a vulgar opinion to say that the Sunne is in the midst of Heaven then all the chiefe learned both in Divinitie Philosophie and Poetrie speake as the Vulgar doe for they use the same phrase hence came the word Meridian Meridies Mid-day Mid-night If the Sunne were not every day in the midst of Heaven how should the Artificiall day be divided into equall parts Therefore Clavins tells us that the Meridian is called by Astronomers the midst of Heaven the line of the midst of Heaven c. And the Prince of Poets speakes both of the Sunne and Moone in the midst of Heaven Iam medium Phoebus conscenderat igneus orbem Phoebe Noctivago curra medium pulsabat Olympum 5. I would know of you if all Vulgar opinions be false That I hope you will not say If then the Vulgar speake sometime truth why may not the Scripture speake truth with the Vulgar or why should truth be of lesse esteeme because vulgar it should be otherwise for Bonum quo communius eo meliús It is ridiculous to think with you that the Sun was over Gibeon only in appearance and vulgar conceit For indeed the Sun was truly over Gibeon although he was no more over that then over other places Suppose you were in Pauls Church and divers others were there too is the roofe of that Church over your head only in appearance and vulgar conceit because it is over other heads as well as yours or because it is much larger then your head Or must that phrase be thought improper the roofe is over your head 2. The figure Eclipsis is frequent in Scripture when there some words wanting in a phrase which are to be supplied as 2 Sam. 6. 6. Vzza put forth to the Arke is understood his hand So 2 Chro. 10. 11. I with Scorpions is understood will chastise you So here Sun stand still in Gibeon is understood while we are fighting and so the words must be rendered Stand still whilest we are fighting in Gibeon for not onely the city but its territories where Ioshua's army was are called by the same name So Moon in the valley of Ajalon is understood goe not downe These words There was no day like that before it or after it you say are not to be understood absolutely but in respect of the vulgar opinion because there be longer dayes under the Pole Answ. Ioshua spoke not this with any reference to vulgar opinions but to the Climate in which he lived and where the miracle was shewed it was the longest day that ever was in those parts and what reason had he to except the dayes under the Poles being nothing to his purpose When Christ saith There be twelve houres in the day his words cannot be understood absolutely for there be more houres where the Horizon hath any obliquity and the higher the Pole is elevated above the Horizon the more houres have the dayes in Summer yet his words are true in sphera recta and in those Countreys that are under and neere the Line And what will you conclude from this that because these and such like phrases are not to be understood absolutely therefore this phrase the Sun moves is not to be understood absolutely But I will reply These phrases are true in respect of the Climate they were spoken of ergo this phrase also the Sun moves is true in regard of the Climate it is spoken of If then Judea be the place where the Earth is stable and the Sun moves your opinion is quite overthrown by the force of your own instance for if the Earth be immoveable in any Climate and the Sun moveable we have that which we desire it lieth on you to shew how and why the Sun should move there and not elsewhere why and how the earth moves here and not there 2. These words of Ioshua's perhaps have no reference to the length of the day although the vulgar Translation read it so but rather to the greatnesse of the miracle the Heavens hearkening to the voyce of a mortall man Ioshua acknowledgeth That never any such day was before or since that the Lord hearkned to the voyce of a man For so the Hebrew and Greeke read it 4. The Scripture saith That the Sun returned ten degrees in the dyall of Achaz this you will have to be understood of the shadow only So I perceive the Sun and the shadow light and darknesse is all one with you Take heed of the woe denounced against them that call light darknesse and darknesse light Why may you not in other places aswell as in this by the Sun understand the shadow as At Ioshua's command the Sun stood still that is the shadow stood Wee shall shine as the Sun that is wee shall be dark as the shadow 2. You mince the miracle and the power of God too much for is it not as easie for him to make the Sun goe back as to make the shadow returne Wherein is his absolute Soveraignty seen and his transcendent puissance but in the obedience of all creatures even of the Sun Moon and Stars to his commands St. Austin disputing against the Gentiles sheweth them That Nature is not the supreme guider of all things and hee instanceth in the standing and going back of the Sun His Argument had bin of no force had not the Sun moved at all as you think 3. If the shadow moved onely without the Sun then either that shadow moved it self which is ridiculous to think or it was moved by the motion of the dyall or of the gnomon and index of the dyall Now if the dyall or gnomon was moved by God or an Angel tell us where you read it Why might it not as well be turned about with a mans hand or by some engine and so this would have bin a suspected miracle or else the shadow returned according to the motion of some other luminous body so this were to multiply miracles needlesly for 1. that light must be created for that purpose 2. It must have a particular motion of its own 3. It must be a greater light then that of the Sunne otherwise the shadow had not beene discernible 4. It must either be united to some other light or else vanish all which was needlesse is it not safer then to adhere to Gods word from which when we wander we fall into many by-wayes And whereas you tell us That the miracle is proposed onely concerning the shadow I answer we are not to consider so much what is proposed as what was effected God useth to effect more then he proposeth and to performe more then he promiseth 2. You say There would have been some intimation of the extraordinary length of the day as it is in that of Ioshua I answer there was no such reason why the length of this day should be mentioned because this day was much shorter then Ioshua's in respect it fell out in the winter solstice whereas that of
to know that God hath placed the heaven over us like a vault and stretched it out like a curtaine or skin St. Chrysostome whom Theodoret and Theophylact doe follow deny the roundnesse of heaven as it hath relation to our climate or habitation for so the heaven is indeed as the Scripture saith a vault or skin so that albeit the whole heaven being considered with the whole earth be round yet being considered with reference to parts or climates of the earth it is not round Or wee may with St. Austine so understand the word vaults or curtaine or skin that these tearms may stand well enough with the roundnesse of heaven si sphaera est undique camera est if it be sphericall it is a round vault pellis in rotundum sinum extenditur a skin may be made round or sphericall for a round bladder saith hee is a skin so then neither the word vault skin canopy or tabernacle are words repugnant to the roundnesse of heaven neither have you such reason to insult over the Fathers as if absolutely and peremptorily they had denyed the roundnes thereof For S. Austine sheweth that the stretching out of heaven like a skin is mentioned onely to shew the power of God and with what facility hee made the heavens with more ease then wee should extend a skin and St. Hierome saith that the opinion of the earths roundnesse is the most common opinion agreeing with Ecclesiastes So when the Fathers say that the earth is founded on the seas c. they doe but follow the Scripture phrase which how to be understood wee have already shewed and will touch it againe anon 3. Suppose these were errours yet you must not take advantage from some errours in the Fathers to lessen their credit in other things they were but men and had not the perfection of knowledge which is in Angels called therefore Daemones and Intelligentiae St. Bernard saw not all things we