Page images
PDF
EPUB

to have held to the sphericity of the earth, not as a mere individ ual conjecture, but as an established scientific doctrine. We need only mention the geographer, Pytheas of Marseiles, who maintained the practicability of the earth's circumnavigation. There was also Hicetas of Syracuse, who according to Theophrastus, as Cicero tells us (Acad. Prior. 11, 123), not only held the earth to be globular, but also that it turned upon its axis;-thus producing the apparent diurnal revolutions of the heavenly bodies-Cœlum, solem, stellas, supera denique omnia, stare censet, neque praeter terram rem ullum in mundo moveri; quae quum circum axem se summa celeritate convertat et torqueat, eadem effici omnia quasi stante terra cœlum moveretur. Soon after this we may date the commencement of the Alexandrian school of astronomers, of whom it may be justly said, that there is no other period, either before or after them, in which the science made such rapid progress,especially if we take into the account their means of accurate observation, and the immense difficulties they had to overcome. Aristarchus seems to have anticipated some of the most solid views of modern times. Besides firmly believing in the old Pythagorean, or Egyptian, doctrine which was afterwards revived by Copernicus, he made estimates respecting the comparative distances of the sun, planets, and even the fixed stars, that showed an astonishing reach of thought and accuracy of reasoning. He held that the distance of the sun from the earth was almost nothing in comparison with that of the stars, and that so inconcievably remote from us were these, that viewed from their position, the widest range of our annual orbit would occasion hardly any perceptible parallax, or, in other words, subtend any perceptible angle.

Eratosthenes, also, was certainly a most remarkable man for his time, or for any time. Besides inventing an armillary sphere, he estimated the obliquity of the ecliptic at 23 deg. 51 min. 20 sec. which was certainly a most astonishing degree of accuracy for his means of observation. He is also mentioned by Strabo as having measured a degree of the meridain, and from thence having determined the extent of the earth by a method which, although by reason of the imperfection of instruments erroneous in its details, was nevertheless, in principle, in accordance with the strictest processes of modern science. Of Hipparchus we may safely say, that as an observer he was never surpassed. Should we style him the ancient Herschel, it would be no disparagement to the well known astronomer who now bears that illustrious name. In his catalogue of the stars, and his observation of the precession of the equinoxes. he performed in one life-time the work of generations, and laid down land marks (if we may use the expression) by which the science has ever since been enabled to determine its own rate of progress.

After Hipparchus, the rapid movement which had commenced in astronomical science, seems to have been somewhat arrested. Next to him the most distinguished names of the succeeding period are those of Cleomedes and Posidonius. The latter also, as we are told by Strabo, measured an arc of the meridian. He was also distinguished for an orrery,or machine representing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and of which Cicero makes such a striking and beautiful use in his argument for the Divine Existence from evidences of design in the structure of the universe. He supposes this machine of Posidonius exhibited among the inhabitants of Scythia or Britain, and asks how the rudest barbarian could really doubt whether such a structure was the result of chance, or reason; and if so, he proceeds, how can we hesitate to ascribe to a higher reason the architecture of the world itself-Quod si in Scythiam aut in Brittaniam, sphæram aliquis tulerit hanc, quam, nuper familiaris noster effecit Posidonius, cujus singulæ conversiones idem efficiunt in sole, et in luna, et in quinque stellis errantibus, quod efficitur in coelo singulis diebus et noctibus, quis in illa barbarie dubitet, quin ea sphaera sit perfecta ratione? Hi autem dubitant de mundo, ex quo et oriuntur et fiunt omnia, casune ipse sit effectus aut necessitate aliqua, an ratione ac mente divina?! The passage is so beautiful, and the reasoning at the same time so convincing, that the reader will certainly pardon us for having given it in full.

Ptolemy may be regarded as closing this brilliant school. That astronomer is so well known, that we will not dwell upon him here, except to state, that with all that accurate science by which he was distinguished above his predecessors, he seems nevertheless to have made what may be regarded as a retrograde movement. He was a true Baconian; and in accordance with what he deemed the legitimate laws of philosophizing, he rejected all reasoning except that which came from the inductive observations of the senses. He accordingly repudiated the old Pythagorean or Egyptian theory, which we now know to be the true one, and which Aristarchus and some others had almost placed on the foundation of established or undisputed science. The consequence of this change in Ptolemy from the spirit of former discovery, as exhibited in the noble ideas of Aristarchus and Eratosthenes, was the arrest of astronomical progress for more than one thousand years. Ptolemy became the oracle; and not only was there rejected the doctrine of the sun being the centre of the system, together with the earth's motion on its axis, but also its sphericity began to be called in question, after it had been regarded as established for centuries. Probably there were much less enlightened views in respect to this during the dark ages, than had prevailed four hundred years before Christ; so that Columbus might have some rea'Cicero De Nat. Deor. Lit. II. 88, 89.

son for regarding himself as the discoverer of a new doctrine, or at least a reviver of an old one. And yet the almost absolute sway which the philosophy of Aristotle then maintained over the human mind prevented the idea of the earth's sphericity from being wholly lost. Of this we want no better proof than is furnished by the writings of the voluminous Albertus Magnus. Among his multifarious treatises on all subjects, we find one expressly devoted to astronomy. It was written, he says himself, at the request of his fellow ecclesiastics, and intended as a compendium of what was regarded as the established science of the day. Aristotle's argument on the roundness of the earth is given without alteration, diminution, or addition. However much, therefore, the idea may have faded from the common mind even of the learned so much so as indeed to furnish some ground for the claim of new discovery, or at least, of revival, on the part of Columbus, as put forth by his modern biographers-still the universally received authority of Aristotle kept the doctrine in its place in formal treatises on science and philosophy. This is clearly shown in the servile imitation of the good Bishop of Ratisbon, as exhibited in his astronomical text-book for the use of his monks. Learned as he was, he never thought of departing, in any matter of physical science, from the acknowledged teachings of the Stagyrite. He would hardly have been more cautious, in a question in theology, of differing in the least from the decrees of councils, or the decisions of the canon law.

