Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	soul_n	true_a	7,689	5	4.8842	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57666	The new planet no planet, or, The earth no wandring star, except in the wandring heads of Galileans here out of the principles of divinity, philosophy, astronomy, reason, and sense, the earth's immobility is asserted : the true sense of Scripture in this point, cleared : the fathers and philosophers vindicated : divers theologicall and philosophicall points handled, and Copernicus his opinion, as erroneous, ridiculous, and impious, fully refuted / by Alexander Rosse ; in answer to a discourse, that the earth may be a planet.	Ross, Alexander, 1591-1654.	1646 (1646)	Wing R1970; ESTC R3474	118,883	127

inferre that our soules are superfluous because a naturall power resulting from the matter of our bodies and intrinsecall to them will serve the turne as well But indeed such excellent bodies as the heavens did require a more excellent forme then sublunary bodies doe for these are content with an informing form but the heavens stood in need of an assisting forme and how can we conceive that out of such pure and simple materials as the heavens are there should result a naturall power to move them circularly orderly constantly perpetually If our grosse and decaying bodies are moved with reasonable soules which though they be internall formes result not from the power of the matter much more should the heavens be regulated by Intelligent spirits and not by any naturall power 4. This naturall power of moving must be either the forme brought out of the matter which is done by generation but in heaven there is no generation because there is no privation of an other forme or any appetite in the matter to it or else this power must be a forme brought into the matter but no forme is introduced into the matter except the reasonable soule therefore there is no informing forme in heaven and consequently there can be no other movers but Angels This Argument I urged against Carpenter but you winked at it and said nothing 5. You say That Intelligences being immaterials cannot immediately worke upon a body What is this to the purpose If they work upon bodies it 's no matter how they worke wee know that our soules worke upon our grosse bodies and so doe the Intelligences upon the heavens we know that spirits work upon muteriall substances immediately or else there would be no working at all and it is ridiculous in you to disable the Angels from working or moving because they have no instruments or hands to take hold of the heavens What hands hath your soule when it works on your body What hands hath the winde when it moves the clouds 6. You have no reason to insult so over the Schoole-men who affirme that the faculty whereby the Angels move their orbes is their will for what faculty else can you imagine in them Doth not your soule worke upon your body by the will so that albeit there be many instruments by which the soule moveth the body yet the prime faculty by which it moveth is the will so that if you suspend your act of willing a motion you must needs stand still and on the contrary your onely willing to move the hand or foot is sufficient as the chiefe medium or faculty to move them And so it is with the heavens saving onely that there are no subordinate organs by which the Angelicall will doth move the heavens but when you say that there was no need of Angels since this might be as well done by the will of God You speake idlely for so you may say that there is no need of our soules to move our bodies since this might be as well done by the will of God Angelicall and humane wills are subordinate and serviceable to the will of God but not excluded by it For in him we live and move and yet we live and move by our soules too And as impertinent is your other question How the orbes are capable of perceiving this will in the Intelligences or what motive faculty have they of themselves to inable them to obey Answ. The orbes are as capable to perceive the will of the Angels as your body is to perceive your will or as those bodies were which the Angels of old assumed and by them conversed with the Patriarchs and as those bodies had a motive faculty to obey the Angels will so have the heavens much more Keplar's opinion that the Planets are moved round by the Sunne and that this is done by sending forth a magneticke vertue and that the Sun-beames are like the teeth of a wheele taking hold of the Planets are senselesse crotchets fitter for a wheeler or miller then a Philosopher This magneticke vertue is a salve for all sores a pin to stop every hole for still when you are reduced to a non-plus magneticke vertue is your onely subterfuge like AEneas his target Unum omniae contra tela Latinorum If you had told us that the North starre had a magneticke vertue because the needle touched with the magnes looketh towards it some silly people perhaps would have beleeved you and yet the magneticke vertue is in the needle not in the star but that in the Sunne there should be a magneticke vertue it hath no show of probability This vertue you say may hold out to as great a distance as light or heat But if this comparison hold it will follow that there is no such vertue in the Sunne for that light which is in the aire is not in the Sunne neither is that heate which wee feele caused by the Sunne in the Sunne but your following words are admirable That if the Moone may move the sea why may not the Sunne move the earth As if you would say If the North-winde shake the woods why may not the South-winde shake the mountaines Or according to your doctrine if the earth can move the Moone why may not Venus or Mercury move the Sunne or why may not the Sunne move the Firmament You conclude well That your Quare's are but conjectures and that no man can finde out the workes of God from the beginning to the end and yet you have found out that which God never made to wit a rolling Earth a standing Heaven a world in the Moone which indeed are not the workes of God but of your owne head for his workes are incomprehensible his wayes past finding out Trouble not then your selfe too much in these things which in this life you cannot understand learne to know your selfe that wee may know you too and by the knowledge of your selfe strive to know God the knowledge of whom is life eternall I will give you good counsell in the words of Hugo Nosce teipsum melior es si te ipsum cognoscas quaem si te neglecto cursus siderum vires herbarum c. Coelestium omnium terrestrium scientiam haberes multi multa sciunt seipsos nesciunt quum summa Philosophia sit cognitio sui CHAP. X. 1. The idle and uncertaine concetes of Astronomers concerning the celestiall bodies 2. The appearances of the Sunne and other Planets cannot be so well discerned by the earth if it did move 3. The excellency of Divinity above Astronomy and an exhortation to the study of it THis proposition is full of suppositions fraughted with figures and characters which more affect the eye then satisfie the minde neither doe they demonstrate the motions of the earth but the motions of your head The pictures in Ovids Metamorphosis adde not the more credit to his fictions neither doe these figures to you phansies wee will beleeve no more then you can demostrate

sea By the same reason if you were travelling and stopt by a river or lake you will conclude that the earth is upon that river or lake But your opinion is true in some sense for when we are stopt by the sea lake or river we get up into a boate or ship and then indeed earth is above water but I thinke you was asleep when this watrish reason dropt from your pen. I have already shewed how the earth is said to be upon the sea that is by the Hebrew phrase which wants comparatives that it is higher then the sea and that it is in some parts of it above the seas flouds and rivers that are in the concavities of the earth 6. You speake much of the right and left side of Heaven and dextro Mercurio you have conveyed a great part of your discourse out of Clavius without acknowledgement but quorsum perditio bac This waste of words might have been better spared as being impertinent For that place of Iob speakes indeed of the right and lest hand but not a word of heaven neither is there any right or lest sidein heaven nor needs there to be For the left side is more imperfect and weak then the right which cannot be said of heaven being an uniforme and every way perfect body And how can there be a right and left side where there is neither sense nor life nor distinction of organicall parts Therefore in trees and plants there is no right or left side though they have life much lesse can this be in heaven 2. Tell us what part of heaven doth the Scripture call right or left this I know you cannot tell 3. Though the Scripture should speak after the vulgar phrase in naming the right and left side of heaven doth it therefore follow that the Scripture speaketh so concerning the stability of the earth 4. Whereas you say That Aristotles opinion in this point is delivered upon wrong grounds supposing the Orbes to be living creatures and assisted with Intelligences I confesse that he calls the heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having a soule or spirit which he calls Intelligence we Angel by which the heaven is moved but he doth not hereby suppose the heaven to be a living creature for the Angels are not informing sormes of their Orbes but assisting When the Angel was in the poole of Bethesda and moved the water you will not inferre upon this that the poole was a living creature whatsoever is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animatum that is hath a soule or spirit in it is not therefore a living creature for so you may say a paire of bellowes or winde instruments of musicke are living creatures for winde breath and aire are called sometimes soules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anima or animus is common to them all Quicquid ignes animaeque valent Phrygias audire animas are spoken of bellowes and musicall instruments so Phrygius cornus liquida canit anima And yet I will not deny but metonymically heaven may be called a living creature as being that which giveth life to living creatures or by Analogie it may be said to live in respect of the Angel which supplies the roome of a soule not in giving life but motion to it 5. It was no wrong ground in Aristotle to say that the heavens were assisted with Intelligences seeing they cannot move themselves being simple substances neither can naturall forme give such multiplicitie of motions as are in the heavens neither are they moved by other bodies for these bodies at last must be moved by spirits neither doe naturall bodies move naturally in their place but to their place now the heavens are in their place Of this opinion were not onely the Philosophers but also the Christian Doctors heavenly bodies are moved by the ministery of Angels saith Saint Austin Origen saith that the Angels have the charge of all things of earth and water aire and fire and perhaps Saint Hierome mistooke his meaning when he attributes to Origen this errour of assisting reasonable soules to the heavens he meant the Angels And Thomas by that Spirit that compasseth the world by its motion Eccles. 1. 