should be sparing in raking into their errours in uncovering of their shame and like flies delighting in their soares But yet you cannot obtain your purpose in ripping up of their errours for it will not follow the Fathers erred in denying the sphericall figure of the heaven c. therefore they erred in denying the motion of the earth must it follow that because S. Cyprian erred in the point of rebaptization therefore no credit must be given to him in affirming Christs incarnation and I pray what great error was this in them to conclude from manifest places of Scripture that the seas not overflowing the land is a miracle and that they are restrained by the speciall power of God I grant that all seas are not higher nor so high as some lands but it is manifest that the sea in some places is much higher then the land as the Hollanders and Zelanders know and that their lands are not overwhelmed with the sea in a storme is a miracle and the finger of God is to be seen in restraining of them which seas when hee is angry with the inhabitants hee lets loose sometimes to the overthrow of townes and villages Camposque per omnes Cum stabulis armenta trahunt In the dayes of Sesostris King of Egypt it was by measure and observation knowne that the Red-sea was much higher then the land but we need not goe so farre the coast of our owne Island in divers places being lower then the sea will prove this to be true where we may daily see Gods power in curbing the violence of that furious creature For the Eternall knowing The Seas commotive and unconstant flowing Thus curbed her and 'gainst her envious rage For ever fenc'd our flowry mantled stage So that we often see those rowling hills With roaring noise threatning the neighbours fields Through their owne spite to split upon the shoare Foaming for fury that they dare no more 5. Why then may not this be called a miracle whereas many strange yea ordinary effects of nature are called miracles Plato called man the miracle of miracles and David saith that fearfully and miraculously he was made Doe not you know that Diana's Temple the Egyptian Pyramides and the rest of those stupendious buildings were called the seven miracles of the world not only Gods extraordinary works above nature but also his ordinary works in nature are miracles though they be not so accounted saith Saint Austin because we are so used to them For as it was a miracle to turn water into wine in Cana of Galilee so he saith that miracle is seene daily for who drawes the moisture or water from the earth by the root into the grape and makes wine but God That Gods finger is to be seen in every worke of nature the Poet doth acknowledge Deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris coelumque profundum A miracle is so called because it excites admiration and doe we not admire Gods power in earth-quakes prodigious births thunders lightnings and in the Eclipses of the great Luminaries therefore Saint Austin checks the vanity of Philosophers who went no higher in the contemplation of these naturall effects then to naturall causes not looking unto God the supreme cause of all Hence then it appeares that the Fathers are not mistaken in attributing the not over-flowing of the sea to a miracle howsoever as your figure sheweth the sea may seem to be and yet is not higher then some lands Neither is there any contradiction in Scripture though sometime it make the sea higher then the land and sometime lower for so it is according to the diversity of coasts and because of much moisture and water found in the bowels of the earth and in that it is encompassed with the sea it may be said that the earth is founded on the waters therefore no man can be deceived in concluding points of Philosophie from expressions of Scriptures as you say but from the misunderstanding of Scripture for what is true in Philosophie cannot be false in Divinitie for in subalternall sciences there can be no repugnancy CHAP. V. Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses as Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earths immobility and heavens motion 2. How the earth is eternall and renewed 3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place 4. The Scripture useth Metaphors 5. How the earth stands out of the water 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobilitie is proved 6. What is meant 1 Chron. 16. 30. c. by these words The world is established c. 7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world 8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19. are established and the Moon and Starres Psal. 89. 37. c. 9. How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. hath foundations 10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends sides and corners of the earth in Scripture 11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the
and the winde moveth both cannot be understood properly and in the same sense as if you would say The Scripture affirms that Angels are the sons of God and that Judges are the sons of God but not in the same sense ergo when the Scripture saith That the raven flew out of the Arke and the dove flew out of the Arke both must not be understood in the same sense but the one properly the other in appearance Our second proofe out of Scripture which you goe about to undermine is that of Saint Peter The heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water You say That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent to fuit but I say that this were to confound two predicaments to make the essence and accident all one the site or immobility of the earth and the essence or existence thereof cannot be one or equivalent 2. This were to commit a plaine tantology for so the words must run The earth was was out of the water if these two words was and standing be equivalent 3. The Apostles scope is not only to shew that God made all the earth as you say but that he made it thus that is standing or immoveable that he is the authour not onely of its being and essence but also of that inseparable accident of immobilitie 4. We collect not the rest and immobilitie of the earth from the bare expression of its being or creation but from its being thus made for so we may reason What God hath made to stand fast out of and in the water is immoveable but God hath made the earth thus ergo it is immoveable 5. It were ridiculous to conclude the immobility of a ship or a mill-wheele because a part of them was made to stand above and another part under the water for they were not made for that end to stand but to move But if you had brought your Simile from the rockes of the sea you had done well for God made these rockes to stand partly above and partly under the water and hee made them not to fleete with the Isles of the lake Lommond therefore they are not moveable for God hath made them immoveable and so hee hath made the earth therefore both the old and new Latine translations doe use the word consistere which signifieth constanter stare Our third Argument is taken from these words The world is established that it cannot be moved which words you will have to be spoken of the world in generall or the whole fabricke of heaven and earth but you are widely mistaken for in the Hebrew text the word holam which signifieth the whole universe of heaven and earth is not used in any of these places but the word Tebel which signifieth the round globe of the earth or the habitable world as Pagnine hath it So the Greek Interpreters in all these places use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the whole bulk of the world so called from its beauty Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is alwaies used for the habitable earth so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Synod of men dwelling upon earth and not of Angels or stars And when the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed the title of Oecumenicus Episcopus he did not purpose for all his pride to bring the Angels and starres within the verge of his Diocesse or Episcopacy So the old Latine translation never useth the word mundus but orbis and orbis terrae and Iunius with Tremelius use the words orbis habitabilis that is the earth so that orbis is not used for mundus