to know that God hath placed the heaven over us like a vault and stretched it out like a curtaine or skin St. Chrysostome whom Theodoret and Theophylact doe follow deny the roundnesse of heaven as it hath relation to our climate or habitation for so the heaven is indeed as the Scripture saith a vault or skin so that albeit the whole heaven being considered with the whole earth be round yet being considered with reference to parts or climates of the earth it is not round Or wee may with St. Austine so understand the word vaults or curtaine or skin that these tearms may stand well enough with the roundnesse of heaven si sphaera est undique camera est if it be sphericall it is a round vault pellis in rotundum sinum extenditur a skin may be made round or sphericall for a round bladder saith hee is a skin so then neither the word vault skin canopy or tabernacle are words repugnant to the roundnesse of heaven neither have you such reason to insult over the Fathers as if absolutely and peremptorily they had denyed the roundnes thereof For S. Austine sheweth that the stretching out of heaven like a skin is mentioned onely to shew the power of God and with what facility hee made the heavens with more ease then wee should extend a skin and St. Hierome saith that the opinion of the earths roundnesse is the most common opinion agreeing with Ecclesiastes So when the Fathers say that the earth is founded on the seas c. they doe but follow the Scripture phrase which how to be understood wee have already shewed and will touch it againe anon 3. Suppose these were errours yet you must not take advantage from some errours in the Fathers to lessen their credit in other things they were but men and had not the perfection of knowledge which is in Angels called therefore Daemones and Intelligentiae St. Bernard saw not all things we should be sparing in raking into their errours in uncovering of their shame and like flies delighting in their soares But yet you cannot obtain your purpose in ripping up of their errours for it will not follow the Fathers erred in denying the sphericall figure of the heaven c. therefore they erred in denying the motion of the earth must it follow that because S. Cyprian erred in the point of rebaptization therefore no credit must be given to him in affirming Christs incarnation and I pray what great error was this in them to conclude from manifest places of Scripture that the seas not overflowing the land is a miracle and that they are restrained by the speciall power of God I grant that all seas are not higher nor so high as some lands but it is manifest that the sea in some places is much higher then the land as the Hollanders and Zelanders know and that their lands are not overwhelmed with the sea in a storme is a miracle and the finger of God is to be seen in restraining of them which seas when hee is angry with the inhabitants hee lets loose sometimes to the overthrow of townes and villages Camposque per omnes Cum stabulis armenta trahunt In the dayes of Sesostris King of Egypt it was by measure and observation knowne that the Red-sea was much higher then the land but we need not goe so farre the coast of our owne Island in divers places being lower then the sea will prove this to be true where we may daily see Gods power in curbing the violence of that furious creature For the Eternall knowing The Seas commotive and unconstant flowing Thus curbed her and 'gainst her envious rage For ever fenc'd our flowry mantled stage So that we often see those rowling hills With roaring noise threatning the neighbours fields Through their owne spite to split upon the shoare Foaming for fury that they dare no more 5. Why then may not this be called a miracle whereas many strange yea ordinary effects of nature are called miracles Plato called man the miracle of miracles and David saith that fearfully and miraculously he was made Doe not you know that Diana's Temple the Egyptian Pyramides and the rest of those stupendious buildings were called the seven miracles of the world not only Gods extraordinary works above nature but also his ordinary works in nature are miracles though they be not so accounted saith Saint Austin because we are so used to them For as it was a miracle to turn water into wine in Cana of Galilee so he saith that miracle is seene daily for who drawes the moisture or water from the earth by the root into the grape and makes wine but God That Gods finger is to be seen in every worke of nature the Poet doth acknowledge Deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris coelumque profundum A miracle is so called because it excites admiration and doe we not admire Gods power in earth-quakes prodigious births thunders lightnings and in the Eclipses of the great Luminaries therefore Saint Austin checks the vanity of Philosophers who went no higher in the contemplation of these naturall effects then to naturall causes not looking unto God the supreme cause of all Hence then it appeares that the Fathers are not mistaken in attributing the not over-flowing of the sea to a miracle howsoever as your figure sheweth the sea may seem to be and yet is not higher then some lands Neither is there any contradiction in Scripture though sometime it make the sea higher then the land and sometime lower for so it is according to the diversity of coasts and because of much moisture and water found in the bowels of the earth and in that it is encompassed with the sea it may be said that the earth is founded on the waters therefore no man can be deceived in concluding points of Philosophie from expressions of Scriptures as you say but from the misunderstanding of Scripture for what is true in Philosophie cannot be false in Divinitie for in subalternall sciences there can be no repugnancy CHAP. V. Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses as Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earths immobility and heavens motion 2. How the earth is eternall and renewed 3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place 4. The Scripture useth Metaphors 5. How the earth stands out of the water 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobilitie is proved 6. What is meant 1 Chron. 16. 30. c. by these words The world is established c. 7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world 8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19. are established and the Moon and Starres Psal. 89. 37. c. 9. How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. hath foundations 10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends sides and corners of the earth in Scripture 11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the
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