Connected with this doctrine of the earth's sphericity, is the belief in the existence of antipodes. The present article, however, has been extended to so great a length, that the consideration of this, and of some other views of the ancient astronomy, must be deferred to another occasion. Among these may be mentioned the early opinions repecting the motion and position of the earth, (or, in other words, the Pythagorean doctrine of the solar system,) together with the views entertained by some respecting the moon and planets being inhabited, as also the kindred doctrine of the plurality of worlds.

ARTICLE VI.

THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS MODIFIED BY MENTAL

PECULIARITIES.

By REV. L. CURTIS, Woodbury, Conn.

WHEN We know the temperament and the predominant feelings of a man, we have an index of his philosophical system. Truth is eternal, but the passions of men modify their perceptions of it. What is merely intellectual, as in mathematics, men see alike. All our systems of algebra express the same relations, and may prove the same problems, though by different modes of demonstration. But art, morality, and religion, address not only the intellect, but taste, sensibility, affection; and these are variously modified in different individuals. Hence in those departments of inquiry which come within the range of both sentiment and reason, men give to their productions the stamp of their individuality. True, ideas when brought into a system, assume an intellectual form; they express only the relations of thought to thought. But it must be remembered that before they thus come out into the light, and run in the open channels of creeds and the schools, they have to filter their way through temperament, and passion, and prejudice, like fountain rills which receive their peculiar tinge and properties from the strata through which they pass.

The influence of mental peculiarities in directing and shaping thoughts, may be illustrated by a familiar incident. A man awkwardly stumbles and hurts himself by a fall. One spectator regards him only as an object of compassion. Another would feel pity, but cannot for his life suppress laughter at his ludicrous stumble. Here, the same event arrests attention, but directs it to different incidents, and will ever after awaken different trains of association according to the peculiarities of the individual. And this simple case may show us why we have so many theories in morality and religion. Men view the same facts from different positions, and through the medium of different sensibilities.

of

Take the example of Augustine and Pelagius. The germs their respective systems were in their peculiar constitutions and individual experience. Augustine, with an ardent temperament, had, in early life, a warfare between his will and his propensities. But so complete over him had been the mastery of passion, that he denied the freedom of the will. Yet his conscience would not allow him to disclaim all responsibility. Hence he crowded the whole race into the Garden, and made them eat together the same

apple. In that first sin, all were free, but then they lost their freedom by corrupting their nature. This notion of original sin was the basis of his whole system, and all other doctrines were made to harmonize with it.

Pelagius, on the contrary, had a cooler, evener temperament. Conscious that he was free, and having experienced little of the violence of passion, he denied human depravity, and framed his system accordingly. Thus, both, from their peculiar bias, by making one doctrine exclude the other, formed disproportionate and false systems. The same has been true in recent controversies on the same doctrine; and we have learned that one truth so held as to exclude another, is not a truth, as a right in civil society, so exercised as to interfere with another, is not a right; that is, all truths, as well as rights, are consistent with each other.

All false religions take their origin in different elements of the human character. The ideas and passions of men struggle for expression. They obtain it in the forms of art, in social and religious institutions. But the diversified nature of human passions gives shape to these forms. The warrior will have his Mars; the philosopher his Minerva, and the voluptuary his Venus. Buddhism sprung from the gloom, the mysticism and contemplative abstraction of a melancholic temperament, united with a weak moral sense. Conscious of bondage to an animal nature, and also of high aspirations, the Buddhist refers the source of evil, not to the moral depravity of man, but to a Demiurge, or evil being, who united the soul with matter. Hence, the remedy is in afflicting the body by all manner of ascetic severities, and in elevating the soul by contemplation, into a union with God.

But Brahminism, which refers the cause of misery to the wickedness of man, springs from a deeper moral sense, and a more ardent temperament. Hence its sanguinary deities, its penitential self-tortures, and propitiatory sacrifices. And these two elements, variously modified and blended, reappear in every age, and attach themselves to every prevailing system. The Fakir of India, the Anchorite of Egypt, the Oriental Gnostic, and the contemplative Pythagorean have their representatives on every soil and under all systems, in the Catholic monk of the middle ages; in the Protestant mystic of the seventeenth century; in the ascetic Puritan of New England; and more recently in those of Oxford notoriety. The same element in the human character will find its expression as well in theological systems, as on human countenances. It will take a thousand different forms and complexions, but it will pervert and shape to itself both the dogmas of faith and the formularies of practice. Pure Christianity is no more proof against the constitutional bias than against the perverted will of man; and from her early twilight in the first, to her orient flush in the nineteenth century, the mists of human passion have either darkened her lustre or discolored her ray.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »