wit That is true which is affirmed by divine authority rather then that which is guessed at by humane infirmity For there he speakes of Philosophicall points which seeme to be contrary to Scripture but you are mistaken when you say that God descends to our capacity in naturall things and conformes his expressions to the mistake of our judgements as he doth apply himselfe to our apprehensions by being represented like a man There is infinite oddes betweene God and naturall things wee that are corporall cannot understand spirituall things much lesse that infinite Spirit but by familiar expressions yet such as doe in some sort represent his attributes to us as he is said to have eyes hands c. by which are signified his knowledge operations c. But for naturall things there was no such necessity because naturall men by natures light are able to understand naturall things so wee know what a circular motion is and if the Earth did truely move we should as soon apprehend the motion of it as we do the Suns motion therefore there was no need why God should descend to our capacity in affirming an untruth because wee cannot understand the Earths motion God then doth not conforme his expressions to the errour of our judgements for our judgements doe not erre in this but he speakes according to the truth of the thing which wee judge and apprehend as it is We apprehend the fire to be hot if you were of an opinion that it were cold which you may as well maintaine as the Earths motion you would doubtlesse tell us that the Scripture in saying the fire is hot applies it selfe to the vulgar errour or mistake of our judgements thus you may make the Scripture to serve you for defence of any absurdity by using such a subterfuge and running into such a starting hole 4. You examine those particular Scriptures which are urged to prove the Suns motion and you tell us that they are spoken in reference to the appearance of things and the false opinions of the vulgar and in the 75. pag. of your Booke you say it is a frequent custome for the holy Ghost to speake of naturall things rather according to appearance and common opinion then the truth it selfe I would 1. know if this consequence be Logicke the holy Ghost speakes of naturall things according to appearance frequently and of some ergo continually and of all or particularly of this to wit the Earths immobility The Scripture oftentimes speakes of God according to mens opinion and capacity as that he is angry that he repents c. Ergo the Scripture speaks still of God thus and so when the Scripture sayes that God is a Spirit or just or infinite or eternall that may be understood if your Logicke be good according to opinion or appearance this will prove a dangerous kind of reasoning 2. Why doth not the holy Ghost tell us in plaine tearmes that the Earth moves if it doth move what end hath hee to tell us that it is immoveable Is it because we are not capable to understand such a high mysterie that is ridiculous For is it a greater mysterie then Christs Incarnation Resurrection Ascension c. which are set downe in plaine tearms but indeed it is no mysterie it 's easie to understand the Earths motion if it did move Or is it because the holy Ghost would not give offence to the world in telling them plainly that the Earth moved being an opinion so repugnant to sense and reason Then doubtlesse he would not have told us that the Sun and Moone stood still at Ioshua's command or that the Sea was divided by Moses Rod and those other miracles of holy Writ as much repugnant to sense and naturall reason as the Earths motion is the holy Ghost useth not to hide or mince the truth for feare of offending men 3. There is great oddes betweene asseverations and allusions betweene the affirmation of a truth and an allusion to a fiction The Scripture speaking of perverse men that will not heare Gods word alludes to the fiction as you call it of the adder stopping his eare ergo when the Scripture speakes of the Earths immobility it speaks according to common opinion A goodly consequence as if you would say the Scripture speakes figuratively of Christ when it calls him a Lamb a Doore a Vine ergo when the Scripture speakes of the beheading of Iohn Baptist it speakes according to common opinion if there be no better Logicke taught in the Universities of the Moone we will never send our Sons thither 3. It is a rule in Saint Austin that we should expound Scripture as the Saints have expounded it before us Quomodo bac verba intellexerunt Sancti sic utique intelligenda sunt But name me that Saint that ever expounded these Scriptures which speake of the Heavens motion and of the Earths immobilitie according to appearance and common opinion Of St. Austins minde was the sixth generall Councell prohibiting any man to interpret Scripture otherwise then the Lights and Doctors of the Church have hitherto expounded them by their writings which Canon is confirmed in the eleventh Session of the third Lateran Councell 5. The ancient Fathers warne us that we doe not deviate or depart from the literall sense of Scripture so long as no absurdity doth