in any classick Author in prose but for the earth or regions and dominions of the earth as Orbis Asiae Europae orbis Romanus c. Besides in the 96. Psalme the heavens and the world as wee translate it are distiuguished in the 5. ver God made the heavens in the 10. ver hee established the world or earth We need not then to have recourse to a Synecdoche iu the three originall Tongues But you tell us That David you would have said Moses seems to make a difference between the earth and the world when hee saith Before thou hadst formed the earth and the world hee doth but seeme to make a difference but indeed hee makes none for the copulative and is put exepeticè for the disjunctive or here and elsewhere in Scripture as in Exodus Hee that smiteth his Father in the Hebrew it is Abiu ve Immo his father and his mother and in the 17. ver of the same Chapter Hee that curseth his father and his mother which the Evangelist St. Matthew rendereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 father or mother so among profane Authors the same kind of speech is used as Natus annos 60. senex Here then God made the earth and the world that is hee made the earth or the habitable world 2. Wee may explain Moses his words here thus God made the earth the first day and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earth but it was not made habitable till the third day and then it became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a habitable world and so in this respect there is some difference between the earth and the world that is between the earth mingled with the water and separated from it Because Solomon saith That God hath founded the earth and established the heavens you inferre That the places of Scripture can no more prove an immebility in the earth then in the heavens But here also your speak at randome for the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conen here which Arias Montanus and the old Latine translate stabilivit doth properly signifie to dispose or order and so we translate the word Conenu Ps. 37.23 a good mans steps are ordered by the Lord. This word also signifieth to prepare as David prepared a place for the Ark. Therefore the LXX Interpreters explain this word here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee hath prepared the heavens and Iunius with Tremelius by statuit hee hath appointed or disposed the heavens But what though wee should yeeld that the word may signifie to establish will it therefore follow that the heavens are immoveable because established No for there is the stability of nature and naturall qualites which is opposite to mutability and so the heavens are established and there is the stability of rest and so it is opposite to mobility thus the earth is established But you will say seeing the same word establish is spoken of both the heaven and of the earth how shall you know that it implyeth immobility in the earth and not in the heaven I answer well enough because the Scripture speaking of the earth saith It is established that it cannot be moved but the Scripture never speakes so of the heavens but onely that they are established not a word to shew any rest
the Mediterran c. Consisting also of lakes and rivers not to speake of Isles and Isthmus hath not then the earth in this respect many ends corners and sides If you did saile along the coasts of the earth you should finde it so 2. The earth of it selfe is not round for without the water it doth not make a globe 3. Though it were perfectly round yet it must have its longitude and latitude 4. By the earth the Scripture oftentimes meanes the land of Judea with the neighbouring countreys as his dominion shall be from the river to the ends of the earth which words were spoken of Solomon literally All the ends of the earth have seene the salvation of God which was not seen by the Americans in Davids dayes So all the world was taxed under Augustus that is the Roman world 5. Whatsoever is finite hath bounds and ends but such is the earth ergo it hath ends Therefore as the Scripture by the ends sides and corners of the earth doth shew that it is not round so doth it also by the stable foundations thereof shew that it doth not move Isaiah speaketh of the planting of the heavens which you say May as well prove them to be immoveable as that which followes in that Verse concerning the foundation of the earth Answ. I perceive your case is desperate for like a man that is sinking in the water you catch hold of every thing that is next you though it be weeds and such as cannot help you For 1. by heavens here may be meant the Church which is that Vine that God hath planted with his owne right hand 2. Though this word heaven were taken in its proper signification yet the planting of heaven is a metaphor out of which you can conclude nothing but must spoile your Syllogisme with quatuor termini 3. Nothing is properly planted but what hath motion in it as trees hearbs and such like vegetables This word then may intimate that there is motion in the heavens as the word foundation sheweth that there is no motion in the earth for it is very improper and dangerous for a foundation to move When the Scripture saith The earth is established by this word you answer is means onely the keeping of it up in the aire without falling to any other place Answ. If the earth be established onely so that it may not fall or be removed to any other place what singular thing hath the earth that is not in other bodies for so are the heavens established and every starre that they shall not be removed out of that place or station which is appointed for them so is the sea confined within its bounds which it cannot passe But there is something else in the earth whereby it differs from other bodies and wherein Gods power is the more admired to wit That it is so established that it cannot be removed Nay more then so it cannot be stirred or wagged at all Thus as Gods glory is admired in the perpetuall motion of other bodies so is it in the perpetuall immobilitie of this 2. The earth you say is kept up from falling I pray you whither would the earth fall being in its owne place and sowest of all the Elements if it fall any where it must fall upward and that is as proper a phrase as if I should tell you the heaven must mount downeward therefore Mute hauc de poctore euram never feare the falling of the earth The Gentiles were afraid that the heavens might fall being held up by the shoulders of Hercules therefore Artemon it seemes was afraid of this who never durst venture abroad but under a brasen target carried over his head And one Phaenaces in Plutarch was sore afraid that the moon would fall downe and therefore pitied the Ethiopians and others that were under the moone but if he had knowne what you know That there is a world in the moone his feare had been just It may be the great shower of stones that fell heretofore in agro Piceno were the stones of some buildings that had fallen downe in the moone We need not feare the falling of our earth which God hath so established that it cannot be moved You see no reason but that we may prove the naturall motion of the earth from that place in Iob Who moveth or shaketh the earth out of her place that is to say We may prove a naturall motion out of a violent or one contrary out of another we may prove the fire to be cold because it is hot or that the earth may move naturally becanse it moves violently The motion that Iob speakes of is an earth-quake extraordinary which is a violent and temporary motion and of some part only and a concussion rather then a motion the motion that you would inferre from thence is a naturall perpetuall totall regular and a circular motion Will you inferre that because the mill-wheele is turned about violently that therefore the whole mill is turned about naturally I have seen a Church-tower shake when the bells have been rung but if I should inferre that the whole Church therefore may move circularly I should feare Nè manus auriculas imitetur mobilis albas lest I should be thought a creature of Arcadia And I hope you are not so simple as to thinke that God did ever shake the whole earth out of its place or if he had that therefore it may move naturally and circularly