but here also nothing satisfactory occurred: at length, through a most amazing sagacity, this acute astronomer conjectured that the phenomenon hitherto mentioned proceeded from the progres­sive motion of light, and the earth's annual motion in its orbit; for the perceived that, if light were propagated in time, the apparent place of an object would not be the same when the eye is at rest as when it is moving in any other direction than that of the line passing through the eye and the object; and that, when the eye is moving in different directions, the apparent place of the object would be different.

[Page 39]From all which observations, and experi­ments to find out the phenomenon that so per­plexed the Doctor, and his amazing conjec­ture, it will appear, after a fair trial, that the definitive conclusion is without support from reason; for it is evident, from the tenor of the relation given, that the phenomenon which he wanted to find the cause of was the irregular apparent motions of the stars; for, had these motions appeared regular before Mr. Molyneux died, he would have been satisfied, as he made his observation on this principle, that the earth did move in her orbit, and therefore ex­pected to observe the object from different points of view, in order to find the annual pa­rallax. Then why all this bustle about the amazing sagacity, &c. to prove what they all knew before, if the earth did move in an or­bit, as they all believed it did? What has the propagation of light, whether in time or instantaneously, seeing it is propagated be­fore the observation can be made, to do in this matter? The whole of this last amaz­ing discovery appears to be nothing more nor less than the instigation of the author of all deceit, to keep men from beholding the truth; and, though it be strange, yet it really is as [Page 40]true, that we eagerly hold fast any thing, that has the least appearance of an argument, to support any error we may have once embraced. Now, if it be supposed that the stars are at such amazing distances, that the orbit of the earth, which is twice the distance of the sun from it, subtends no more than a discernible angle, can it be supposed, with any degree of truth, that it is the power of man to fix an instrument, by plumb-line, or any other me­thod, twice alike, seeing there is no propor­tion between the length of the instrument and the distance of the stars? Therefore the least imperceptible deviation from exactness will render the observations uncertain: and this alone appears to be the cause of the perplexity that attended the observations. I am confi­dent that, if an instrument was so fixed as to behold any one of the fixed stars near the ze­nith, or not, when it is exactly in the meri­dian, and the instrument to remain undisturb­ed the whole year or for ever, the star would always appear the same; if so, then there can be no annual parallax, neither does the earth move in an orbit.

I find, in Middleton's Dictionary, under the word star, that Mr. Whiston, in his Astrono­mical [Page 41]Lectures (lect. iv.) from the observations of Doctor Hook and Mr. Flamstead, computes, that the greatest annual parallax, or that which a star in the pole of the ecliptic would have, is 47″; from whence he finds the distance of the stars to be about 9000 semi-diameters of the earth's orbit; but that Doctor Bradley, by a series of accurate observations, has discover­ed that the parallax does not amount to two seconds, therefore the distances of the stars will be twenty times greater than the forego­ing calculation. Now, from these different observations, and allowing Doctor Bradley's to be most accurate of the two, it may reason­ably be concluded, that if he had been ex­actly so there would have been no paral­lax; then, consequently, the earth could not move annually in an orbit. Neither is there any reason to believe that any of the stars are at such immensely greater distances from the earth than the sun is; nor that the stars are suns to other systems, but that they all re­ceive their light from the sun; therefore I think from the clearest reason, it appears that the Doctor's observation, &c. is not of the least force imaginable to effect the stability of the earth, but that it is immoveable as to an­nual motion, and will remain so.