follow thereupon now no absurdity doth follow upon the literall sense of the Earths immobilitie but upon your sense and exposition many absurdities follow therefore we must not depart from the literall sense 6. Where the holy Ghost speakes obscurely and figuratively in one place hee doth in another place open himselfe in plaine tearmes as Saint Hierome observes but speaking of the Earths immobilitie he useth still the same phrases neither doth he explaine himselfe otherwise in any one place which doubtlesse hee would have done if he had meant otherwise then hee spoake 7. I absolutely deny that the holy Ghost speakes of naturall things otherwise then in truth and reality and not as you say according to common opinions As for your expositions of these Scriptures which are for us and your instances against our opinion they are wrested and false and impertinent and of no soliditie as we will shew by our answer or reply to each of them severally 1. It is usuall with you to cut your throate with your owne sword and to bring passages against your selfe for you would prove that the Scripture speakes of the Heavens motion in reference onely to the Vulgars false opinion because The Sunne is in his glory like a Bridegroome and in his motion like a Gyant I answer if the Sunne be in his motion like a Gyant then sure the Sunne hath motion for how can that which is not be compared to that which is Similitudes cannot illustrate non entities 2. If the Sun were not a glorious creature David had not compared his glory to without motion he had not compared his motion to the motion
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
that this miracle hapned when Hesiod flourished you faile in your Chronologie for Hesiod was above a hundred yeares before this miracle was effected if you will beleeve Gentbrard and the other Chronologers You are a wise Philosopher to tell us that the shadow as well as the heat and beames is the effect of the Sunne Can darknesse be the effect of light a privation is a defect not an effect if the shadow were an effect at all it should be the effect of the darke and condensate body but not of the luminous Take heed that the light which is in you be not darknesse for then how great will that darknesse be 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. Not 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 by circumference of the brasin 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 Adler 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 amp 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 IN this Proposition you goe about to shew us That the Scripture in naturall things conformes it selfe to our conceived errours and that it speakes of things not as they are in themselves but as they appeare And yet the testimony of Vallesius which you bring to help you overthrowes you for Whatsoever saith hee is in Scripture concerning Nature is most true as proceeding from the God of Nature from whom nothing could be hid If the Scripture expressions of naturall things be most true then they cannot agree with our erroneous conceits for truth and errour agree like light and darknesse and you confesse your selfe that all naturall points in Scripture are certain and infallible but in that sense say you wherein they were first intended and that is the sense that you give for you only are acquainted with the first intended sense of the holy Ghost and so wee must take it upon your bare word that that onely is the true sense which your side delivereth and I pray you what heresie may not be maintained by Scripture this way for heretickes will also say That all things in Scripture are true certaine and evident in that sense which was at first intended but when it comes to the point it is the sense which they themselves have invented obtruded The first instance which you bring for proof of your assertion is from the Moon which is called in Scripture One of the great lights and yet by infallible observation say you may be proved to be lesse then any visible starre Answ. Other Astronomers will prove as strongly as you can that Mercury is the least of all starres shall wee beleeve you or them 2. Though I should yeeld that the Moon were a small starre in bulk will it follow that therefore it is a lesser light Must the light be intended as the body is extended I have seen a fire yeeld lesse light then a candle Mercury which you say is bigger then the Moon hath not the hundreth part of that light which is in the Moon so that if Mercury and the Moon should change places yet the light of the Moon would not appeare much lesser nor the light of Mercury much bigger the eie which is the light of the body is not the clearer because the bigger there is not so much light in an Oxe eie as in an Eagle's Divines hold That the light which was created the first day was no other then the light of the Sun diffused over the hemispheare the whole hemispheare is much bigger I hope then the body of the Sun and yet the world I think was not more enlightened the first day then the fourth when that diffused light was contracted and compacted in a narrower