6. understandeth an Angel It were strange to thinke that so many Angels should be assigned by God for the earth and for inferiour officers towards men and none should have the moving of the heavens but of the Angels moving their spheares I have spoken already against Mr. Carpenter 7. The Spirit you say applies himselfe to the common tenent generally received heretofore in attributing wisdome and understanding to the heart whereas reason and discursive faculties have the chiefe residence in the head Answ. 1. How know you that this was the generall tenent in Solomons dayes From what stories of these times have you had this The word heretofore must signifie the time before Solomon I doubt me if you should be put to it you could not prove that the opinion of the understandings residence in the heart was the common tenent in the world before Solomon but I perceive you would have it to be so because Solomon placeth understanding in the heart as if the Scripture set downe no positive Doctrines but what were common tenents whether true or false 2. The word heart here may signifie the soule or minde as it doth often in Scripture and in humane writings too the soule is called heart and the heart is called soule oftentimes So in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eating their soules that is their hearts with cares And in Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be without reason or understanding vecordes and excordes are men whose minds are distempered So in Saint Peter By the hidden man of the heart is meant the renovation of the minde If then by the heart is understood the mind or soule you must needs grant that it is a tenent no lesse true then common that the understanding is in the heart whether you take it for a part or for a power or for a facultie of the soule 3. This was not a common tenent many yeares after Solomon for neither Empedocles nor the Epicures nor the Egyptian Philosophers nor the Arabians nor the Academicks held the understanding to be in the heart but some in the head some in the breast some in all the body Herodotus affirmed it to be in the ears Blemor in the eyes Strato in the eye-browes onely the Peripatetickes and Stoicks placed it in the heart 4. The holy Ghost attributes understanding to the heart not because it was a common but because a true tenent for howsoever Galen and his Sectaries hold the contrary yet it is certaine that the heart is the true seat of the understanding For 1. The will is in the heart therefore the understanding is there also such is the dependency of these two faculties the one from the other that the will is never without the understanding and indeed these two are but

bringing forth and vipera quasi vi pari●ns But we will shake off this viper from our pen as Saint Paul did that viper in Malta from his hand and if your viper hath bit us let us see if your aspe for so naturalists doe write will cure us 9. The aspe which you translate the adder stops his eares saith the Psalmist against the voyce of the charmer This you say is fabulous if we may beleeve many naturalists yet the holy Ghost alludes to it because it was the generall opinion of those dayes Answ. You are a great Antiquary for you know the common opinions that were in Davids dayes and you tell us not out of what records or manuscripts you have this but indeed I will not beleeve you nor your many naturalists whom you should have named and shewed us their reasons why they think this to be fabulous 2. You will not I think hold inchanting of Serpents to be fabulous except you will as you use to doe contradict both sacred and profane ancient and recent stories 3. Nor will you deny that there is great cunning and prudence in Serpents to avoid dangers and to preserve themselves our Saviour will have us to learne wisdome of them why then may not the aspe naturally have this piece of policie to stop his eare 4. Though there were no such naturall policie in the Serpent yet may he not be taught by inchanters to do so You shal read in stories of stranger matters done by Serpents if you will reade Irenaeus Austin and Epiphanius of heresies you shall finde how that sect of the Valentinians or Gnostickes called from worshipping of the Serpents Ophits did teame and teach their Serpents to come out of their holes or boxes where they were kept to crawle on their altars eo licke their oblations to wrap themselves about their eucharist and so returne to their holes the like is recorded by Virgil of a Serpent on the altar which AEntas erected on his fathers tombe Tandem inter pateras levia pocula Serpent Libavitque dapes c. I will not speake of Olympias her Serpent and of many others 5. May not Satan who hath still abused the Serpent to superstition cause the aspe stop his eares when he is inchanted Is it a more incredible thing for an aspe to stop his eare then for a Serpent to speake and discourse as he did to Eva. I could tell you strange stories of the Serpent Epidaurius at Rome of that Serpent that barked at the ejection of Tarquinius and of others recorded by grave Historians which I will not account fabulous though you perhaps will because I know that Satan by permission can doe strange things 6. It is manifest that beasts birds and fishes are diversly affected with joy fear courage anger c. according to the qualitie of the sound which they heare why then should the relation of the aspe stopping his care be accounted so incredible It may be as naturall for him to stop his eare at an ungratefull sound as for other creatures to run away from it 7. Though men have but small knowledge of this yet as St. Austin saith the Spirit of God knowes better then all men do who had not recorded this had it not been true so that what is by men accounted an opinion in Scripture it is truth saith the same Father by all this you may see that the holy Ghost speaketh not according to mens opinions but according to truth and though you should erect your two Serpents over your dore as the Gentiles used to doe over their temples yet they will not priviledge your opinion 10. The North winde which the Scripture calleth cold and drie the Southwinde which is hot and moist are phrases as you say which doe not containe any absolute generall truth for though the North-winde to us on this side of the line be cold and dry yet to those beyond the other tropicke it is hot and moist Answ. There is no absolute generall truth in most of the sublunarie works of nature for they are subject to much change and especially the windes which are the emblemes of unconstancy So that even here in this Island I have known northern windes warme and moist and southerne cold and dry and if you read Acosta he will tell you that ordinarily beyond the line the North-winde is cold and dry as it is in this side and not hot and moist as you say though it blow from the line The windes doe vary according to the climate they blow through and yet they keep not the same tenure still in the same climate the North-winde is ordinarily cold and dry in that climate where these Scriptures of Iob and Proverbs were penned and the Scripture speaketh onely of that climate and yet if you will beleeve Acosta's owne experience these Scriptures are true also of the North-winde beyond the line But what will you inferre upon this marry that this proposition the earth is immoveable containes not a generall truth because the North-winde is not generally cold and drie as if you would say this proposition the sea ebbes and flowes containes not a generall truth ergo this proposition man is a reasonable creature is not generally true who will not laugh petulants splene to heare such Logick But you give a reason why this phrase of the coldnesse and drinesse of the North-winde is not generally true because in some places it is hot and moist prove unto us that the earth in some places moves circularly and then we will yeeld that this phrase of the earths immobility is not generally true 2. These Scriptures which you alledge for the coldnesse of the North-wind may be diversly understood for Iob 37.9 there is mention made of dispersers or scatterers but not of the North-wind and this quality is in every wind to disperse the clouds as well as to bring them In the Pro. 25. 23. it is said that the North-winde bringeth forth raine for so the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth as well as to drive away and so Iunius and Tremelius translate it gignit and instead of Aquilo they have Caecias which is the North-East-winde though some think it to be the North-West so the seaventy Translatours have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to excite and stirre up so Iob 37. 21. where some translate faire weather in Hebrew Greeke and in the old Latine Translation it is Gold cometh out of the North. Thus upon tottering and uncertaine foundations you raise the structure of your wilde phantasies 11. The darkning of the Sunne the turning of the Moone into bloud and the falling of the Stars will not help you for these are not naturall effects but miraculous workes of God to be done afore Christ second coming and to say that these things shall be but in shew or appearance is to make us thinke that God will affright the world as we doe little children with hobgoblins How will the

the fire then the aire then the water and lowest of all the earth as being the grossest and reason tells us that God is the God of order and what a disordered world should we have if grosse and heavy bodies were uppermost the light and purest bodies beneath We see in our owne bodies that the grosser the spirits are the lower they are the animall having their residence in the head the vitall in the heart the naturall in the liver 2. Nor is it uncertaine that the earth is of a baser matter then the Planets the obscurity and dulnesse of the one the beauty light and swiftnesse of the other doe shew what oddes there is in the matter How are all Divines deceived who put men in minde of the base materialls of their body and teach that God made men of the basest element to humble him Animalium superbissimi origo vilissima and I thinke you are Planet-struck or have a planeticall head who thinke the earth to be a Planet 3. That the center is the worst place is not held by us for though we say the earth to be the ignoblest and basest element in respect of its matter and therefore the lowest yet as it is the center and habitation of the noblest creature it is placed in the middle as being the noblest place 4. Our second argument is grounded you say upon two foolish foundations 1. That the whole frame of nature moves round excepting onely the earth 2. That the whole earth is heavy and more unfit for motion then the Planets These you reject because they are you say the thing in question Answ. You are doubtlesse that third Cato that fell from heaven or octavus Sapientum Our foundations of the earths stability and gravity are foolishnesse with you so was the Gospell foolishnesse to the Gentiles but you doe well to observe Solomons rule Answer not a foole according to his folly which is the reason that you answer not at all to these foolish foundations of ours but onely with this they are the thing in question But if you question the stability and gravity of the earth is not your question as foolish as our foundation but seeing you may question every thing every thing may be a foolish answer or position to you And what doe you thinke of the Scripture when it saith The earth standeth fast and the stars move doth the Scripture in this speake foolishly Surely we are content