De Moor VIII:26: The Third Day, Part 2

Upon occasion of the Founding of this Earth, it is wont to be asked concerning the Motion of the Earth and the Rest of the Sun, or vice versa.  From ancient times the most celebrated Astronomers and Philosophers have inquired concerning this matter, and concerning the same have separated into parties.  Standing in favor the the Motion of the Sun are Anaxagoras,[1] Democritus,[2] Aristotle, and others; who in the more recent past were followed by Tycho Brahe, who nevertheless in other things was differing from the Ptolemaic system.  On the other side, in favor of the movement of the Earth are Pythagoras,[3] Philolaus,[4] Aristarchus,[5] and others, who were followed in the Fifteenth Century by Nicolaus Copernicus, born in at Thorn in Prussia; and it is the opinion chiefly accepted today.  Some others, like Heraclides Ponticus,[6] Ecphantus,[7] Plato, Origanus,[8] and more recently Michael Havemann,[9] attribute annual Motion to the Sun, but daily Motion to the Earth, which sort are called Semi-Tychonics, who partly follow that system of Tycho Brahe, positing a resting Earth, and partly that of Copernicus concerning a resting Sun:  see JOHANNES REGIUS’ Principia Philosophiæ theoreticæ, chapter XV, § 7, pages 127, 128.  But whatever might be selected from these, the most renowned Astronomers show, that each one of these three systems is able to satisfy all the phenomena hitherto observed.  But which of these should be embraced as true, the Most Distinguished NIEUWENTYT, Cosmotheoria, Contemplation XXX, § 8-16, reckons to be among those things that are ἄδηλα/uncertain, neither are they able in a natural way to be determined with certainty.  α.  Because the most celebrated and able Mathematicians and Astronomers yet differ concerning this matter, neither has there hitherto been set forth by one party or the other an argument apodictic, and suited to decide the quarrel among Men seeking the truth without prejudices.  β.  The greatest Mathematicians and Astronomers, who have lived in recent years, and to whom was left untested nothing that had hitherto been attempted for the investigation and determination of this cause, do not hesitate here openly to acknowledge their ignorance and uncertainty, of which sort are CHRISTIAAN HUYGENS in the Netherlands, NEWTON and GREGORY[10] in Britain, HERIGONE,[11] LA HIRE,[12] and VARIGNON[13] in France, to whom are able to be added STEVIN in Flanders[14] and COPERNICUS himself in Germany.  Among whom the Illustrious HUYGENS pronounces himself to believe, that we, as long as we live on this globe of the Earth, are never to be made certain by apodictic arguments concerning the motion or rest of the same globe.  HERIGONE, Cursu Mathematico de Sphæra Mundi, page 53, no less openly confesses:  “Whether the Earth is in the center of the Firmament or outside of that Center, whether it be moved or not, is not able to be shown by mathematical demonstrations.”  γ.  Because one may not conclude anything from a hypothesis, of which the greatest Mathematicians make use in their writings; while this hypothesis is often not founded on this, that they were convinced of the truth of the same hypothesis, but because the use of such a hypothesis in explaining the phenomena of nature appears to be more advantageous, to such an extent that they often suppose things that they know to be manifestly false; indeed, in this very matter concerning the Motion or Rest of the Sun or Earth, the same Philosophers make use of contrary hypotheses according to the greater or lesser readiness of the supposition that they are obliged to institute.  In the very preface of the Copernican work it is frankly advised, lest one hold the Astronomical hypotheses as demonstrated verities, since often they are not even likely, but an Astronomer is said to choose that hypothesis, which is the easiest to grasp:  and also for this reason alone, that a readier conception of the same is granted, does COPERNICUS wish to adopt his hypothesis concerning the Rest of the Sun and the daily and yearly Motion of the earth, book I, chapter X.  In a similar manner, MARESIUS relates, his Systemate Theologico, locus V, § 21, note c, page 204, that he himself once heard from the mouth of DESCARTES, that his opinion concerning the Motion of the Earth in its vortex and perpetual solstice, he never held in any other position than that of a mere hypothesis:  which same thing out of DESCARTES’ Principiorum Philosophiæ, part III, § 19, VAN MASTRICHT also faithfully notes, Gangræna Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter III, § 24, page 192; while in the place cited in Descartes you may read:  “Wherefore I myself, in this only differing from both, that I, more truly than Tycho, and more curiously than Copernicus, would remove all motion of the Earth; I would propose here that hypothesis, which appears to be the simplest of all, and to be the most as apt for understanding the phenomena, as for the investigation of their natural causes:  and I would wish it to be held only as a hypothesis, not at the truth of the matter.”