will be counted idle and none of the Planets But that the Earth may be a Planet is as true as that the Sun may be a burning stone that there may be a man in the Moon that there may be an infinite number of Suns and worlds that the Stars and Planets may have had their first originall and being from the Earth which have been the extravagant conceits of giddy headed Philosophers But I remember what Aristotle saith of some may-bees or possibilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may be may not be and never shall be and so the Earth may be a Planet that is it neither is not ever shall be a Planet But now let us leave your title and examine the substance of your following Discourse The CONTENTS of this Book CHAPT I. IN the Preface and first Chapter is shewed 1. The vanity and falshood of this new opinion 2. The Fathers concerning their judgement of the Antipodes cleared and vindicated and the Philosophers condemned 3. Job defended and explained 4. Pythagoras deciphered and his opinions condemned 5. Some Pythgoreans touched and censured Numa was not of this new opinion nor Pythagorean 6. This opinion hath few followers and how condemned by the Colledge of Cardinals 7. What is to be thought of those who have revolted from the truth of our opinion 8. The Church the Scripture sense and reason must be beleeved in this point of the earths stabilitie c. 9. This new opinion how and when an heresie CHAP. II. 1. Wee must beleeve the Scripture not our owne phansies 2. The Scripture never patronizeth a lye or an errour nor doth it apply it selfe to our capacity in naturall things though it doth in supernaturall mysteries 3. We must sticke to the literall sense when the Scripture speaks of naturall things 4. Some particular Scriptures vindicated from our adversaries false glosses as namely Psal. 19 of the Suns motion like a Gyant and Bride-groom of the ends of heaven and of his heat Eccles. 1. of the Suns rising and setting Jos. 12. of the Suns standing still of the midst of heaven how over Gibeon and how no day like that Isa. 38. of the Suns returning ten degrees of the greatnesse and meaning of this miracle neither known to the Gentiles The testimony of Herodotus concerning this CHAP. III. 1. The Scripture doth not speake according to vulgar opinion when it calls the Moone a great light for so it is 2. Nor when it speakes of waters above the Heavens for such there are 3. Nor when it calls the Starres innumerable for so they are 4. Nor when it mentions the circumference of the bâ—asâ—n Sea to be thirty cubits and the diameter tenne for so it was Why the lesser number is sometime omitted 5. Nor in saying the earth is founded on the waters which is true 6. The right and left side of heaven how understood and how the heaven is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Intelligences 7. The Scripture speaketh properly in attributing understanding to the heart The Galenists opinion discussed 8. Of ova aspidum and the Vipers egges how understood 9. The Aspe or Adder how hee stops his eare 10. Of the North and South winde in Scripture 11. The Sun shall be truely darkned the Moon turned to blood and the starres shall fall c. 12. Of the windes whence they come c. 13. The sea the onely cause of springs 14. The thunder is truly Gods voice 15. The 7. Stars CHAP. IIII. 1. Many Philosophicall points are handled in Scripture 2. The heavens how round in the opinion of the Fathers 3. Wee must have a reverend esteem of the Fathers 4. How the seas not overflowing the land may be esteemed a miracle 5. The works of Nature may be called miracles CHAP. V. Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses as Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earths immobility and heavens motion 2. How the earth is eternall and renewed 3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place 4. The Scripture useth Metaphors 5 How the earth stands out of the water 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobilitie is proved 6. What is meant 1 Chron. 16. 30. c. by these words The world is established c. 7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world 8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19. are established and the Moon and Starres Psal. 89. 37. c. 9. How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. bath foundations 10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends sides and corners of the earth in Scripture 11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the planting of the heavens 12. How the earth is established 13. What Job meanes by the earth moved out of its place CHAP. VI. 1. The earth is in the middle and center of the world and why 2. Hell is in the center or middle of the earth 3. The earth lowest and basest how 4. Every thing is made questionable by some 5. Aristotle defended 6. The earth is in the center because in the midst of the equinoctiall Horizon c. 7. The imagination must be conformable to the things not these to it the vanity of imagininary circles 8. Astronomers reproved and their vanity shewed chiefly about the bignesse of the stars 9. The earth is the least cirle therefore the center how understood CHAP. VII 1. The Starres have not their light because the Sun is in the center nor hath the Sun lesse light being out of it 2. Why the Earth in the center 3. The Sun is not the center because the Planets move about him 4. The center is not the most excellent place neither are the best things next it or in it 5. There is an harmony amongst the Starres though the Sun be not in the center CHAP. VIII 1. How the eye is deceived and how not and that if the earth moved we should see it 2. Motion and rest how the objects of the eye and of the common sense 3. If the earth moved the clouds would but seeme to move as well as the sunne 4. How the eye can be deceived in the motion of a lucid body 5. The naturall motion of the foundation cannot keep buildings from falling 6. The heavens fitter for motion then the earth 7. Rugged bodies not fittest for motion 8. The sight hindred by the motion of the subject medium and object 9. One simple body hath but one naturall motion proved 10. Essentiall properties more chiefly in the whole then in the parts the earth is heavy in its owne place how bignesse how a hinderance to motion of the earths ineptitude to a swift motion 11. The magneticall qualities of the earth a fiction 12. Similitudes no prooses the seas ebbing and flowing what 13. The whole earth moveth not because the parts move not round 14. Absurd phrases and the spots about the sunne censured 15. That the earth turnes about the moone is ridiculous 16. Some observations to prove
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
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
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
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
planting of the heavens 12. How the earth is established 13. What Job meanes by the earth moved out of its place YOu would faine here overthrow those Scriptures which shew the immobilitie of the earth 1. That place of Ecclesiastes one generation cometh and another passeth but the earth standeth for ever You say That it is not the purpose of this place to deny all kinde of motion to the whole earth but that of generation and corruption But I say that it is neither the purpose of this place to deny the motition of the earth nor to affirme the motion of the sunne for why should he either deny the one or affirme the other which no man doubted of or called in question his drift is to prove the vanity of mankinde from the stability of the earth and motion of the sun windes and waters thus man is inferiour to the earth because the earth is firme stable and immoveable whereas man abideth not in one stay but cometh forth like a flower and is cut downe he flyeth like a shadow and continueth not Or as it is here he cometh and goeth so that coming going are motions to which man is subject and are opposite to the immobilitie of the earth The Antithesis then or opposition here is not between the substance of man and of the earth for man in respect of his substance is permanent as well as the earth if either we consider his soule or his body according to the first matter but the opposition is between the qualities outward estate and life of man and the immobilitie of the earth so that the standing of the earth must be meant either of its permanency or immutabilitie or immobilitie not the first for man as I said is not inferiour to the earth in permancie not the second for the earth is subject as all sublunary things are to mutability and changes therefore the third which is the earths immobility must needs be understood And if Solomon had thought otherwise to wit that the earth moved and the sun stood still he would have said The sunne standeth for ever the earth ariseth and the earth goeth downe c. But for all his knowledge he was ignorant of this quaint piece of Philosophie Againe he proves mans vanity from the motion of the sunne windes and waters though they move and are gone for a while yet they returne againe but man being gone returnes no more so that man hath neither the stability of the earth but passeth away and being past hath not the power to returne againe as the sunne winde and waters doe It is plaine then that the standing of the earth is opposed to its locall motion and to the motion of men coming and going but it were ridiculous as you say to inferre that the earth is immoveable because permanent for the mill and ship may be permanent and yet move this illation is none of ours we say it is immoveable because Solomon here sayes so for he saith it standeth and if standing be motion then the earth moves It is more safe for us to say That the earth is immoveable because Solomon saith it stands then to say it is moveable because the word standing may signifie permanency or abiding As for the motions as you cal them of generation and corruption from which you free the earth they are not indeed motions but mutations Metus est à termino positivo ad terminum poserivum You checke the Jewes for collecting the earths eternity from the word Legnolam albeit I know that this word doth not alway signifie eternity but a long continuance of time yet that the earth is eternall à posteriori I thinke you will not deny except you will tread in some new way of your owne different from that both of ancient and modern Divines who affirme with the Scripture That there shall be a new earth but new in qualities not in substance a change of the figure not of the nature of the forme not of the substance a renovation of that beauty which is lost by man but no creation of a new Essence so that the Jewes might justly inferre from Solomons words that the earth is eternall or stablished for ever You snap at Mr Fuller for urging that these words of Solomon must be all understood literally and not some of them in reference to appearance but without cause for can the same Scripture with one breath blow hot and cold At the same time speake plainly and ambiguously in the same sentence have a double meaning The Scripture which is plaine and simple is farre from double dealing Will any thinke that when Solomon saith There be three moveable bodies the Sun Windes and Rivers that there are indeed but two and that the Sun moves not but in appearance that is moves not at all This is to make the Scripture indeed a nose of wax for what may I not interpret this way Christ fed the people with five barley loaves that is with foure loaves for one was a loafe but in appearance Three Wise-men came from Persia to worship Christ that is two came indeed but the third came onely in appearance You would laugh at me if I should tell you that of any three ships or mills which move really one did move apparently whereas both you I see them move really Now if the Sun doth not move why doth the Scripture say it doth What danger would arise if it spoke plaine in this point You say That the Scripture speaks of some naturall things as they are esteemed by mans false conceipt But this is a false conceit of yours the Scripture doth not cherish or patronise the falshood of our conceits the end of it is to rectifie our erroneous conceits It is true that in high and obscure points of Divinitie the Scripture condescending to our capacity useth the tearms of familiar and earthly things that by them we may by degrees ascend to the love and knowledge of spirituall things for the naturall man understandeth not the things of God but in naturall things which are obvious to our senses we need no such helps If the Sunne stood still it were as easie for us to understand his standing as his moving What you talke of the ends of a staffe and of the ends of the earth is impertinent and frivolous for the Scripture for want of proper words useth metaphoricall and because there is no other word to expresse the remote bounds of the earth then the word End therefore the Scripture useth it But you inferre that because the ends of a staffe and the ends of the earth cannot be taken in the same sense that therefore the motion of the sun and of the winds must be understood in divers senses make an Enthymeme and see the consequence the Scripture saith That a staffe hath ends and that the earth hath ends which cannot be understood properly and in the same sense ergo when the Scripture saith The sunne moveth
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
or immobility in them Now you urge us with those places that speak of establishing of the Moon Ps. 89.37 of the stars Psa. 8.3 of the heavens Pro. 8.27 Why say you should these be counted sufficient expressions to take away motion from the earth I answer we do not count this word establish of it self a sufficient expression for the originall word is ambiguous and diversly interpreted both by the Greek and Latine and moveable things may be established the moving Tabernacle as well as the immoveable Temple But if I should tell you that though the Tabernacle be fastened or established yet it is moveable and the Temple is so stablished that it cannot be moved You cannot but say that my expression is sufficient to shew the difference of stability in the one in and the other So speaks the Scripture in plain tearms of the Earth's stability Thou hast founded or established the earth and it shall stand Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth that it shall not be moved for ever so it is in the Hebrew When a thing then is said to be so established as that it standeth fast on a sure foundation and cannot be moved wee must needs acknowledge that this is a full expression of its immobility which phrases are never spoken of the heaven or any starre wee reade that the Sun stood once but that was by miracle of any other standing in Scripture we never read So we read of the moving of the earth by earthquakes but not else Isa. 13.13 and of removing of Islands Rev. 6.14 but never of a circular motion of the earth for in that respect he hath made the earth that it shall not be moved And to tell us as you do that the earth is established so onely that it shall not be removed is both to mince the Scripture and the power of God for as it is more easie to move an heavy body then to remove it so is the power of God so much the greater in that hee hath made a body of such solidity weight and bignesse that it cannot be so much as moved farre lesse removed and if the Scripture be so carefull and punctuall in setting forth Gods greatnesse and power on so small a matter as is the moving of a little part of the earth by earthquakes doubtlesse it would not have been silent in a matter of such admiration and power as is the moving of the whole body of the earth if ever hee had moved it either by himselfe or by his Angels or by Nature his handmaid Whereas you say That fundavit cannot be taken properly as if the earth like other artificiall buildings did need any bottoms to uphold it I answer that fundare terram is not to settle the earth upon a foundation or bottome but to make it the foundation of all heavy bodies and therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fundum the bottome and fundus the foundation so that nothing hath any foundation but on and by the earth Ships floating on the water have not any foundation till they be tyed by anchors to the earth which the Poet knew when he said Anchora fundabat naves therefore not metaphorically but properly doth the Scripture speak in saying God hath founded the earth but whereas the heavens are said to have foundations 2 Sam. 22.8 by heavens there are understood the mountaines and so the vulgar Latine reads it and so in Psal. 18.8 the text hath mountaines and not heavens Mountaines are called heavens metonymically because they are in that part of heaven which we call the aire therefore by the Poets they are called Aërel montes and so all the space from the superficies of the earth upward is called heaven both in sacred and profane writings even this upper part of the earth wherein wee live is called heaven by the Poet Sed falsa ad Coelum mittunt insomnia Manes and the Inhabitants of the earth are called Superi by the same Poet Quae quis apud Superos surto laetat us inani And as hills are called heaven so heaven is called hills by David when hee saith I will look unto the bills from whence cometh my salvation By the foundation of the heavens then is meant nothing else but the foundation of the hills Now why you should call the earth an artificiall building I know not it was neither built by an artificer nor by the rules and tooles of Art your earth in the Moon may rather be called artificiall as being the work not of God nor Nature but of Copernicus the master carpenter and his workmen of which number you are one but you should doe better if with that wise master builder St. Paul you would build upon the corner stone and the foundation Christ Jesus according to the grace of God which is given to you You say well That the pillars of heaven mentioned by Job will not prove them to be immoveable for wee know that heavenly pillars are moveable as the heavens are so were these two pillars that conducted Israel through the desart and those night meteors called fierie pillars 2. By heaven may be meant the Church called oftentimes heaven in Scripture and by pillars the eminent Doctors of it So Peter and Paul were called pillars and every good man shall be made a pillar in Gods Temple 3. By the pillars of heaven may be understood the Angels called also the powers of heaven in the Gospell 4. High hills may be called pillars of heaven not because they uphold heaven as the Poets write of Atlas but because they are high in the aire which is called heaven caput inter nubila coxdunt 5. The onely true pillar by which both heaven and earth is sustained is the power of God which power cannot be shaken in it selfe but in its effects 6. Which way soever you take the pillars of heaven they are moveable but now it will not follow that the pillars of earth are moveable also though the pillars of the Tabernacle were moveable the pillars of the Temple were not so Such as the earth is such be its pillars its selfe is immoveable and so are its pillars except when that great Sampson shakes them being grieved for the many wrongs that hee suffers by our sins then hills rocks houses and cities tumble down and multitudes are buried before they be dead If then we should prove the immobility of the earth from the stability of its pillars wee should have reason for it but to inferre that the heavens were immoveable because they have pillars were ridiculous We read say you of ends sides and corners of the earth and yet these will not prove it to be of a long or square forme Answ. Yes it will for the Scripture doth not describe the earth to us as a smooth and uniforme globe but as a great body consisting of divers unequall parts as hills and vallies and as a body broken by the irruption of many seas as
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
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
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
held with as great confidence as you doe your conceits That the sunne was a great ship sailing about the world perhaps you would have told us that these spots are great whales playing about the sides of the ship and we should as soone beleeve you in this as in the other but now you cannot certainly tell us Whether these spots may not be clouds or evaporations from the body of the sunne But I would know what use is there for clouds there except it be to shadow now and then and to refresh with raine your world in the moon and if there be any such watry meteors about the sun they must needs be extracted out of the sea lakes and rivers that are in your upper world And seeing these vapours cannot be condensate into clouds without cold it confirmes my opinion that the sun is not hot formally and that the heaven was nick-named when it was called aether ab ardore but I much muse what these evaporations should be from the body of the sun What doth the sun pant and sweat with his daily labour Evaporations are hot and moist exhalations is there any moisture in the sunne Doe not these clouds and evaporations proceed rather from his horses nostrils But the prince of Poets tels us that they blow light out of their nostrils Lucem que elatis naribus efflaus thus you afford us matter of sport But you goe on in your absurdities for having once plunged your selfe in this mire the more you strive and struggle to get out the faster you sticke and the deeper you sinke in You tell us That the moone is turned about by our earth why doe you not tell us also that the sunne is turned about by the moone and the firmament by the sunne and the primum mobile by the firmament and the first mover by the primum mobile and so the world shall be turned topsie turvie For is not any of these turnings as probable as the moon to be turned about by the earth perswade me this and then you shall easily assure me that the cart drawes the horse the crab courses the hare and the ship turns about the wind You would make the common-wealth of heaven like many disordered common-wealths here on earth where the inferiour and meaner sort of people will take upon them to rule and guide their superiors Princes and Magistrates and then all comes to confusion the horses run away with the coach and coach-man Frustra retinacula tendens Fortur equis auriga neque audit currus habenas Is it not reasonable that the inferiour bodies should receive their motion from the superiour as they have from them their beauty perfection and conservation But you give the moone many turners The earth by her magneticall motion Iupiter who turnes the foure lesser Planets by his body the Sun by his revolution So here be three severall wayes of turning motion body and revolution but is not revolution motion And when Iupiter turnes by his body is there no revolution Or when the Sunne turnes by his revolution doth he not turne by his body It seemes that he that turneth by his body toucheth and so Iupiter toucheth the lesser Planets He touched indeed Venus in the Poet when he kissed her Oscula libavit natae But how he toucheth and turneth these Planets by his body you doe not instruct us but your drift in all this is to shew that if the Sunne carry about his spots or clouds the earth carry about the Moone c. much more may the earth carrie about an arrow or bullet as if you would say If the water carrie about the mill-wheel and the wheele carrie about the mill-stones much more may the mill carrie about the miller and his horse Concerning other mens observations of the flame of a candle carried equally in a ship of an equall force casting an heavy body but at an equall distance with against the motion of the ship of a heavy body in a ship falling down in a straight line of a man leaping up in a ship and abiding in the aire one second scruple of an houre and yet the ship not withdraw it selfe fifteene foot Of these I will say but little because I have already said something of them elsewhere yet I must tell you that though the smoake and flame of a candle within the ship are carried with the ship it will not follow that the clouds which are without the earth are turned about by the earth If you could thrust the clouds within the bowels of the earth they should be carried about with the earth if it did move but take the same candle which you talke and place it in a calme night on the top of the mast when the ship is carried with the tyde then you shall see that though the candle is carried along with the ship yet the smoake being separated from the candle doth not follow the ship but remaines mounting upward in the aire If the ship then carrie not along with it the smoak of the candle which is in it how shall we thinke that the earth can carrie about the clouds which are so farre above it Now to salve this you tell us That the aire is as well limited in bounds as that which is included in a roome But then I answer that it is one thing to be included and another thing to be limited every thing that is included in a roome is limited but not every thing limited is included what is included must needs partake of the motion of that which includes it the aire within the ship is moved by and with the ship because it is included but the aire without the ship though it be limited yet moves not by or with the ship because it is not included You ask where the bounds of the air are terminated and you answer your selfe by the spheare of vaporous aire or which is all one by the orbe of magneticall vigour so you distinguish between the aire and vaporous aire but you tell us not how farre this spheare of vaporous aire or this orbe of magneticall vigour reacheth so that wee are not satisfied with your answer except you meane that it reacheth to the moon for you told us before that the moon is turned about by the earth but then you contradict your selfe for you say here that these bounds are not terminated by the concavity of the moone's orbe so where to finde you and the bounds of your spheare of vaporous aire I cannot tell neither doe I understand how vaporous aire being a substance can be all one with magneticall vigour which is an accident and how this accident can have its orbe this is a new piece of Philosophie which would be illustrated and so doe the words following That all earthly bodies are contained within these limits as things are in a close roome and as parts in that whole to which they belong Though a heavy by equall force be cast at an equall
distance whether it move with or against the motion of the ship yet will it not follow that a bullet being shot towards East or West shall passe the same distance for though you cast your bullet against the motion of the ship it is not hindered nor furthered by its motion so if the earth did move that motion were no more to the bullets motion then if it stood still but it is the motion of the aire that furthers or hinders the bullets motion whether in the ship or out of it The earth then turning about the aire with great violence from East to West must hinder the motion of the bullet or arrow flying to the East and further that which cometh from the East but it is not so in a ship for the ship doth not carry the aire before it but divides the aire whilst it moves so that the aire gives place as the water also doth to the ship that there may not be penetration of dimensions How then can the bullets motion be hindered or furthered by the motion of the ship seeing the aire in which it moveth is neither with it nor against it Of the winde here I doe not speake You grant that in a ship under saile a stone being let fall from the mast will not descend to the same point as if the ship stood still but you say the motion of a ship is accidentall and it is otherwise in these motions that are supposed to be naturall I have shewed against Lansbergius that there is no naturall motion in the earth but though there were what 's that to the furtherance or hinderance of the stones motion to the same point suppose that not nature but an Angel turned about the earth the motion notwithstanding is circular be the mover what it will be externall or internall Nature or Angel therefore it is true still that as the stone falling from the mast will not descend to the same point when the ship saileth as if it stood still so likewise a stone falling from an high tower will not descend perpendicularly to the same point the earth moving as it would doe if it stood still Now how farre the ship will withdraw it selfe in its greatest swiftnesse from him that leaps up and stayes in the aire a second scruple of an houre and how far the earth in that space will goe from him in that certaine neither is it materiall it is sufficient that it will remove a certaine space and that he shall not fall upon the same place from which he leaped up What you granted but now you recall and tell us of Galilaus That the stone would still descend unto the very same place whether the ship moved or not So farre I yeeld that if a heavy stone be let fall from a short mast whilest the ship moveth slowly it is scarce discernable that the stone hath fallen or varied any thing from the perpendicular line but if a small stone be let fall from a high mast whilest the ship moveth swiftly then it is plaine to any man that hath sense that the stone doth not fall upon the same point on which it would have fallen if the ship had stood still Now to say that the motion of the ship is impressed in the stone is a toy for how can one body impresse a motion in the other whilest they are separated as the stone and ship are before it fall of magneticall bodies I speake not Being weary a ship-board you come on shore and so having taken horse you put spurs to his sides and in your full cariere you let a bullet drop out of your hand which you say Hath a transverse motion besides the motion of the descent But how should it have the transverse motion of the horse seeing the hand doth but unfold it selfe to let it fall the arme indeed is carried by the swiftnesse of the horse and so is the bullet whilest it is in the hand but being let fall how can it have a transverse motion seeing the hand did not expresse any such motion in it for to let fall is not to give a transverse motion and though you would make it all one to cast a thing from us and to let drop a thing when we are on horseback yet the contrary of this is so cleare that any man may see it without the help of spectacles And sure if there were any transverse motion in the descent of the bullet it is rather to be ascribed to the motion of the aire then to the opening of the hand therefore this is but a crotchet as likewise your conceit of a bullet shot out of a cannon set on end you spend your powder and bullets and paper too to no purpose for you shall never perswade me for all your two printed canons that the bullet shot out and being in the aire can partake of the earths circular motion till first you prove that the earth doth move and then bring me better reasons then as yet you have done for the circular motion of the bullet in the aire it is not the picture which is the expression of your conceit and idea only that can evince my understanding when sense and reason are on my fide for what may not men set forth in pictures Chimaera's Centaures Gorgons c. and what not Pictoribus atque Poetis you know what followes Now you goe a birding for what is a gentleman but his pleasure and you discharge your peece with that dexterity that you hit the poore bird flying as surely as if he were sitting upon a tree and what followes upon this Namely That the motion of the piece as in aiming it is made to follow the bird in its flight is communicated to the bullet in the aire But I see that though you have killed the bird yet you are no good birder for at the instant whilst the peece is discharged it is held steadie so there is no motion of the peece imparted to the bullet in the aire but though the peece did move will it follow therefore that the earth turnes about bullets in the aire if your powder and shot be not better then your arguments you 'l never kill birds But what a monstrous absurdity doe you tell us That if a violent winde be able to drive ships throw downe towers turne up trees much more may the diurnall motion of the aire which doth so farre exceed in swiftnesse the most tempestuous winde be able to carry with it the bodies of birds If the diurnall motion of the aire exceed the windes in impetuositie how comes it that it doth not the same effects that the winde doth why doe we not feele its force surely if the aire did move with that violence from East to West that a tempestuous winde doth we should never have any ships come from the West Eastward nor ships bound Westward should stay for a winde seeing the motion of the aire at all times would carrie them with a
witnesse If we should have occasion to saile to New England wee should be there quickly but no hopes ever to returne thence how should we be able to walke or sit on horsebacke travelling against the motion of the aire if it did move with that violence you speak of much lesse could birds in their flight resist such a force not the great bird Ruck that I may fit you with a bird somewhat proportionable to your conceits whose wings are twelve paces long and snatches up elephants as if they were but mice in his talons a great way in the aire sometimes you play the Painter as in your circles and other figures and sometimes the Poet as here Admiranda sanis sed non credenda As for your distinction of the motion of heavie and light bodies to wit That they being considered according to the space wherein they move their motions are not simple but mixed of a direct and circular but according to the medium wherein they move they have properly right motions This I say is such a riddle that Oedipus could scarce have solved it for why should not the motion be mixed as well in the medium as in the space Is the aire or medium a hinderance to circular motions so that these bodies can onely move there in a straight line if so you contradict your selfe for you tell us still that bodies are moved round by the aire and this by the earth And how shall we understand that a stone falling downeward hath a mixed motion of a direct and circular according to the space wherein it moves but a simple straight motion according to the aire wherein it moves What mean you by this word space you cannot meane the ubi of these bodies moving for that is their rest in the place to which they move ultima perfectio corpor is mobilis You doe not understand I thinke the intervall of the ancients which Aristotle hath refuted as being neither a substance nor an accident not a substance because there would be penetration not an accident for so an accident should be better then the substance for Locus est prior nobilior locato And if by space you understand the aire then how will your distinction stand the aire or medium and the space being all one the place it cannot signifie for the stone descendeth not in its place but to it therefore what your space is and how distinguished from the medium I thinke you doe not know If wee should aske you with what motion Christs body ascended into heaven you will answer that according to the space wherein it moved it ascended by a mixed motion of a direct and circular but according to the medium it ascended by a simple straight motion and so wee shall depart from you as wise as we came like those that consulted with Sibylla Inconsultì abâ—unt You say That Aristotle would not deny but that fire may ascend and yet participate of a circular motion so likewise must it be for the descent of any thing Aristotle is beholding to you for if you will beleeve him that heavie bodies must have a double motion because he would not deny but that the fire may have a double motion then if he would not deny but that the heavens may move round and that the earth may stand still you will beleeve him much more I hope you will credit him when by irrefragable reasons hee proves the motion of the one and immobilitie of the other but how ever it is bad reasoning from the possibilitie of one thing to the necessity of another great oddes between may be and must be between fire and earth because Croesus may be poore must therefore Irus be rich Because Aristotle saith the fire may descend must the earth therefore ascend there is no consequence à posse ad esse much lesse à posse ad necesse I will suppose with you That whilst the ship is in her swistest motion a ball of wax being let fall into a vessell full of water may be slow in sinking and that the motion of the ship will not be discernable in it But that the wax should seem to the eye to descend in a straight line I wil not suppose because I have found it otherwise the wax will seeme to have a transverse motion in the water though it descend in a straight line so an oare seemes to be broken in the water which element is not a true medium for the sight now the reason why the motion of the ship in the way is not discernable is because the great disproportion betweene the bignesse of the ship and smallnesse of the wax and because that motion is not the waxes owne but the ships these two reasons concurring make this motion in the wax indiscernable but suppose what you say were true in preternaturall motions it will not therefore follow that is also true in motions naturall If the aire did move round with the earth it is most certaine that the comets would seem alwayes to stand still being