CHAP. VI. 1. The earth is in the middle and center of the world and why 2. Hell is in the center or middle of the earth 3. The earth lowest and basest how 4. Every thing is made questionable by some 5. Aristotle defended 6. The earth is in the center because in the midst of the equinoctiall Horizon c. 7. The imagination must be conformable to the things not these to it the vanity of imagining circles 8. Astronomers reproved and their vanity shewed chiefly about the bignesse of the stars 9. The earth is the least circle therefore the center how understood HEre you will not upon any tearmes admit that the earth is the center of the Vniverse because our arguments you say are insufficient Answ. Our arguments may be insufficient to you who hath an overweening conceit of your selfe and a prejudiciall opinion of other men But our arguments have been hitherto accounted sufficient by moderate wise and learned men but to your sublimated understanding they give no satisfaction there are some men that are never content and nothing to them is sufficient no not Gods owne word but what though our arguments were insufficient will you therefore reject them You may by this meanes reject all humane learning for it hath not that sufficiency which perhaps you require We know here but in part the sufficiency of knowledge is reserved for a better life Si quid tamen aptius exit But if you have more sufficient arguments for your opinion impart them to
by sense or reason demonstrations are of things true and reall not of dreames and imaginations therefore neither your pictures nor bare words shall perswade us that dayes moneths yeares houres weekes c. are or can be caused by the earths motion till first you have proved that the earth moveth you that cannot abide Eccentrickes and Epicycles in the heavens are forced now to make use of them both for the motion of the Moone and of the earth too so that you have not mended but marred the matter rejecting Ptolomy because of Eccentrickes and Epicycles aud yet you admit Copernicus with his new devised Moone Eccentricks and Earth Eccentrickes so that you thinke by these fictions to solve the divers illuminations bignesse eclipses c. of the Moone A phantasticall Astronomer might devise other wayes besides these of Ptolomy and Copernicus to shew the different appearances of the Planets for of things that are uncertaine and beyond our reach divers men will have divers conceits and conjectures many have held and doe at this day yet maintaine that the stars have soules and are living creatures and why may not this be as true as your opinion that there is a world of living creatures in the Moone What if I should hold that the eight spheare is a solid substance therefore called firmamentum full of holes some great and some small so that these lights which wee call starres are but beames of that bright and cleare heaven above called Empyreum shining through these holes Or if I should say that every starre had its Angel moving it about the earth as wee use in darke nights to carry lanternes divers Nations of Asia Africke and America have divers opinions of the starres and few or none true all which do argue our ignorance and foolishnesse we are but Curvae in terris animae coelestium inanes But any of these conjectures mentioned is as probable as yours of the earths motion therefore I was not without sense and reason when I concluded my Booke with this Argument That if the Sunne stood still there could be no variation of the shadow in the Sunne Diall you will say that may be altered by the earths motion but I say to you as I said to Mr. Carpenter prove that and what I profered to him I also profer to you Phillida solus habeto You will say this may be easily proved if I will admit the earth to move but so you may say that you will easily prove an Asse to flye if I should admit that hee hath wings but I will not admit that upon a false maxime of your devising you shall inferre what you please What if I should admit an absurd conceit of yours that the Earth draweth the Moone about can you prove mee that when the Moone shineth there is any variation of shadowes when both the luminous and opace body are moved with the same motion 2. The difference you say betweene Summer and Winter between the number and length of dayes and of the Sunnes motion from Signe to Signe and all other appearances of the Sunne concerning the annuall motion may be seene by your Figures and easily solved by supposing the earth to move in an Eccentricall orbe about the Sunne Answ. Not the Sunnes appearances but your phantasies are to be seene by your figures the earth doth not move because your figure represents it it is also an easie matter to suppose things that never were nor can be you suppose the earth to move about the Sunne and not the Sunne about the earth you may as well suppose the house to be carried about the candle and not the candle about the house and so all appearances may be solved as well this way as the other for if the house did move about the candle the house shall be seene as well as if the candle did move about the house and why may we not suppose the house to move sometimes neerer to and sometimes farther from the candle the neerer it moveth the more it is illuminate c. But what Cato is so grave as to refraine from laughter at such absurd and foolish suppositions You spend much paper to shew how the Planets will appeare direct stationary retrograde and yet still move regularly about their owne centers This is Magno conatu magnas nugas dicere and who but Iudaeus apella will beleeve that one motion of the earth should cause so many different appearances in the severall Planets howsoever you talke of Ptolomie's Wheele-worke I preferre his Wheele to your Whirlegig It is more easie for many Planets to wheele about then for one rocke or piece of earth to whirle about but you are as exact in placing the Planets as if you had been upon the top of Iacobs ladder You place Mercury next to the Sunne hiding himselfe under his rayes you say well for theeves doe use to hide themselves but for one to hide himselfe in the open light is not usuall darknesse one would thinke were more proper then that But how Mercury hath a more lively vigorous light then any of the other I understand not I should rather thinke that there were a more lively vigorous light in the Sun Moone and Venus And whereas you say that Venus in her conjunction with the Sunne doth not appeare horned is true but if her husband Vulcan had beene as neere the Sunne his hornes doubtlesse had beene seene doe not you know how much ashamed Venus was when the Sunne looked upon her being in bed with Mars Now that the orbe of Mars containeth our earth within it I will not deny but I am sure our earth containeth Mars within it who is oftentimes too exorbitant Toto saevit Mars impius orbe And that the orbe of the Moone comprehends the earth in it because shee is sometimes in opposition to the Sunne is a feeble reason as though the opposition of two round bodies should be the cause why that which is in the midst betwixt them should be within the circumference of either of their circles or orbes Other Planets have their oppositions is therefore the earth within the orbe of either of them Or why is the earth more within the orb of the Moone then of the Sun seeing the Moone is no more in opposition to the Sun then the Sun is to the Moone 3. You conclude your Booke with a large digression upon the commendations of Astronomy which hath for its object the whole world you say And therefore farre exceeds the barren speculation of universale and materia prima Answ. It seemes you have left nothing for the objects of other sciences if Astronomy must ingrosse the whole world for its object 2. Vniversum belike exceeds Vniversale with you and the extent of the one is not so large nor the speculation so fruitfull as of the other but surely your Vniversum or world in the Moone is as barren a notion as that of Vniversale 3. The knowledge of Philosophy and Logicke