From these things one may gather the philosophical uncertainty of this matter to the confounding of all human wisdom, and we are able to refer this συζήτησιν/inquiry to those things, concerning which the Great Creator asks, Job 38:33, ‎הֲ֭יָדַעְתָּ חֻקּ֣וֹת שָׁמָ֑יִם, knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens?  Therefore, since philosophically, with the greatest Men admitting, in this business nothing is able to be determined, it is not fitting here insolently to traduce the expression of Sacred Scripture, where it is less accommodated to our Philosophical hypothesis, as if it were merely speaking according to the false external Appearance and Erroneous opinion of the Common People:  since it is not able to be doubted, that the Maker of the heavens and earth Himself best knows the ‎חֻקּוֹת/ordinances of the Heavens; neither are we able to hold the altogether trustworthy God as suspect of fraud and falsehood in those things that He reveals concerning His own Works.  But now, when we consult His Word, it is sufficiently clear to us, that it especially favors this hypothesis concerning the Motion of the Sun around the Earth and the Rest of the Earth.  For this make, α.  not only the passages in which the Earth is said to be immovably established upon its foundations, Psalm 24:2; 104:5; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:4.  To which and similar passages, if they be barely considered, it is possible to take Exception, that either in them it is not treated of the whole inferior, terraqueous globe, but only of the Dry Land founded upon the Waters, and so not of the immobility of the whole inferior world:  or, if they are spoken of the whole inferior world, the same are not necessarily referred to the immobility of the Earth, but are able to be explained of the firmness and permanent stability of the Earth.  But this argument, which could in itself be judged to be not quite apodictic, acquires greater strength, if:

β.  The modes of expression used in Sacred Scripture concerning the Sun be compared, for example, Genesis 15:12; 19:23; Mark 16:2, in which it is said that the Sun was ‎לָבוֹא, going down,יָצָ֣א עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ, was risen upon the earth, ἀνατέλλειν, rose.  While Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:4 speaks of the Earth, that it abideth forever, he then subjoins far different things concerning the Sun, verses 5 and 6, that it, 1.  rises and sets; 2.  hastes to the place where it had arisen, from which, therefore, it had been obliged to depart:  3.  the course of the Sun is compared with that of the winds, which by actual motion are moved here and there and by revolutions.  In Psalm 19:5, 6, 1.  under the twofold similitude of true motion and course David speaks of the Rising and Course of the Sun.  In which place, for the sake of distinguishing, the former comparison is able to be principally referred to the adornment, with which a bridegroom comes out of his chamber; while, with the other comparison borrowed from a noble athlete running along a race course, the swiftness of the solar Motion shall be signified.  2.  He expressly describes the place of the Sun’s Going Forth and Circuit:  compare BECMANN’S[15] Exercitationes Theologicas, XXIII, § 35, page 451.  In Psalm 104:19, setting is attributed to the Sun, just as appointed time to the Moon.  The Lord Himself, with no other custom than Moses, David, and Solomon, in Matthew 5:45 speaks of the Sun, where the rising of the Sun, procured by God, appears to be understood no less truly and properly, than we perceive the rain truly to descend upon us, when the Lord causes it to rain.

And to the modes of this sort of speech is yet added the eminent Miracle concerning the Sun narrated to us in Joshua 10:12, 13:  1.  the prayers of Joshua are related, concerning the stopping of the course of the Sun and Moon, not concerning the restraining of the Motion of the Earth.  2.  Joshua does not address the Earth and the Moon, the motion and course of which is not able to be denied; but the Sun and the Moon, the Sun in no way differently than the Moon, indeed, with one and the same word.  3.  The miracle is said to have been performed at the prayers of Joshua, not in the Moon and Earth, but in the Sun and Moon, in the Sun in no way differently than in the Moon.  4.  Specifically concerning the Sun it is narrated, that it stood in the midst or half part of Heaven, ‎בַּחֲצִ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם; and it is subjoined, that the Sun hasted not to set, which again leads us to the delayed Motion of the Sun.

Others add another Miracle, which is related in 2 Kings 20:9-11, in comparison with 2 Chronicles 32:24, 31 and Isaiah 38:8; and they observe, 1.  that in this history not only is the Shadow read to have moved backwards on the Sundial or degrees of Ahaz (compare VRIEMOET’S Thesibus scripturarum, CCCCII, CCCCIII), but the Shadow together with the Sun, if you attend to Isaiah 38:8.  And that, 2.  the consequence was indeed soon observed at Jerusalem in the Shadow of the Sundial; but that it is evident that the Miracle was much more illustrious than that it was terminating in the Sundial alone, from the painstaking inquiry into this matter undertaken by the Babylonians, just as that is described in 2 Chronicles 32.  Nevertheless, I am unwilling to put to much trust in the argument taken from this latter history, after duly weighing the reasons that limit this miracle, not only to the holy land, and hence not seen by the Babylonians in their region; but even to the Shadow moving backwards in the degrees of Ahaz; such that the Miracle was not situated in Heaven and the Sun, but in the solar Shadow; as those arguments with their Authors ae set forth and urged by our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus XV, Part IV.

