Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	age_n	scripture_n	word_n	2,726	5	3.8894	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61896	A specimen of some animadversions upon a book entituled, Plus ultra, or, Modern improvements of useful knowledge writtten by Mr. Joseph Glanvill, a member of the Royal Society.	Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.	1670 (1670)	Wing S6067; ESTC R24632	157,333	195

are some made by Mr Smithwick a very ingenious and worthy man which represent the Phases of the Moon very well and yet invert all Objects but that is no default or impediment where the thing looked on is round These convex Telescopes a●ter the Object in some thing else besides their proportions nor doth any such thing happen in a well-disposed Eye upon vision Secondly he might have known this further difference betwixt an un-assisted sight and what is performed by the best and longest Telescopes abo●t ordinary Objects that the Dioptrick Tubes do represent the light and colours of bodies more d●lute and remiss then they appear to the naked Eye Per Telescopia praesertim longiora objecta spectantur luce colore dilutiora quam libero oculo This is granted by Zucchius and others and the reason is given by Zucchius because that so great an expa●●●on o● amplification of the Object and 〈◊〉 of its parts one from the other is equivalent to a remission of those qualities therein But to shew Mr. Glanvill a little more of his ignorance in Telescopes I shall shew him some further differences betwixt the naked sight and what is performed by those Glasses For some of them represent some Objects greater then they appear to the naked eye Some in the shorter Tubes are represented no bigger or rather less then they otherwise seem Some Objects in the longer Telescopes are magnified indeed but nothing so much as other Objects are by the same Glasses The Experiments are obvious place a candle in the dark at some considerable distance and the flame will appear round and encompassed with rays then take a short Telescope fitly made and placed and look through it and you will see the irradiation taken off and the flame represented as oblong not round and rather seemingly less then greater then it appeared before to the naked Eye Then turn your eye unto any coloured Object and take notice how big it seems assume the same Telescope and you shall find that to be magnified above what it seemed to the naked eye by much After this take a long Telescope and view the aforesaid candle through that and at the same distance view some other coloured Object and you shall see that this last Telescope will represent both Objects much magnified but the Candle less of the two by far But I shall adde further that it is not to be doubted but that the Telescopes of Galilaeo Scheiner Rheita Gassendus Grimaldi Eustachio Divini Hevelius Hugenius Ricciolus and Zucchius were good in their kind and that they did represent Objects as truly here on earth as any could yet when they come to be applied to the Celestial Phaenomena what difference is there in their Observations How do they complain either of the default of the Telescopes or want of care or skill each in the other Simon Marius boasts of his accurateness Scheiner in his Apelles tells us Observationes omnes factae sunt summo studio coelo serenissimo semper cum observatum est obscurissimo plerumque in absentia videlicet Lunae talis vero variis excellentissimis quorum uno meliorem adhuc ad stellas non vidi But enough may be collected to this purpose out of the foregoing discourse so that I need not repeat it over again out of all which as I would not be understood totally to discredit the use of Telescopes in celestial discoveries I do not deny but some things and some motions are observed by them which a naked Eye cannot discern but this knowledge arrives to a slender degree of certainty when the Phaenomena come to be particularly explicated and theoremes or assertions framed thence so I would not have them too much relied on nor men be too confident in principles and Conclusions which have no surer Foundation then those probabilities and I do herein joyn with Claramontius in that Epiphonema In tanta diversitate quid certi ex tubo Optico habemus If I must suspect the skill or accurateness of Galilaeo Scheiner Gassendus Hevelius Fontana Ricciolus and Zucchius and such like pardon me if I know not whom to believe I have been the more large in this Point because of the insolence with which Mr. Glanvill persecutes that Reverend and otherwise learned person whom he represents to the world as He pleaseth and accordingly treats him with that contempt and scorn which is less allowable towards a Divine and such a one as is and always hath been in that Countrey very much esteemed by several honourable Families as well as others However God hath so providentially ordered the dispute thereby to check the pride of our Virtuoso that The Man of Words cannot triumph over the Man of Axiomes And if it be true that our Aristotelean was amazed at the hard words of Dioptrick Tubes c. as if there had been Magick in them I doubt not to Justifie Him in it for the insolent Virtuoso made use of them not as became a knowing person but as Conjurers use strange termes and of an uncouth sound though perhaps really Hebrew Latine or Arabique Besides all this perhaps Mr. Cross seems to have been offended at something in that mixt discourse or dispute that might derogate from the Authority of the Scripture many sayings are not innocent but as they are worded or uttered To say the Scripture was written to mens fancies is an expression very unwary in a Divine although a convenient interpretation may excuse it To say it is not written according to vulgar Methods may so be spoken that the action may render the words culpable And in another Age they might have passed better then now when men are prone to vilifie the Scripture especially the little Wits I perceive Mr. Sprat is not over-tender of the dignity of the Scripture for although there be an ancient Canon of the Church against the applying the Sacred Word of God ad scurrilia adulatoria which Canon is authorised even by the Council of Trent yet doth he encourage men to apply it to ordinary Raillery The Wit that may be borrowed from the Bible is magnificent and as all the other Treasures of knowledg it contains inexhaustible This may be used and allowed without any danger of prophanenesse The Ancient Heathens did the same They made their Divine Ceremonies the chief subjects of their phansies by that means their Religions had a more awful impression became more popular and lasted longer in force then else they would have done And why may not Christianity admit the same thing if it be practised with Sobriety and Reverence What irreligion can there be in applying some Scripture-expressions to Natural things Why are not the one rather exalted and purified then the other defiled by such Applications The Case is clear Gentlemen Hath not the Lord said What hast thou to do to take my words into thy mouth since thou hatest to be reformed Besides methinks our Divine might have remembred