will be counted idle and none of the Planets But that the Earth may be a Planet is as true as that the Sun may be a burning stone that there may be a man in the Moon that there may be an infinite number of Suns and worlds that the Stars and Planets may have had their first originall and being from the Earth which have been the extravagant conceits of giddy headed Philosophers But I remember what Aristotle saith of some may-bees or possibilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may be may not be and never shall be and so the Earth may be a Planet that is it neither is not ever shall be a Planet But now let us leave your title and examine the substance of your following Discourse The CONTENTS of this Book CHAPT I. IN the Preface and first Chapter is shewed 1. The vanity and falshood of this new opinion 2. The Fathers concerning their judgement of the Antipodes cleared and vindicated and the Philosophers condemned 3. Job defended and explained 4. Pythagoras deciphered and his opinions condemned 5. Some Pythgoreans touched and censured Numa was not of this new opinion nor Pythagorean 6. This opinion hath few followers and how condemned by the Colledge of Cardinals 7. What is to be thought of those who have revolted from the truth of our opinion 8. The Church the Scripture sense and reason must be beleeved in this point of the earths stabilitie c. 9. This new opinion how and when an heresie CHAP. II. 1. Wee must beleeve the Scripture not our owne phansies 2. The Scripture never patronizeth a lye or an errour nor doth it apply it selfe to our capacity in naturall things though it doth in supernaturall mysteries 3. We must sticke to the literall sense when the Scripture speaks of naturall things 4. Some particular Scriptures vindicated from our adversaries false glosses as namely Psal. 19 of the Suns motion like a Gyant and Bride-groom of the ends of heaven and of his heat Eccles. 1. of the Suns rising and setting Jos. 12. of the Suns standing still of the midst of heaven how over Gibeon and how no day like that Isa. 38. of the Suns returning ten degrees of the greatnesse and meaning of this miracle neither known to the Gentiles The testimony of Herodotus concerning this CHAP. III. 1. The Scripture doth not speake according to vulgar opinion when it calls the Moone a great light for so it is 2. Nor when it speakes of waters above the Heavens for such there are 3. Nor when it calls the Starres innumerable for so they are 4. Nor when it mentions the circumference of the bâ—asâ—n Sea to be thirty cubits and the diameter tenne for so it was Why the lesser number is sometime omitted 5. Nor in saying the earth is founded on the waters which is true 6. The right and left side of heaven how understood and how the heaven is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Intelligences 7. The Scripture speaketh properly in attributing understanding to the heart The Galenists opinion discussed 8. Of ova aspidum and the Vipers egges how understood 9. The Aspe or Adder how hee stops his eare 10. Of the North and South winde in Scripture 11. The Sun shall be truely darkned the Moon turned to blood and the starres shall fall c. 12. Of the windes whence they come c. 13. The sea the onely cause of springs 14. The thunder is truly Gods voice 15. The 7. Stars CHAP. IIII. 1. Many Philosophicall points are handled in Scripture 2. The heavens how round in the opinion of the Fathers 3. Wee must have a reverend esteem of the Fathers 4. How the seas not overflowing the land may be esteemed a miracle 5. The works of Nature may be called miracles CHAP. V. Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses as Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earths immobility and heavens motion 2. How the earth is eternall and renewed 3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place 4. The Scripture useth Metaphors 5 How the earth stands out of the water 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobilitie is proved 6. What is meant 1 Chron. 16. 30. c. by these words The world is established c. 7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world 8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19. are established and the Moon and Starres Psal. 89. 37. c. 9. How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. bath foundations 10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends sides and corners of the earth in Scripture 11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the planting of the heavens 12. How the earth is established 13. What Job meanes by the earth moved out of its place CHAP. VI. 1. The earth is in the middle and center of the world and why 2. Hell is in the center or middle of the earth 3. The earth lowest and basest how 4. Every thing is made questionable by some 5. Aristotle defended 6. The earth is in the center because in the midst of the equinoctiall Horizon c. 7. The imagination must be conformable to the things not these to it the vanity of imagininary circles 8. Astronomers reproved and their vanity shewed chiefly about the bignesse of the stars 9. The earth is the least cirle therefore the center how understood CHAP. VII 1. The Starres have not their light because the Sun is in the center nor hath the Sun lesse light being out of it 2. Why the Earth in the center 3. The Sun is not the center because the Planets move about him 4. The center is not the most excellent place neither are the best things next it or in it 5. There is an harmony amongst the Starres though the Sun be not in the center CHAP. VIII 1. How the eye is deceived and how not and that if the earth moved we should see it 2. Motion and rest how the objects of the eye and of the common sense 3. If the earth moved the clouds would but seeme to move as well as the sunne 4. How the eye can be deceived in the motion of a lucid body 5. The naturall motion of the foundation cannot keep buildings from falling 6. The heavens fitter for motion then the earth 7. Rugged bodies not fittest for motion 8. The sight hindred by the motion of the subject medium and object 9. One simple body hath but one naturall motion proved 10. Essentiall properties more chiefly in the whole then in the parts the earth is heavy in its owne place how bignesse how a hinderance to motion of the earths ineptitude to a swift motion 11. The magneticall qualities of the earth a fiction 12. Similitudes no prooses the seas ebbing and flowing what 13. The whole earth moveth not because the parts move not round 14. Absurd phrases and the spots about the sunne censured 15. That the earth turnes about the moone is ridiculous 16. Some observations to prove
us to beleeve the truth of this assertion and yet you spurning at Scripture sense and reason as if your phansie were instar omnium would have our judgements senses Scripture Church and all regulated by your absurd dictates therefore it is an unreasonable thing in you to desire that the holy Ghost should not be Judge of his owne assertions in naturall truths and that there should be more credit given to your conceits which you call industry and experience then to Gods own words Indeed this travell hath God left to the sonnes of men to be exercised with as a punishment for their sins to toile and labour all their dayes about shadowes imaginations and indeed meer nothing groping at the doore of knowledge like blinde Sodomites all their dayes and cannot finde it so that they who have spent their whole life in Astronomie may with Saint Peter say on their death bed Master We have laboured all night but have caught nothing Thus with Martha they are busie about many things and neglect that one thing which is onely necessary 2. It is but a conceit of yours to say That the Scripture accommodates it selfe to the vulgars conceit in saying the Sunne riseth and falleth c. I warrant you if the vulgar should conceive that the heavens were made of water as the Gnostickes held or that the Sunne and Moone were two ships with the Manichees or that the world was made of the sweat of the AEones with the Valentinians or whatsoever other absurd opinion they should hold you would make the Scripture say so and to accommodate it selfe to their conceits The stability of the Earth and motion of the Heaven are absurd and false opinions in your conceit and yet the Scripture affirmes them You are as unapt I know to beleeve that the Sunne moves as others are that it stands still therefore it 's a wonder you do not