compasse 3. To what end should there be so much light in each starre exceeding the light of the Moone They received their light not for themselves but for us except you will say there be innumerable worlds which must be enlightened aswell as ours but wee receive by many degrees more light from one halfe of the Moon then wee doe from all the starres together Surely God made nothing in vaine but in vain hath the starres so much light if man for whom they were made receive no sight nor benefit from this light 4. Astronomicall positions concerning the magnitude and heighth of each starre on which they ground their darke conjecture of light are toyes and fictions of their owne heads they make false Maximes and on these they build confused Babels of their owne conceits yeeld to them that they have the semidiameter of the earth and then Graeculus esuriens ad Coelum jusseris ibit Every smatterer will exactly tell you the height and bignesse of each starre Haud secus ac si oculo rubricam dirigat uno 5. I will tell you what St. Austine saith of this Question and of the Astronomers of his time Let them saith hee talk of heaven who have but small interest in heaven wee confidently beleeve that these lights are greater then others which the Scripture commends to be such Let them give us leave to trust our owne eyes it is manifest that they give more light to the earth then all the rest do c. The Scripture then and our owne senses assure us that these are the great lights If you say that each starre is a bigger light in it selfe then the Moon I will beleeve it when I see it or have talked with one of your world in the Moon who perhaps can informe us better then any reason you can bring to evince us 2. Wee grant that Moses tells us of waters above the firmament but we deny that this is in reference to an erroneous conceit as you say but rather wee hold That it is an erroneous conceit to forsake the true fountaines of knowledge to digge crackt cisternes to preferre any opinion to the plaine text of Scripture What a forced exposition is it to call clouds and raine below in the aire and which are oftentimes lower then the tops of hills to call these I say waters above the heaven of which the Psalmist speaks whereas these waters are so farre below
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
have the same matter so that as there is a transmutation of the elements into each other even so the heavens may be changed into the elements and these into them heaven may become earth and earth heaven this is your admirable learning which passeth all understanding 4. Heaven it seemes by you hath a contrary but you tell us not what that is they are not contrary to one another as fire and water nor are they contrary to sublunary things for they cherish and preserve them neither have they the same common matter 5. Any sensible man may easily conceive that contrariety and corruption are hinderances to a perpetuall circular motion and because as is said the heaven is not capable of them but the earth is it will follow that I argued upon good grounds that the heavens onely are endowed with all things requisit for motion and not the earth and therefore God will have nothing idle as hee made nothing in vaine hee hath made the heavens and the three superiour elements to be exercised with motion and the lowest element with generation and corruption but it were strange if the earth should be subject to all three and the heavens to none but should stand still and be perpetually idle this is not sutable to the wisdome of the Maker 5. I reasoned that all similary parts are of the same nature with the whole but each part of the earth doth rest in its place therefore doth the whole also You say this Argument would prove That the sea doth not ebbe and flow because every drop of water hath not this motion or that the whole earth is not sphericall because each part hath not the same forme Answ. I have shewed already that the ebbing and flowing of the sea are not essentiall to the sea for in many places the sea doth not ebbe and flow therefore it is no wonder that parts of the sea being severed from the whole lose that motion seeing many parts being joyned with the whole have it not This motion then is caused by externall agents but those qualities which are essentiall to the whole are not lost in the parts Every drop of water is heavy and moves downward because the whole doth every drop of sea water is salt because the whole is 2. I have said already that the earth is not exactly sphearicall and though it were your conceit is nothing for roundnesse belongs not to the earth quà talis as it is earth sed quà tota as it is whole When a thing ceaseth to be whole it loseth the figure of the whole neither are external figures or outward qualities essential to things but common accidents onely Now the qualitie of resting in the lowest place is essentiall to the whole earth therefore to the parts also 6. I said that the Sun in the world is as the heart in mans body but the motion of the heart ceasing none of the members stirre so neither would there be motion in the world