to preferre the foolishnesse of Scripture to the wisdome of your scribling because such conceited wisdome is but foolishnesse with God What foundation either in Divinity or Philosophy what Article of the Creed hath not been questioned shall they be counted foolish foundations or unfit to discusse controversies because they have been questioned by pernicious Heretickes If you were as wise a man as you pretend your selfe to be you should have with solid arguments refelled our foundations which are so fully demonstrated by so many Philosophers and then you should have shot your fooles bolt The truth of these foundations I have shewed already to which you answer nothing therefore here I will not actum agere 5. Our third Argument is That our earth must be in the center because it is in the lowest place or middest of the world this Aristotle proves by the descending of all heavy to the center and the ascending of light bodies from it But you reject Aristotle as being a master of Syllogismes and being deceived whilst be supposeth that which he pretends to prove But indeed you are much deceived your selfe whilst you reject this master of Syllogismes who doth not suppose what he pretends to prove but substantially proves what you thinke hee supposeth Hee saith the earth is the center and thus syllogistically out of him it is proved To what place heavy bodies descend that place is the center But to the earth heavy bodies descend ergo the earth is the center You see now that this master of Syllogismes doth not suppose that which he brings unto the conclusion but proves the earth to be the center by a medium which you cannot answer so that being put to your shifts you know not how to elude the force of this and other arguments but by falling to your art of multiplying centers and circumferences which is not difficult to you that can multiply worlds And because cause you cannot be so impudent as to deny the ascending of light bodies you say That they ascend to some circumference which we cannot reasonably affirme to be concentricall with that of the world But I would know of you how you can reasonably affirme that circle to be eccentricall which we sensibly perceive to be concentricall to the world If neither you nor we can perceive that circumference to which light bodies ascend eccentricall to the world what reason have you to affirme it or how doe you prove what you affirme May you not as well tell us that there are more suns then this one which we see For you will say that we cannot reasonably affirme there is but one sun But you say We cannot prove the descent of heavy bodies to the center nor the ascent of light bodies to the circumference of the world because all our experience in this kind extends but to things that are on earth or in the aire above it I pray you good Sir how farre doth your experience reach beyond ours that you should deny this our assertion Have you beene in the moone and observed that which we cannot finde here below We see quantum acie possunt oculi servare as farre as our eyes will give us leave to wit light bodies mounting from the center towards the circumference doe you see otherwise I know you doe not and cannot though you had as many eyes as Argus therefore keep your wilde opinions to your selfe for so long as you can neither by sense nor reason perswade us your bare word will be too weake an argument to worke upon our beliefe You conclude That it were a senslesse thing from our experience of so little a part to pronounce any thing infallibly concerning the scituation of the whole I grant our experience to be little but yours is lesse or none at all a little is better then none and we may more boldly inferre that there is but one center and one circumference because all light things ascend to one circumference and all heavy things descend to one center then you can inferre two centers and two circumferences whereas you never knew any light thing ascend or heavy thing descend to any other circumference and center then to these which we maintaine are not you therefore much more senslesse then we for we follow the direction both of our sense and reason so doe not you 6. Our Astonomicall reasons you refell as wisely as you have done the rest for you grant us That the earth is in the midst of the equinoctiall horizon and other circles but you

thinke you of a Hedge hog when he wraps himselfe up in his prickles as round as a bowle is the best part then more in the middle of his body then it was before Or hath the earth which is of a round forme better things in the center then in the superficies What difference is there betweene the middle and out-side of a round stone Againe you say the center is not the worst place although Aristotle proves it from the dignity of the thing containing over that which is contained and your reason is That though the center be contained yet it is one of the termini or limits of a round body as well as the circumference but I reply that though it be one of the limits yet it is contained and therefore more ignoble then that which containeth it so you have but offered to answer this argument and indeed you know not how to answer it 6. If we suppose the sunne to be in the center say you we may conceive an excellent harmony both in the number and distance of the Planets For my part I give you leave to conceive what you will so that you doe not obtrude your conceits on us as oracles but will keep them to your selfe if you continue to divulge them we will conceit that your conceits are but idle phansies if you cannot set them forth with better proofes then as yet you have done We are confident the earth is in the center and doe conceive that there is an excellent harmony in the Planets though the sunne be not in the center and therefore to say that the harmony would be disturbed if the sunne were amongst the planets you wrong both Pythagoras your master whose conceit of the musicall harmony in heaven was grounded on the motion of the Planets and injurious to Apollo himselfe the author of musicall harmony and the continuall companion of the Muses without whom there can be no consort 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 sceme 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 sitter 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 swist 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 that the earth turnes about the clouds refused 17. Of a mixed motion of the place medium and space 18. Of the motion of comets 19. My nine arguments desended 1. That the earths motion would make it hot 2. The aire purer 3. A sound 4. Heaven hath all things sit for motion 5. Of similar parts and the whole 6. The sunne is the heart of the world 7. It workes by motion 8. The earth is the firme foundation 9. The authority of Divines the heaven called AEther the earth hath not two distinct motions THe chiefe businesse of this Chapter you say is to desend the earths diurnall motion Indeed you are too busie Non amo nimium diligentes neither is this businesse of yours anything else then idlenesse otiosi negotium And because you cannot answer our objections you are as busie here as you can be to illude them and to delude the world with your great brags Rhodomontado's but let us see with what dexterity you dissipate the strength of our arguments you doe as Cacus did to Hercules Cacus being too weake to resist that invincible champion laboured to escape his hands by darkning the cave and Hercules his eyes with smoake and ashes which hee belched out against him the like stratagem you use with intricate words and smoakie phrases to darken the understanding of the Reader 1. We objected that if the earth did move we should perceive it you answer but in many intricate and ambiguous tearms which were tedious to relate That the sight judges of motion deceitfully your reason is because motion is not the proper object of the sight nor belonging to any other peculiar sense and that the common sense apprehends the eye it selfe to rest immoveable as when a man is carried in a ship Ans The sight is oftentimes deceived either in respect of the distance of the object so the stars appeare lesse then they are or in respect of the agitation of the object so a square thing seemes round being swiftly turned about 2. In respect of the indisposition of the medium and so the Planets rising and falling seeme biggest the aire being thickned 3. In respect of the organ when the eye optick nerves or visive spirits are disturbed vitiated indisposed or agitated and so things that rest seeme to move because the eye moveth for that apparent motion is not the object of the eye as a true motion is but as it were the effect of the eye moved So then tell us the cause why we cannot perceive the earth move seeing it moves with such a stupendious swiftnesse You cannot say that the distance of it nor the indisposition of the medium are the causes the eye then must be the cause But are all mens eyes from the creation till now so disturbed or agitate with an insensible motion that they cannot perceive the earth nor any part of it to move and yet doe perceive the sunne to move What will you make God so defective in his work of mans body as to give him such eyes which shal continually delude him neither shall they ever apprehend their object though never so neere or the medium though never so well disposed Or will you make him so envious as to give us such eyes by which we should receive the knowledge of visible objects and yet cannot see them when they are so neere us This is the curse of the Sodomites who could not see Lot's dore though they were close by it Your simile of the ship will not hold for though it be true that the shore apparently moves when the ship removes yet we see and feele the true motion of the ship as well as we see or rather seeme to see the apparent motion of the shore When I have beene in a ship I have observed by looking on the mast how swiftly it is moved from the shore but being on

ship and of the moving of the oares they will not hold for it is true that though the banks seeme to move yet it will not follow that my friend doth but seem to walke or the oares seeme to move when as they move truely the reason is because the motion of the ship is no hinderance to the sight of that motion of my friend or of the oares being so neer to my eye although that same motion of the ship is a hinderance both to the sight of the earths stability as also of the motion of such things as be afar off for a horse a great way off on the shore running will seeme to me a bush moving with the trees and bankes even so the motion of the earth may as well delude my eye in the moving of the clouds as of the sunne 3. I said that the eye could not be still deceived in its sight or judgement of a lucid body which is its prime and proper object Your answer is That the deceipt is not concerning the light or colour of these bodies but concerning their motion which is neither the primary nor proper object of the eye Answ. The motion of the sunne as you take it is no wayes the object of the eye for it is non ens in your opinion What is apparent is not quod videtur non est a seeming motion is no motion and therefore no object 2. I said that a lucid body was the eyes object the light it selfe objectum quo or the cause that bodies are discernable by the eye now what probability is there that the eyes which were made to looke upon these lucid bodies should be