begin to call the Scripture authority in question that affirmes the Suns motion seeing you say men would be apt to doe so if the Scripture had said the Sunne standeth c. How shall the Scripture please both parties if it say the Sun moveth your side will except against it if it say the Sun standeth ours will be offended at it Why should the Scripture be more loath to offend us then you except it be because we are the stronger side and we have our senses to witnesse with us which you have not I wish you would conceive a more reverend opinion of the Spirit of truth who cannot lie nor will affirme a falshood upon any pretence whatsoever neither will he countenance a lie to confirme a truth or speake false in one thing that wee may conceive his meaning the better in another thing He needs not such weake and wicked helps as falshoods to make us understand his will his word is strong and mighty in operation it 's the power of God unto salvation a sharp two edged sword his hammer his scepter c. As it stands not with his truth to affirme a lie so doth it no wayes consist with the power of his Word and Spirit to helpe our understanding by a lie 3. You say That if the Scripture had said the Earth riseth and setteth and the Sunne stands still the people being unacquainted with that secret would not have understood the meaning of it Answ. What matter is it whether they had understood it or not For you tell us that these things are not necessary in themselves and that it is besides the scope of these places to instruct us in Philosophicall points Will you have the holy Ghost then speake a falshood for feare lest we should not understand the meaning of a secret which is not necessary for us to know if it be not needfull for us to know whether the Earth stands or not so it was lesse needfull for the Scripture to say the Earth standeth when it doth not stand But you doe well to call the motion of the Earth a secret for so it is a great secret hid from the wise and prudent of this world and revealed onely to such babes as your selfe But why is this a secret If it be a naturall effect it is no secret for though naturall causes doe not incurre into our senses yet the effects doe and if this be a secret effect and not sensible it cannot be an effect of nature but I thinke it be such another secret as the Philosophers stone which never was and never shall be Though it be beside the chiefe scope of Scripture to instruct us in Philosophicall points yet it will not follow that these Philosophicall tearmes are to be otherwise understood then as they are expressed There be many Geographicall Historicall and Chronologicall passages in Scripture mentioned incidently and not chiefly to instruct us in such points shall we therefore understand them otherwise then they are set downe or rather the cleane contrary way But when you say the Earths motion is beyond our reach I grant it because we cannot reach that which is not made manifest to us either by sense or reason or divine authority If you can either of these wayes make it appeare I doubt not but our understanding will reach it and if you cannot one of these wayes make it appear to us we will account it a meere nothing For idem est non esse non videri and indeed you say well out of the Glosse that God doth not teach curiosities which are not apprehended easily for your motion of the Earth is an incomprehensible curiosity And it is well said by you againe that the Scriptures authority might be questioned if it did teach naturall things contrary to our senses and therefore if any booke of Scripture should affirme as you doe that the earth moves naturally and circularly I should verily beleeve that that booke had never been indicted by the holy Spirit but rather by a Pythagorean spirit or by the spirit of Dutch beer You condemne Tertullians Heretickes for retching Scripture a wrong way and forcing it to some other sense agreeable to their false imagination and rather then they would forgoe their tenents yeelded the Scripture to be erroneous De te fabula narretur You retch the Scripture a wrong way forcing it to your false imaginations you do not indeed call the Scripture erroneous but you make it to speake one thing and meane the cleane contrary therefore you shall doe well to apply Saint Austins counsell to your selfe and doe not settle your opinion rashly on that darke and obscure conceit of the Earths motion It is true also what you alledge out of Saint Austin that the holy Ghost being to deliver more necessary truths left out to speake of the forme or figure of Heaven c. because hee would not have us spend too much time in these things and neglect the meanes of salvation but you should have done well to have subjoined the following words of that same Father to
the heaven And how can any conceive that the second day there was raine below in the aire and that God by the Firmament did separate that raine from the waters of the sea And though I should yeeld that the aire is called heaven sometime Synecdochically and that raine or clouds being in the aire may be said to be in heaven yet I cannot yeeld that therefore they are above the heaven for to be above and to be in differ much therefore I hold with the ancient Doctors of the Church That there be waters above the heaven which is no more incredible saith St. Austine that there may be waters in the upper part of the great world then that there may be waters in a mans head which is the upper part of the little world If wee look saith St. Ambrose 1. On the greatnesse and omnipotency of God in creating the world 2. On his ordinary power in preserving the world sustaining all things by the word of his might by which he holds up the sea that it may not drown the low land 3. On his miraculous power in causing the waters of the Red-sea to stand upon an heap and Iordan to goe back which miracle he made visible that thou mayst beleeve these things which are invisible then why should wee doubt of these waters which be above the heavens If any aske mee what is the nature use or end of those waters and how they are there St. Austine shall answer for me Quomodo aut quales ibi aquae sint c. how or what kind of waters these be is uncertain but that there be waters there wee doubt not because greater is the authority of this Scripture then the capacity of all humane wit 3. When the Scripture speaks of innumerable starres you say that is to be understood according to the vulgar opinion but I say that it is the opinion of the best Learned that they cannot be mumbred even Clavius whom you cite for you confesseth That though Astronomers have reduced the most conspicuous starres to the number of 1022. yet that there are multitudes of starres besides these that cannot be told Hoc nunquam negabo saith hee I will never deny this and hee saith also That God so enlarged Abraham's sight that hee made him see all the starres of heaven If then you looke in a cleare winters night towards the North if you look on the milkie way if you consider the Stars towards the South pole not discernable by us you must confesse that the Scripture speakes properly and not according to vulgar opinion when it saith That the Starres are innumerable therefore saith Saint Austin Whosoever brags that he hath comprehended and set down the whole number of the Starres as Aratus and Eudoxus did Eos libri hujus contemnit authoritas the authority of Scripture contemnes them But when you tell us That the Israelites did farre execed the number of the Starres that is nothing to our purpose besides wee can easily answer that God did not compare Abrahams carnall seed to the Starres but his spirituall seed His carnall seed is compared to the sand and dust and so writes Saint Austin Againe when you have found out the true number of all the Starres then tell us whether they or Abrahams seed be greatest in number 4. You prove that the holy Ghost speakes not exactly of naturall secrets for he sets not downe the exact measure or proportion of Solomons brasen sea Answ. I had thought that a brasen vessel had been the worke of art and not a secret of nature that Geometricall proportions are secrets of nature is a maxime onely in your Philosophie 2. I had said that Iosephus held this sea not to be perfectly