ic.

So long as evidence sufficient to demonstrate the Copernican hypothesis
was not forthcoming, it was possible for a man to hold the Ptolemaic,
without detracting from his scientific position, just as it is thought
no discredit to Sir William Herschel that he held his curious idea of a
cool sun under the conditions of knowledge of a hundred years ago. Even
at the present day, we habitually use the Ptolemaic phraseology. Not
only do we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset," but astronomers in strictly
technical papers use the expression, "acceleration of the sun's motion"
when "acceleration of the earth's motion" is meant.

The question as to whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes
round the earth has been decided by the accumulation of evidence. It was
a question for evidence to decide. It was an open question so long as
the evidence available was not sufficient to decide it. It was perfectly
possible at one time for a scientific or a religious man to hold either
view. Neither view interfered with his fundamental standing or with his
mental attitude towards either sun or earth. In this respect--important
as the question is in itself--it might be said to be a mere detail,
almost a matter of indifference.

But it is not a mere detail, a matter of indifference to either
scientist or religious man, as to what the sun and earth _are_--whether
he can treat them as things that can be weighed, measured, compared,
analyzed, as, a few pages back, we have shown has been done, or whether,
as one of the chief astrologers of to-day puts it, he--

"Believes that the sun is the body of the Logos of this solar
system, 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' The
planets are his angels, being modifications in the
consciousness of the Logos,"

and that the sun

"Stands as Power, having Love and Will united."

The difference between these two points of view is fundamental, and one
of root principle. The foundation, the common foundation on which both
the believer and the scientist build, is threatened by this false
science and false religion. The calling, the very existence of both is
assailed, and they must stand or fall together. The believer in one God
cannot acknowledge a Sun-god, a Solar Logos, these planetary angels; the
astronomer cannot admit the intrusion of planetary influences that obey
no known laws, and the supposed effects of which are in no way
proportional to the supposed caus