At the same time, whatever might be the case concerning the history of this one Miracle, we, attending the the argument and phraseology of the remaining Passages, observe, that, if there perhaps be only one or another passage extant in Sacred Scripture, in which the Sun was simply said to rise, or to set, it would perhaps be possible to take Exception, that it is a Metonymical expression, wherein by Sun comes to be understood solar Light and its rays, or that Scripture even thus speaks according to Appearance, not false, but true:  compare Exodus 16:21; Isaiah 13:10.  But now, 1.  so many times, so expressly, and always, Scripture speaks uniformly concerning the rise, course, inhibited progress, and setting of the Sun, as of the unmovable Station of the Dearth; with mention of the Motion of the Moon, Winds, and descending rain, added to the motion of the Sun; neither in any passage does it affirm that the Earth is daily moved, or the Sun ordinarily stands.  2.  Not only men of the common sort, but the greatest Prophets, the Wisest of Kings, led by divine inspiration, and Christ Himself, are found thus speaking.  3.  It had been possible for them with the same effort to say the contrary; and they, speaking of the Motion of the Earth and the Rest of the Sun, would have procured confidence no less easily than in most other matters impervious to human reason, especially since this hypothesis has also found great probability through philosophical observations.  4.  Hence it appears that it ought to be concluded with confidence in favor of the Motion of the Sun and the Rest of the Earth, nor does the contrary hypothesis appear to anyone to be more easily reconcilable with the consistent expressions of Scripture, than yes and no, affirmation and negation, the Earth is moved and not moved, the Sun rests and does not rest; two contradictories are true at the same time, or one of opposites is the other.

γ.  I would not now say, that it appears to agree far better with the Mosaic history of Creation, to hold the Earth, rather than the Sun, as the center and middle of the Universe:  nor is it able easily to be reconciled with Moses, as if, by mixing the highest things with the lowest, you should bring the Earth, set in opposition to the Heavens, to Heaven, and should cause the same to put on the nature of a Planet, although the Philosophers take it upon themselves to add the same to the Planets:  see BARTHOLOMEUS VAN VELSEN, Philosophicis Scripturis, chapter XI, § 16, tome 1, page 173.