if the Sun stood still This you say is rather an illusturation then a proof I grant it for I used it as an illustration to discover with its light the weaknesse and to dispell the darknesse of your opinion And were it not an absurd thing to think that the arteries move but the heart standeth still So no lesse absurd is it to say that the Earth moveth but the Sunne standeth still 2. Illustrations oftentimes are forcible proofs and used they are both by Divines and Philosophers 7. I said that the Sun and heavens work upon these inferiour bodies by their light and motion You say That the Sun and Planets working upon the earth by their owne reall daily motion is the thing in question therefore must not be taken for a common ground Answ. If nothing shall be taken for a common ground which is or hath been in question then there are no common grounds in Divinity and Philosophy for I know no fundamentall doctrine in the one or principall in the other which hath not been questioned by wanton and unsettled spirits 2. I said that the heavens work by motion you inferre as if I had said of a reall daily motion I spake neither of daily nor annuall motion if hee doth not work by his daily doth hee work by his annuall revolution 3. Tell mee if you can from whence proceed the many motions and mutations that are in sublunary things from themselves they cannot from a superior cause then they must and what is that but the heavens and what other media or meanes are in heaven by which they work but light and motion If you can tell us any other besides these wee will be beholding to you 8. I proved that the earth must be firme and stable because it is the foundation of buildings You say That it is firme from all jogging and uncertaine motions Answ. This is a jogging conceit of yours and an uncertain answer as I have shewed already for motion as it is motion is an enemy to buildings be it never so uniforme and a moving foundation can be no settled foundation If a foundation be stable how can it move if it move how can it be stable 9. My ninth Argument was taken from the authority of Divines grounded on Scripture Thy Sun shall no more goe downe c. In the Revelations the Angel sweares there shall be no more time therefore the heavens must rest whose motion is the measurer of time so S. Paul saith The creature is subject to vanity this is the vanity of motion of which Solomon speaks The Sun riseth and the Sun goeth downe c. This you say is but a weake Argument for it is granted that this opinion is a Paradoxe Answ. As it deviates from the opinion of other men it is a Paradoxe but as it is repugnant to Scripture it is a Cacodoxe 2. When you say that Isaiah speaketh of that light which shall be in stead of the Sun and Moon doe you answer any thing at all to his testimony Thy Sun shall no more goe downe c. for hee distinguisheth between that light which God shall give to his Saints and the light of the Sun which shall no more goe downe so that hee doth not confound these two lights which are in God and in the Sun as you would have it A part of the Churches happinesse shall be that shee shall both enjoy the light of the Sun without intermission and also that new inaccessible light of divine vision If then the Sun shall goe downe no more it argues that the Sun useth to goe downe Now if you will have these words understood mystically yet the thing to which they doe allude must be understood properly to wit the going down of the Sun 3. You will have time to be measured by the motion of the earth not of the heaven and this you prove out of Pererius who saith That time depends upon the motion and succession of any duration But
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
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
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
not novv spend time in vievving the parts and materials of your Poeticall castle till you have brought it to perfection and then I vvill take a survey of every particular 4. I had said that a bigger body as a mill-stone vvill naturally descent svvifter then a lesse as a pebble stone the cause of this You will not have to be ascribed to the bodies bignesse but to the strength of naturall desire which that big body hath to such a motion Answ. You make a shevv as if you did ansvver our argument but in effect you ansvver nothing for if I should aske you vvhy a mill-stone falls faster then a pebble you will answer because it hath a stronger desire to fall but if I aske againe why it hath a stronger desire you answer because the bigger a thing is the stronger is its desire c. and is not your opinion now all one with mine in effect that it is the bignesse that is the cause of this swiftnesse now the same reason is appliable to bodies moving circularly for though they were in their proper scituations yet there is in them as great a desire to move about the center as there is in elementary bodies to move to and from the center therefore the greater the body is the greater desire it hath to move according to your opinion Againe I said that the winde will sooner move a great ship then a little