still deluded or can be seeing their motion is rather the object of the eye then their light as is said albeit motion be a common object I see their motion I see their lucid bodies but their light I see not properly their light is the cause or meanes by which but not the objectum quod or thing that I see 4. We say that our high buildings would be hurled down if the earth did move You answer That this motion is naturall and therefore regular and tending to conservation Answ. Earth-quakes are naturall motions which neither are regular nor tend to conservation the motion of windes haile raine thunder c. are naturall and yet doe much hurt therefore the naturality of the earths motion cannot preserve our buildings from falling But you say If a glasse of beere may stand firmely in a ship moving swiftly much lesse will the naturall and equall motion of the earth cause any danger in our buildings Answ. There is no proportion betweene a glasse of beer and a high building nor is there between the motion of a ship and of the earth for the ship moves upon the plaine superficies of the water being carried by the winde or tide the earth moves circularly and with an incredible celerity as your side say You should compare the earths motion to the motion of a wheele or great globe and then set your glasse of beer upon it whilst it is whirling about but you need not feare the fall of your high buildings though the heaven whirle about except you meane to build castles in the aire or to raise your house as high as the tower of Babell I thinke your buildings in the moone cannot stand upon such a whirling foundation 5. I perceive by your Interjection ha ha he that you are a merry gentleman indeed you cannot answer for laughing but Per resum multum c. I doubt me you are troubled with a hypochondriacke melancholy or with the spirit of blinde Democritus take heed of risus Sardonius But let us see what it is that tickles you I had said that though this circular motion of the earth were naturall to it yet it was not naturall to townes and buildings for these are artificiall To this you answer not but by your interjection of laughter which is a very easie way to solve arguments and so fooles will prove the best disputants I hope you doe not thinke that townes and buildings are naturall bodies or that the motion of the earth is naturall to them and if you thinke that artificiall things are priviledged from falling by the naturall motion of a naturall foundation you speake against reason and experience for a ship is not priviledged from sinking because the foundation on which it is carried moves naturally and high buildings must needs be weakned by motion let it be never so equall and regular hee that thinkes otherwise deserves to be laughed at I have read of moving Islands but without buildings you were best goe build there 6. I said that the aire could never be quiet about us but that there would be a continuall and forcible motion of it from East to West if the earth did move with that celerity you speak of to this you answer That the aire is carried along with the same motion of the earth But this will not help you for the carrying of the aire about with the earth cannot hinder the forcible motion of it nor can we be so senselesse as not to feele it Doth not the whirling about of a great wheele move the aire about it and if you stood by you should feele it But you are very witty in your words following If the motion of the heaven say you which is a smooth body be able to carry with it a great part of the three elements c. much more may our earth which is a rugged body be able to turne the aire next to it You should rather say If the earth which is but a small dull low and heavy body can carry the aire about with it much more may the heavens doe this which are vast agil active and high bodies for we finde that the superiour bodies are more apt to work upon and to move the inferiour then to be moved by the inferiour as the inferiour parts of the little world of mans body are moved by the head so it is in the great world Againe the heavens in respect of their agility activity subtlety come neerer to the nature of spirits then the earth which is a dull heavy lumpish body not apt to be moved much lesse to move Is it the earth that moves the aire or the aire that moves the earth in earth-quakes Is it the earthy and heavy part of mans body that moves these aereall substances in the nerves which we call animall spirits Or are not these rather the movers of our grosse bodies Your argument is just such another as this if the winde or aire be able to move about the weather-cocke much more may the tower or steeple which is a rugged body move it But that rugged bodies are more apt to move or to be moved then smooth bodies I never heard before I have observed that the smoother the bowle is the swifter it runneth why did David choose five smooth stones to sling if rugged ones