round You reply That then the disproportion will be greater and that Scripture which calls it round is to be beleeved before Iosephus I answer that I alledged not Iosephus to preferre him in my beliefe to the Scripture but to shew that there could not be an exact proportion betweene the diameter and the circumference in a vessell not exactly round and yet the Scripture doth not say it was exactly round but onely round Every thing that is called round is not of an exact round figure an egge is called round The Rainbow is said to be round about the Throne And the hills to be round about Ierusalem And children to sit round about the table c. Which you will not say are to be understood of an exact round figure But indeed I know not how to please you if I alledge Scripture you answer that Scripture speakes not exactly of naturall secrets that it accomodates it selfe to the errours of our conceits that it speaks according to the opinion of the vulgar c. If I alledge Iosephus or any other Author then you tell us that Scripture is to be beleeved before Iosephus so that you are more slippery then any eele 3. I had said that the Scripture for brevities sake in numbering used onely to mention the greater number and to omit the letter as Iacobs family were seaventy soules which indeede were seaventy five and many other such passages I alledged You answer that this confirmes your Argument For the Scripture is so farre from speaking exactly of Philosophicall secrets that in ordinary numbering it doth conform to common customs Answ. 1. Shew us that this kinde of numbering was the common custome 2. Will it follow The Scripture doth not exactly number sometimes for brevities sake ergo it never speakes exactly of Philosophicall points 3. If this consequence be good then it will follow that you never speake exactly of Philosophicall points for you sometimes in mentioning of numbers omit the lesser number as when you say seaventy Interpreters whereas there were seaventy two Lastly I answer that there is great oddes betweene an historicall narration of the measure of a vessell as it was taken by the work-men who are not still exact Geometricians and a plaine and constant affirmation of a Philosophicall truth He that wrote the Bookes of the Kings sets down the circumference of the brasen sea to be thirty cubites and the diameter to bee ten for so doubtlesse the measure was taken by the work-men but when the Scripture saith The earth is immoveable it records this as a Philosophicall or Theological maxime and not as an historicall passage Concerning the ends and sides of the earth and of heaven we will speake anon 5. That the earth is founded on the waters is not the opinion of common people but rather the contrary for they are led by sense as you use to say and their sense shewes them that the seas are above the earth and reason will teach them That a lighter body cannot be the foundation of a heavier But you bring a ridiculous reason why some thinke the earth to be upon the water Because when they have travelled as farre as they can they are stopped by the
a powerfull voice it is to shake the hearts of the proudest Atheists even of Caligula himselfe and to teach the most perverse Epicures that there is a God in heaven who ruleth and judgeth the earth No eloquence prevailed so much with Horace as this when hee was parcus Deorum cultor an Epicure it made him renounce his errour retro vela dare by which the Gentiles acknowledged there was a supreme God whom they called Iupiter and that hee had the power of thunder qui fulmine concutit orbem qui foedera fulmine sancit So the same Virgil acknowledgeth that the thunder made the people to stand in awe of God an te Genitor cum fulmina torques Nec quicquam horremus c. By this God moved the hearts of the Romanes to use the Christians kindly when by thunder hee overthrew the Marcomans and the Christian Legion from thence was called The thundering Legion It is his weapon with which hee fights against wicked men and which hee flings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against perjurers as Aristophanes saith all the thundering disputations of Philosophers and the small sparkes of light or knowledge which they have of naturall causes are but toyes they are no better then glow-wormes What is the croaking of frogs to the cracking of thunder or the light of rotten wood to lightning in the aire Therefore in spight of all Naturalists let us acknowledge with David that it is the Lord that maketh the thunder that this voice of the Lord breaketh the Cedars and divideth the flames of fire and shaketh the wildernesse c. Besides the thunder is called Gods voice as the winde Gods breath by an Hebraisme as tall Cedars and high mountaines are called the Cedars and Mountaines of God the voice of God is as much as if you would say an excellent voice Then whatsoever Naturalists affirme peremptorily of the thunder I will with Iob and David acknowledge God to be the onely cause and will aske with Iob The thunder of his power who can understand Quis tonitrus sonum aut quemadmedum oriatur explicandis rationibus assequi possit saith Symmachus on these words of Iob. 15. The constellation called the 7. Starres are found you say by later discoveries to be but six What if I should grant you this and more too then you desire to wit that of old they were accounted but six of some So Ovid Dicuntur septeno sex tamen esse solent So Aratus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And generally the Poets held that though Atlas had seven daughters called Atlantides from him yet one of them to wit Merope or as others say Electra hides her face but divers others hold there be seven to be seen And S. Basil tells us in plain termes that there are seven stars of these and not six as some think but let there be seven or but six what is this to your purpose Mary that the Scripture Amos 5.8 speakes of seven starres according to common opinion being but six in Galilies glasse but indeed the Scripture speaks neither of six nor seven but of a certaine constellation which the Seventy Interpreters leave out as a thing unknown to them Symmacbru and Theodotion interprete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old Latine hath it Arcturus which is a starre in Bootes behinde the taile of the great Beare in English we call them Seven starres and to mine eyes they seem to be so many But if in Galilies glasse there be but six it 's no wonder for you tell us elsewhere That the better the glasse is the lesse will the starres appeare It is not like then that so small a starre can be seen through it Let therefore the number of 7. remaine it is a sacred nnmber numero Deus impare gaudet CHAPT IIII. 1. Many Philosophicall points are handled in Scripture 2. The heavens how round in the opinion of the Fathers 3. Wre must have a reverend esteem of the Fathers 4. How the seas not overflowing the land may be esteemed a miracle 5. The works of Nature may be called miracles HEre you tell us of Learned men which have fallen into great absurdities whilst they have looked for the grounds of Philosophy out of Scripture which you shew by the Iewish Rabbines and some Christian Doctors Ans. As it is vanity to seek for all Philosophicall grounds in the Scripture so it is stupidity to say there be no Philosophicall grounds or truths to be found in Scripture whereas Moses Iob David Solomon and other Penmen of the holy Ghost have divers passages of Philosophy in their writings as I have shewed heretofore of divers constellations out of Iob and why may not Philosophicall truths be sought for out of Scripture seeing Philosophy is the contemplation or knowledge of divine and naturall things both which are handled in Scripture divine things principally naturall things in the second place that by naturall things we may come to the knowledge of Divinity and by this to the attainment of eternall felicity Therefore in Scripture is recorded the creation the cause qualities and effects of the creature that by these we may come to the knowledge of the Creator If the Gentile Philosophers had not found much Philosophy in Scripture they had never conveighed so much out of it as they did into their Philosophicall books as Theodore sheweth