carried about by the revolution of this aire but experience sheweth that they rise and set to this you answer That most comets are above the spheare of the aire which is turned round with our earth Answ. You told us before that the earth turneth about the moone therefore it must follow that the comets are above the moone if they be above that aire which is turned about with our earth 2. We have already shewed that the aire sometimes moveth the earth but that the earth moveth the aire is false and preposterous 3. You tell us That those comets which are within the orbe of our aire seeme to stand still you instance that comet mentioned by Josephus which hung over Ierusalem Answ. That was no ordinary comet or the worke of nature but a miracle or worke of supernaturall power as the rest of those prodigies which happened about the same time to wit the sudden light which appeared halfe an houre about the altar the Cow that brought forth a Lambe in the Temple the flying open of the brasen gate of its owne accord the chariots and armed men that were seene in theaire c. Now when you say That this comet being within the orbe of our aire seemed to stand still you are deceived for it was Gods worke that it stood still over that place and it did not seeme but did truly stand still by which it is plaine that the earth moveth not for if it did move then the comets which are neerest to it would move swiftest but the contrary of this is true for the higher the comet is the swister it moveth the lower the slower yea scarce at all because it is the heaven that moveth the comets and not the earth so you falsifie Seneca for he doth not say that these low comets seeme to move but the clean contrary that they are altogether immovable undique immota You say That you might justly passe over my
nine arguments which I urged in one Chapter against your opinion but because I proceed say you with such scorne and triumph you will examine my boastings You doe wisely like the Romans who that their Generals might not be puffed up with the glory of their triumphs caused some to walke along by their chariots using upbraiding words the like doe you calling my arguments cavills not worth the naming yet you are pleased to name them to shew doubtlesse their weaknesse and your wit My first cavill as you call it is this If the earth move it will be hotter then the water because motion is the cause of heat but that the earth should be hotter then water is repugnant to that principall in naturall Philosophie which affirmes the earth to be colder besides the water would never freeze if it were moved as swiftly as the earth This argument because you cannot answer you picke as you thinke a contradiction out of it which is this The earth by motion is hotter then the water and yet the water moves along with it which water is made warme also by motion that it is not capable of congelation Answ. Is this a contradiction thinke you the earth is hotter then the water and yet the water is hot too the fire is hotter then the aire and yet the aire is hot too who ever heard that the degrees of comparison make a contradiction I should not contradict my selfe if I should say Keplar was a cold disputant but you are a colder 2. Though I say that the water moveth along with the earth yet the earth may be hotter then the water without any contradiction for of two bodies moving together one may be hotter then the other especially if they be of different natures who knowes not that drie and solid bodies such as the earth is are more capable intensively of heate then thin and moist bodies such as the water is 3. Though the earth water and aire next to it be not severed one from another yet they are made hot by such a violent motion when you runne your cloathes skin flesh bloud c. are not severed one from the other and yet your motion makes them all hot 4. If motion in fluid bodies were the cause of coldnesse as you say some do think then it would follow that the more you move your bloud should be the colder Scaliger shewes that they who water their horses being hot use to stirre the water violently that it may be brought to a warme temper that the horses may drinke without danger 5. I deny that all running waters are the coldest neither are they the colder because they run but because the meet still with fresh aire so shall you in a cold day if you rise to walke be colder for a while then when you sit still not because you walke for that in time will warme you but because you meet with fresh aire vvhich you did not vvhilest you sate neither is there yet so much heat in you as to abate the sense of the cold aire till your motion have caused it 6. I deny that the strongest windes are still the coldest though they blow from the same coast at the same time of the year for I have observed that in one February a gentle easterly vvind hath brought snovv and the next February a strong East vvinde hath brought raine 7. If rest be the cause that in cold vveather vvater doth freeze then all vvaters that rest vvould freeze and no running vvaters vvould freeze but this is false for some vvaters resting doe not freeze and sometimes running vvaters doe freeze vvhen the motion is not so strong as to stirre up the heat therefore it remaines that the heat caused by the motion and not the motion it selfe is the hinderance of the waters freezing 8. If this motion were true that the earth runnes foure miles in a minute the heat of the aire would be more then moderate even in winter you could not indure the heat of it we should need no fire to warme us wood would be cheap enough 2. My second argument was this If the earth did move the aire then the aire which is next to the earth would be purer as being more rarified but the contrary is true for the higher the aire is the purer it is You answer never a word to this argument which shewes you assent Qui tacet consentire videiur 3. My third argument If the earth did move the aire it would cause a sound but this is no more audible then the Pythagoricall harmony of heaven You answer That there is no reason why this motion should cause a sound more then the supposed motion of the heavens But I say there is a great deale of reason for if any solid body be it never so small though an arrow bullet or wand moving the air cause a sound will not the vast body of the earth turning the aire with that violence cause a hideous noise which would make us all deafe now there is no reason why the motion of the heavens should make any sound for neither are they solid bodies themselves nor doe they move or encounter any solid body nor is there any aire in heaven which things are required to make a sound 4. I argued that nature had in vaine endowed the heavens with all conditions requisite for motion if they were not to move for they have a round figure they have neither gravity nor levity they are incorruptible and they have no contrary This you say will prove the earth to move as well as the heavens For that hath a round figure it is not heavy in its proper place and being considered as whole the other two conditions you reject as being untrue and not conducing to motion Answ. Though I should grant you that the earth were round yet it is not so exactly round and smooth as the heaven for it hath many mountaines and vallies and some hills higher some lower is a globe or boule that hath knobs and dents in it so fit for motion as that which is smooth and equally round 2. I have shewed already the folly of that conceit which holdeth the whole earth not to be heavy in it s own place as if the elements must loose their essentiall properties being in their own places whereas it is the place that preserveth the propertiese and essenc of things Have the fire and aire lost their levity because they are in their own places and is it not absurd to say as I have already shewed that there should be weight in a part of any thing and not in the whole as if a piece of an yron bullet were heavie but not the whole bullet you were as good say that totum non est majus suâ parte 3. Whereas you say that the heavens are corruptible you may say also that they are generable and so being subject to generation and corruption they are of the same nature with sublunary bodies and must