Johannes a Marck

And so one may conclude with our AUTHOR in his Analysi Exegetica of Psalm 19, Exercitationibus Textualibus XX, Part V, § 6, after the exposition of the words of verses 4-6 treating of the Sun:  Whether now the Motion of the Sun be applicable only according to the greater appearance to our senses, with the Sun remaining unmoved and the Earth, on the other hand, going round; or the Sun be truly moved around the Earth, with the Earth resting with respect to it.  That upon this matter Philosopher inquire with all their might, and that they devise their hypotheses to explain the phenoma of the heavens, we certainly allow without grudging; provided that they not only acknowledge from this passage and many other sayings of Scripture, that the latter hypothesis is far more harmonious with the divine Word; but they also hold that reverence toward this Word as most wise and altogether true, that they mock it not; and according to the former they say not that they have the thing itself, as long as they have not invincibly demonstrated it by arguments either Physical or Astronomical, while, on the other hand, the Men asserting it, some distrusting the Physical arguments, others the Astronomical, and all the judicious acknowledge that hitherto just demonstrations are wanting, and that difficulties, all but insoluable, remain.  Compare also BECMANN, disputing concerning this matter especially against Lansberge, Exercitationibus Theologicis, XXII, § 35, pages 448-455; VAN MASTRICHT, Gangræna Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter XXI, § 7-13, pages 391-396; and the same’s Vindicias  Veritatis et Auctoritatis Sacræ Scripturæ in rebus Philosophicis adversum Christophorum Wittichium, especially chapters VII, VIII, while that whole treatise is also considered the best commentary on § 22, Chapter II, Compendii Theologiæ, of our AUTHOR, and among others chapter IX or the last is offered in response to that Objection, that the End of Scripture is not to teach Things Natural and Physical.  Among others, JOHANNES VAN HERWERDEN, in his Disputatione Inaugurali de Motu Terræ diuron atque annuo, delivered at Utrecht in 1736, attempts ingeniously to explain all the passages cited above, § 17, 18, in such a way that they are not repugnant to the Copernican System.  But, whether the interpretations set forth by him remove the difficulties moved above out of these passages, let the learned and pious Reader judge.  Certainly his way of extricating himself from the difficulties is unique, distinguishing Optical Truth and Physical Truth, the former of which Scripture relates in the passages cited, not the latter:  but Physical Truth, which in this case is supposed to differ from Optical Truth, in other cases agrees with the same:  whence then it is understood that mention of the Motion of the Sun offering itself to us optically is able to be conjoined with mention of the Motion of the Moon, winds, descent of rain, etc., in which the Optical Truth does not differ from the Physical Truth.  Compare concerning this matter in general, and in particular concerning the reconciliation of the text in Joshua 10:12, 13, with the Copernican system, the French Epistle of the Most Illustrious ’s GRAVESANDE to SAURIN,[16] Discours Historiques, etc., sur le Vieux et Nouveau Testament, tome 3, pages 152-173, where from the analogy of the Motion of all the heavenly Bodies and similar things the illustrious Man argues admirably for his system, which sorts of arguments, nevertheless, others will not consider to be apodictic demonstrations.  Concerning the reconciliation of the narration of the miraculous Standing of the Sun at the prayers of Joshua in Joshua 10:12, 13, with the Copernican System, see what things GOUSSET also set forth, Commentariis Linguæ Hebraicæ, on the term חזי, page 282.  BUDDEUS, illustrating the same history in his Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, tome I, period II, section II, § 4, among other things with respect to the controversy that we now treat, has on page 663:  And, while those that deny that the Earth is moved are wont to appeal both to other oracles of Scripture, and to this very passage, of which we treat, in which it is expressly said a number of times, that the Sun stood still; to those that think otherwise nothing else is left but to contend that here and elsewhere Scripture speaks in such a way that it accommodates itself to the capacity of rude and common men.  But, with this asserted, others have judged with good reason, that the very authority and truth of Sacred Scripture is exposed to great danger….  It does not belong to our plan to discuss all these things in detail, or to inquire into the arguments of Philosophers, with which they busy themselves to prove the motion of the Earth.  I think that it is generally admitted, as easy it was for God to create the Earth in such a way that it was moved, which the followers of COPERNICUS maintain; just so easy it was also for the same to create the Sun in the same manner, or a body yet far greater than that Sun.  And so, as far as the Miracle is concerned, concerning which we speak, the same Power that is required to stop the motion of the Earth, if only it be moved, is also sufficient to stop the motion of the Sun.  For, required for both is so great a Power as is able to change the laws of nature, which, as it is the ultimate Power, is proper to God alone.  WOLFERD SENGUERDIUS is also able to be considered, Philosophia naturali, part II, chapter II; and also DANIEL VOET, Physiologia, book III, chapter III, § 33, 34, and VRIESIUS in his notes on that place; JOHANNES REGIUS, Principiis Philosophiæ theoreticæ, chapter XV, § 7 near the end; BARTHOLOMEUS VAN VELSEN, Philosophicis Scripturis, chapter XVII, § 152, 153, tome 2, pages 936-938.

[1] Anaxagoras (c. 500 BC-428 BC) was a Greek philosopher.

[2] Democritus (c. 460-c. 370 BC) was a Pre-Socratic Atomist.

[3] Pythagoras (582-507 BC) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician.

[4] Philolaus (c. 470-c. 385 BC) was a Greek Pythagorean philosopher.

[5] Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310-c. 230 BC) was a Greek astronomer and mathematician, and early proponent of a heliocentric solar system, with the Earth revolving around the Sun once a year, and rotating on its axis once a day.

[6] Heraclides Pontinus (c. 390-c. 310 BC), born in Heraclea Pontica (north-western Asia Minor), but later migrating to Athens, was a Greek philosopher and astronomer.

[7] Ecphantus (fourth century BC) was a Pythagorean philosopher.  According to Eusebius, Præparatione evangelica, book 15, chapter 58, he embraced the heliocentric theory, and affirmed the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

[8] David Origanus (1558-1628) was a German astronomer, and Professor of Greek and Mathematics at Frankfurt.

[9] Michael Havemann (1630-1684) was a German Lutheran theologian, educator, and astronomer.

[10] James Gregory (1638-1675) was a Scottish mathematician and astronomer, inventor of a reflecting telescope (the Gregorian telescope).

[11] Pierre Hérigone (1580-1643) was a French astronomer and mathematician, contributing a dizzying array of symbolic notations to the fields of logic and mathematics.

[12] Philippe de La Hire (1640-1718) was a French painter, architect, mathematician, and astronomer.

[13] Pierre Varignon (1654-1722) was a French mathematician.

[14] Simon Stevin (1548-1620) was a Flemish music theorist, mathematician, scientist, and engineer.

[15] Christian Becmann (1580-1648) was a German Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Zerbst (1627-1648).

[16] Jacques Saurin (1677-1730) began his career as a Roman Catholic priest, but he converted to Protestantism, and became a pastor of the Reformed Church of France.