The idle opinions of many Philosophers which are grounded neither on sense nor reason as yours of the Earth's motion are not to be sought for in Scripture but Philosophicall truths which are grounded on either or both may be sought and found there and whatsoever idle conceits the Jewes have had of Scripture or their idle fables which they have grounded on it concerne us not they were a giddy headed people given over to a reprobate sense groping at noone day having their hearts fat and their eyes blinded that they may not see their seeking for Philosophicall truths in Scripture was not the cause of their foolishnesse for few or none of them were addicted to the study of Philosophy but their owne voluntary blindnesse pride stubbornnesse and contempt of Christ the internall and essentiall Word of God are the causes of their ignorance in the externall Word so that they having forsaken the truth follow lyes But as for the Christian Doctors they have not exposed themselves to errours by adhering to the words of Scripture but you are fallen into grosse errors by rejecting the words of Scripture These which you count errours are truths as That the Sun and Moon are the greatest lights That there are waters above the firmament That the starres are innumerable as wee have already shewed As for the roundnesse of the heaven though the Fathers doubt of it yet they doe not absolutely deny it Iustine Martyr doth but aske the question Whether their opinion may not be true which hold the roundnesse of the heaven St. Ambrose saith that it is sufficient for us
Pererius explaines himselfe in another place that that is only time properly and principally which is measured by the motion of the primum mobile because the motion of the heaven is the first and the cause of all other motions and because it is the least as being the swiftest and it is most certaine and uniforme universall and known to all so that if the earth did move which as yet you have not proved yet these conditions cannot agree with the earths motion time which is measured by other motions is not properly and formally but materially and improperly so called so it is false that the earths motion is the cause of time which Pererius never affirmed or dreamed of 4. You will have the heavens subject to other vanities besides that of motion as first unto many changes witnesse the comets seen amongst them and then to that generall corruption in the last day when they shall passe away with a noise c. Answ. If changes be vanity to how much vanity is your world in the Moon subject which so often changeth 2. Though the heavenly bodies were subject to other vanities as you say yet these will not exempt them from the vanity of motion 3. How comets which are Gods extraordinary workes and denouncers of his judgements are vanities I understand not 4. That the Apostle speaks of comets in that place is your part to prove either by reason or authority 5. That comets which are seen onely by us in the aire are discerned by you amongst the heavenly bodies is no wonder seeing you can discern a world in the Moon 6. St. Ambrose on that place sheweth that the vanity to which the heaven is subject is the continuall toile of their motion and that it expects rest that it may be delivered from servile work 7. If the heavens be subject to the vanity of corruption as you say tell us whether you speak properly and philosophically or metaphorically If philosophically you are absurd for every fresh-man can tell you that heaven is not capable of generation and corruption if metaphorically you speak impertinently for by the passing away of heaven is meant onely the abolition of imperfect qualities and a perfecting of it to a more glorious estate 8. The heavens you say are subject to that generall corruption in which all creatures shall be involved in the last day But you cannot tell us what that corruption shall be and so you speak at randome you doe not mean I hope that the heavens shall be involved in the same corruption with snakes rats toads and other such kinde of creatures You say that there is not such invincible strength in my arguments as might cause me triumph before hand But I say there is so much vincible weaknesse in your answers that makes me think that the refutation of them deserves neither triumph nor ovation so that my strife with you is but pugna nullos habitura triumphos neither did I purpose to make you any reply had not some friends solicited me to vindicate the truth and my owne credit which seemed to be somewhat eclipsed by the unwholsome fogs and misty discourses of your Book I said that the heaven was called AEthera ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its continuall motion and the earth Vesta quòd vi suâ stat from its immobility You say they were so called because it was then the common opinion that the heaven moved and the earth stood But now because you are of another opinion it 's fit that the names be changed aswell as the nature let the heaven now be called Vesta and the earth AEtherae or let heaven be called Terra quòd perenni cursu omnia terat and the earth should be called coelum à caelando so let all things and arts be confounded Grammar aswell as your Logick Philosophy and Astronomy 2. If heaven and earth have their Etymology from what they seeme to be not from what they are then the like may be said of other things Fire is called focus à fovendo from cherishing the sea is called mare quasi amarum because it is salt or bitter not that these things are so but because they seem to be so the like may be said of other Etymologies 3. For your conceit of the Hebrew word Erets from Ruts because it runs is but a running motion of your head The Hebrews who were better skilled in their owne language then you are derive Erets from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it continually desires to beare fruit as Munster sheweth in Genes c. 1. You object to your selfe How are two distinct motions conceiveable in the earth at the same time and you answer you selfe that it is easily apprehended considering how both these motions tend from West to East as you instance in a bowle Answ. How the earth should have two distinct circular motions is not conceiveable by us nor demostrable by you Your similie of the bowle is a poor demonstrastration and indeed false for it running on the superficies of the ground hath not two circular motions as you should have shewed but onely one such motion or rowling the other as it moves from your hand to the mark is the motion of projection or rather the bowles motion is indeed but one being a mixed or compounded motion neither doth it move with two distinct circular motions in the same place the same time as you will have the earth to doe but it runs from one place to another neither is it naturall but violent and though it were true that the bowle had two distinct circular motions in the same place at the same time yet it will not prove that the earth is either capable or we conceiveable of these two motions considering the disproportion that is between the vast and heavy earth and a small light bowle You conclude this Chapter singing the triumph before the victory for you say that we may gather some satisfaction out of it but indeed we can gather none neither are we a whit the wiser for it but leave it with as great discontents and as little satisfaction as they did Sibylla's cave who came to consult with her intricate Oracles Inconsulti abeunt sedemque odêre Sibyllae Chap. IX 1. The earth cannot be the cause of its owne motion 2. The vasinesse and thicknesse of the heavin no hinderance to its motion 3. The matter of the heavens and their smoothnesse no hinderance to their motion 4. Bignesse helps motion 5. The heavens swistnesse illustrated by other motions 6. The earth neither the finall nor efficient cause of its motion the heaven fitter for motion because greater and more constant nature worketh not still the most compendious way some idle similitudes refuted 7. Bodies having the same properties have not alwayes the same motion motion belongs to the noblest creatures 8. The smoothnesse subtilty and purity of bodies no hinderance to their motion the aire moves the water the circular motion of the fire naturall