etheriall aire But first tell us if Iupiter and the rest are separated from the whole if they be what is it that moves them with contrarie motions If they be not then your simile hath never a foot Againe doth this follow Iupiter Saturne c. have such and such motions therefore bullets and parts of the earth being separated observe the motion of the whole You had been better to have brought your simile from the sea which is neerer to the earth in place and nature then the heavens are thus The sea ebbs and flowes therefore parts of the earth being separated may observe the motion of the whole Doth not this hang well together like a rope of sand If you had told us that parts of the sea being separated observe the motion of the whole in ebbing and flowing therefore parts of the earth separated observe also the motion of the whole you had said something but you know the contrary of the Antecedent to be true for you tell us that a bucket of sea water doth not ebbe and flow though this motion be as you said naturall to the sea But here you are deceived for if this motion were a naturall property flowing from the essence of the sea the whole sea and every part of it should ebbe and flow but it is not so for the Adriatick sea hath this motion the Tyrrhene Baltick and some other seas have it not so some parts of the sea ebbe and flow more and longer then others but essentiall properties are not capable of more and lesse some thinke that this is no pure motion but an alteration rather in the sea but be it what it will be it proceedeth not from the nature of the sea but from externall causes partly from the force and motion of the stars chiefly of the moon and partly from vapours and exhalations in the sea 12. You say The whole earth may moveround though the severall parts thereof have no such revolution particular of their stone for there be many things agreeing to the whole frame which are not discernable in the divers parts of it which you instance in the sea water and in the bloud and humours of our body which ascend in the body but descend being separated from it Answ. There is nothing proper and essentiall to the whole but is also proper and essentiall to the parts separated or not separated thus if circular motions were naturall to the whole earth as you say the parts of it would retaine their nature still though separated therefore every part of the earth descends because the whole doth but no part thereof moves circularly because the whole doth not As for the parts of the sea water in a bucket there is not ebbing and flowing as in the whole because that motion is not naturall to it nor doth it proceed from the active forme but from its passive whereby it is apt to receive such a motion from externall agents that motion which is essentiall and naturall to it is not lost in the parts being separated for every bucket yea every drop of sea water descends because that motion is naturall therefore not separable As for the bloud and humours in our body which you say ascend naturally to the head I say they ascend not naturally for naturally they descend because heavy but they are carried upward by the spirits in them and drawne up by the attractive faculty for each part drawes its aliment now this bloud and humours being separated from the body lose their heate and spirits and so descend Your instances then will not evert our maxime to wit that if the whole earth move circularly the separated parts would retaine the same motion but you say that this motion is not discernable in the parts I grant it neither is it discernable in the whole and seeing it is neither discernable by the sense nor demonstrable by reason how come you to know it if you can perceive in the swift violent course of a bullet the magneticall revolution of the whole earth you are more quick-sighted then Lynx You have certaine phrases like riddles which stand in need of some Oedipus to explaine them 1. You call the earth a great magnet What 's that A great load-stone If there be great store of iron in your moone world this great magnet in time may draw down the moone upon us 2. You say That parts of the earth may according to their matter be severed from the whole perhaps you meane they may be severed in respect of place not of matter for if they have not the same matter with the whole they cannot be parts nor can they be the subject of these common magneticall qualities you speak of 3. You say That Iupiter and Saturn hang in the etheriall aire you love to confound what our wise fore-fathers have distinguished because you have an etheriall earth in the moon you would fain have an etheriall aire to God hath separated the heaven or etheriall region from this aereall so must we I have read once of aura aetherea in Virgil but there the Poet divinely meanes our breath which wee have originally from heaven I know no other etheriall aire but this 4. You say That the flesh bones c. tend downeward as being of a condensate matter but gravity is the proper cause of descent and not density for the fire and aire may be condensate and yet tend upward 5. You say That Saturne Iupiter and the Sunne are magneticall bodies If you meane that these stars have the essentiall properties of the magnes to draw iron then you wil make the earth and Planets to be of the same kind and species if Mahomeis iron chest were hanged between the sun and the earth it 's a question whether it should be drawne more forcibly upward or downeward 6. You aske a reason Why the earth should not move about its center as the Planets doe I may rather aske you why it should seeing it was made for rest and they for motion neither is there any thing wherein they agree but that they are corporeall substances in all things else they differ why then should wee inferre the earths motion from their motion 7. You that prove nothing but boldly sayes any thing as if men were bound to receive your dictates though never so unreasonable and ridiculous as if they were oracles you I say tell us Of spots about the sun thought to be clouds or evaporations from his body If your eagle eyes can see spots about the sun then the heavens are not pure in your sight but who hath spotted them which God hath made cleare and pure without spot or wrinkle are not the spots in your glasse or in your eye rather I have heard of one who with his spectacles reading in a booke beat the booke three or foure times thinking he had seen a flye on the paper when it was a spot in his glasse If you had read the absurd opinion of the Manichees who