this you have not as yet proved neither will you be ever able to prove The earth indeed is a mother but as senslesse and stupid as Niobe who would suffer her children to starve with cold if that heavenly fire did not move about her As for your instance of a Watch-maker I will use it in your owne words but to our purpose If a wise Watch-maker will not put any superfluous motion in his instrument shall we not thinke that nature is as provident as any ordinary mechanicke Therefore doubtlesse it had been superfluous for the earth to move And whereas you say That the motion of the starres is full of confusion and uncertainties That is true in respect of your ignorance there is an heavenly order and harmony amongst them the confusion is in your head and the uncertainty in your knowledge 7. You say That motion is most agreeable to that which in kinde and properties is neerest to the bodies that are moved But this I say is false for an immoveable body is not made capable of motion because it is neere in some properties to the body that is moved A rocke and a mill-stone which perhaps was taken out of the same rocke agree in kinde and properties will it therefore follow that because the mill-stone moves round the rocke also moves round The sea-water and well-water agree in kinde and properties doth the well-water therefore ebbe and flow But your drift is to shew That the earth moveth with the six Planets because both Earth and Planets have a borrowed light whereas the Sunne and fixed Stars have it of their own Answ. A goodly reason the earth must move as well as the sixe Planets because it hath a borrowed light as well as they as if you would say Saturne and the Moone have a borrowed light therefore they have the same motion and bignesse or thus the Planets have a borrowed light as well as the earth therefore they rest or be as heavie as the earth but what if I should say the Planets have some light of their owne as may be seen by the Moone which the earth hath not and therefore they agree not in this property of light and consequently the earth moveth not as they doe But when you say the fixed stars have light of their owne you speake at randome for you can shew no reason of this conceit why the fixed starres should have light of their owne and not the Planets or why the Planets borrow light and not the fixed stars Againe you thinke That the Sunne and Stars should rest because they are of a more excellent nature As if motion did belong to the ignoblest creatures we know the contrary Man is a more noble creature then a rocke yet man moveth and the rocke is immoveable The heart in our bodies is more noble then the guts yet that moveth they move not Is the body of man lesse excellent when it is moved by the soule then when it is at rest putrifying in the grave When water rests from its motion it loseth its excellencie and stinketh therefore motion in many things is more noble then rest as for the rest which you say is ascribed to God that is not to our purpose for it is transcendent and hyperphysicall and as God is said to rest so he is said to move therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But why you should thinke the fixed Starres of a more excellent nature then the Planets I know not neither can you give any reason for it 8. Aristotle you say tels us that the time of the revolution of each orbe should be proportionable to its bignesse which can only be you thinke By making the earth a Planet I answer that of two evills the lesse is to be chosen and better it is that there should be some disproportion between the bignesse of the orbes and the time of their motion then that the earth should move 2. You cannot exactly tell what disproportion there is in their motions till first you finde out the true knowledge of their magnitudes That the Comets which move in the aire are not moved by the heavens but by the earth you prove Because the concave superficies of the Moone is thought to be smooth so that the meere touch of it cannot turne about the fire with a motion not naturall to it nor can the subtle fire move the thicker aire nor this the waters Answ. How the upper spheares move the lower is neither knowne to you nor me but by conjectures 2. I have already shewed that one smooth body by its touch may move another as the winde moves the clouds so in the Northerne seas one mountaine of ice which is smooth moves the other forward 3. The subtiltie and puritie of the fire is no hinderance to its moving of the thicker aire for doe not our animall spirits which are pure and subtle and yet materiall move our grosse bodies Doth not the winde move grosse substances 4. That the aire doth not move the water is repugnant to experience for within the Tropickes the sea is continually moved from East to West by the aire and this by the heaven as I have shewed elsewhere 5. That the circular motion of the fire is not naturall is false for though this motion proceed not from an inward principle as the straight motion doth yet it is naturall because the nature of the fire is preserved by it for the fire never gives off moving upward till it begin to move circularly and then is it in its chiefe perfection when it hath attained this motion Lansbergius you say concludes that the earth is easily moveable from the words of Archimedes who said that he could move the earth if he knew where to stand and fasten his instrument it is a foolish conclusion for so he might as well conclude that armed men may arise out of the ground because Pompey said that if he did but stampe with his foot the ground would yeeld him armed men So because Medaea said Ego inter auras aliti curru vebar That shee would flie in the aire in a chariot drawne by dragons that therefore shee could doe as shee said this is to play the Poet. 9. The opinion of Intelligences by which the heavens are moved you say hath its originall from Aristotle's mistake who held the heavens to be eternall I answer that Aristotle was mistaken in holding the heavens to be eternall à priori but I deny that there is any errour in holding them to be eternall à posteriori in respect of their substance 2. Aristotle might have held the opinion of Intelligences without holding the heavens to be eternall for the eternity of the mover doth not necessarily inferre the eternity of the thing moved God is eternall so is not the world our soules are eternall so are not our bodies 3. You prove That Intelligences are superfluous because a naturall power intrinsecall to these bodies will serve the turne as well So you might