stone you answer This is not because a ship is more easily moveable then a little stone but because a little stone is not so liable to the violence from whence its motion proceeds This answer is as wise as the former for why is not the stone as liable to the violent cause of its motion as the ship but because it is not so big therefore the ship is more easily moveable then the stone because by reason of its bignesse it 's more liable to the violent cause of its motion And when you say That I cannot throw a ship as farre as a stone I grant it but this will onely argue want of strength in me but not want of aptitude for a swifter motion in the ship then in the stone if I had strength to sling the one as well as the other A bigger bullet out of the same peece will flie farther and swifter then a lesser 5. I brought some instances to illustrate the possibility of the heavens swiftnesse as the sound of a cannon twenty miles off of the sight of a starre in a moment of the light passing suddenly from East to West of the swiftnesse of a bullet carried by the powder to these you answer That the passage of a sound is but slow compared to the heavens motion that the species of sound or sight are accidents and so is the light that the disproportion is great betwixt the heavens motion and the swiftnesse of a bullet Answ. Let the sound and light and species be what they will be they are moved and if they be accidents they cannot be moved alone but with the subject in which they are inherent therefore if there be such swiftnesse in the motion of these what need we doubt of the swiftnesse of the heavens and if accidents can be so swiftly moved with and in their subjects much swifter must be these heavenly substances having no resistance whose matter is so pure that it is a great furtherance to their motion and though there be great disproportion betwixt the bullets motion and the heavens swiftnesse yet the motion of the one serves to illustrate the swiftnesse of the other And yet I take not upon me as you doe peremptorily to tell how swift the heavens are and though I said that the light was an accident yet I said also that it was corpori simillimum that it comes very neere to the nature of a body neither did Aristotle prove the light to be no body because of its swiftnesse as if no body were capable of that swiftnesse for then he should contradict himselfe as you use to doe but he meanes that no sublunarie body had so swift a motion It had been folly to illustrate the swiftnesse of the bullets motion by the motion of the hand in the watch for there by many other motions far swifter then this to expresse the bullets motion but of sublunary motions there be none swifter then those I alledged to illustrate the motion of heaven 6. You would have the earth to be both the efficient and finall cause of its motion But indeed it is neither the one nor the other for if it move at all it must be moved by another mover then it selfe and God made the heavens not for the earth but for man so the diurnall and annuall motions have man for their finall cause and heavenly movers for their efficient 2. You say That nature is never tedious in that which may be done an easier way This I will not grant you for nature doth not still worke the easiest but the most convenient way but I deny that the earths motion is either more easie or more convenient then that of heaven for a light body such as heaven is is more easily moved then a heavy and it is more convenient that the foundation of our houses should remain firme and stable then moveable as I said I could tell you how laborious and tedious nature is in the perfecting of mans body and of many other things therefore she doth not take still the most compendious way 3. You say It is not likely that the heaven should undergoe so great and constant a worke which might be saved by the circumvolution of the earths body How tender hearted are you are you afraid that the heavens will grow wearie and I pray you is not heaven sitter to undergoe a great and constant worke then the earth so small so dull so heavy so subject to change a great worke is fit for a great body and a constant work fit for that body that knoweth no unconstancy 4. You are deceived when you say That the heaven receiveth no perfection by its motion but is made serviceable to this little ball of earth The perfection of heaven consisteth in its motion as the earths perfection in its rest neither was heaven made to serve this ball but to serve him who was made Lord of this ball 5. Your Similies of a mother warming her childe of a Cooke rosting his meat of a man on a tower of a Watch maker are all frivolous For a mother turneth her childe and a Cook his meat to the fire because the fire cannot turne it selfe to them the motion is in them not in the fire so he that is on a tower turnes himselfe round to see the countrey because the countrey cannot turne it selfe about him If you had proved to us that the heaven cannot move but that it is the earth that moveth then we should yeeld that the earth did foolishly to expect the celestiall fire to turne about her but