THE Doctrine of Copernicus, that the Sun is the true centre of the celestial motions, depends primarily upon the consideration that such a supposition explains very simply and completely all the obvious appearances of the heavens. In order to see that it does this, nothing more is requisite than a distinct conception of the nature of Relative Motion, and a knowledge of the principal Astronomical Phenomena. There was, therefore, no reason why such a doctrine might not be _discovered_, that is, suggested as a theory plausible at first sight, long before the time of Copernicus; or rather, it was impossible that this guess, among others, should not be propounded as a solution of the appearances of the heavens. We are not, therefore, to be surprised if we find, in the earliest times of Astronomy, and at various succeeding periods, such a system spoken of by astronomers, and maintained by some as true, though rejected by the majority, and by the principal writers. When we look back at such a difference of opinion, having in our minds, as we unavoidably have, the clear and irresistible considerations by which the Copernican Doctrine is established _for us_, it is difficult for us not to attribute superior sagacity and candor to those who held that side of the question, and to imagine those who clung to the Ptolemaic Hypothesis to have been blind and prejudiced; incapable of seeing the beauty of simplicity and symmetry, or indisposed to resign established errors, and to accept novel and comprehensive truths. Yet in judging thus, we are probably ourselves influenced by prejudices arising from the knowledge and received opinions of our own times. For is it, in reality, clear that, before the time of Copernicus, the {258} _Heliocentric_ Theory (that which places the centre of the celestial motions in the Sun) had a claim to assent so decidedly superior to the Geocentric Theory, which places the Earth in the centre? What is the basis of the heliocentric theory?--That the _relative_ motions are _the same_, on that and on the other supposition. So far, therefore, the two hypotheses are exactly on the same footing. But, it is urged, on the heliocentric side we have the advantage of simplicity:--true; but we have, on the other side, the testimony of our senses; that is, the geocentric doctrine (which asserts that the Earth rests and the heavenly bodies move) is the obvious and spontaneous interpretation of the appearances. Both these arguments, _simplicity_ on the one side, and _obviousness_ on the other, are vague, and we may venture to say, both indecisive. We cannot establish any strong preponderance of probability in favor of the former doctrine, without going much further into the arguments of the question.