Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	air_n	cold_a	heat_n	1,490	5	8.2077	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

her eldest daughter Truth upon you having past by so many worthy Suitors in all ages this is a transcendent favour you are homo perpaucorum hominum and have been wrapped in your mothers smock 12. In leaving us to our liberty to accept or reject your opinion I perceive you have no great confidence in your new married wife Times daughter you mistrust your cause and the validity of your arguments and that you have imployed your pen more to shew your wit then to evince our understanding 2. You will not have this Philosophicall doubt decided by common people for they judge by their senses nor yet by the holy Fathers for they were ignorant you say in this part of learning Aristotle you have already disabled for his works are not necessarily true and I say it is not fit that you should be Judges in your owne cause Whom then will you name for Judges seeing Scriptures Fathers senses Peripateticks are rejected reasons and arguments you have none I think you must be faine to call for some of your people out of the Moon Iuno Lucina fer opem But in calling of the Fathers ignorants in this part of learning you doe them wrong for they were neither ignorant of Philosophy nor of Astronomy they condemned the idle opinions of both amongst the rest that of the Antipodes For although I deny not the Antipodes yet the Philosophers opinions concerning them were vaine as That they inhabited that Region to which the sun riseth when it sets with us 2. In that they could not tell how these people came thither seeing the vast ocean beyond the straight of Gibraltar was not navigable and they confessed that it could not be passed 3. The reasons which they alledged to prove Antipodes were not demonstrative nor experimentall but meerly conjecturall so that the Fathers could receive no satisfaction from their reasons 4. They held that those Antipodes were another race of men then these of this hemisphere and that they had been there perpetually and that they neither could nor ever should know what kind of men they were 5. They did waver in their opinion sometimes saying that the westerne people were Antipodes to us sometimes the Southerne people sometime confounding Antipodes and Antichthones 6. They would necessarily inferre from the roundnesse of the earth that the lower hemisphere was dry earth and inhabitated with people the consequence of which S. Austine denies 7. They held that the opposite earth to ours had an opposite motion Of these and other vaine opinions concerning Antipodes you may see in Pliny Austine Macrobius Lactantius c. It was not then out of ignorance or peevishnesse but upon good grounds and reasons that they denyed Antipodes as the Philosophers esteemed of them Otherwise S. Austin knew and acknowledged there might be Antipodes 2. What though the Fathers or Aristotle had been ignorant in this point must therefore their authority in other points be slighted must their failing in one or two points of Philosophy lessen their credit in all Philosophicall truths What if they had been ignorant in some one point of Divinity must we therefore reject their authority in other points The Apostles were ignorant of the day of Judgement and of some other points yet wee beleeve them never a whit the lesse in all other points 3. There is odds between denying of Antipodes and denying the motion of the Earth and standing of the Sun For the reasons which Philosophers brought to prove Antipodes were neither experimentall nor demonstrative nor any waies satisfactory but for the stability of the earth and motion of heaven wee have both sense reason authority divine and humane consent antiquity and universality as is said and what can be wanting to confirme a truth which wee have not to confirme this 4. You say That Solomon was strangely gifted with all kinde of knowledge then would I faine know why hee did not plainly tell us being so great a Philosopher that the Earth moved and that the Sun stood still but quite contrary proves the transient vanity of humane affaires from the earth's stability and constant motion of the sun 3. Iob you say for all his humane learning could not answer these naturall questions which God proposeth to him as Why the sea should be so bounded from overflowing the land What is the breadth of the earth What is the reason of snow or haile raine or dew yee or frost which any ordinary Philosopher in these daies might have resolved Answ. You would make Iob who was both a King and a Priest a very simple man if wee would beleeve you But how know you that Iob could not answer God Mary because hee sayes of himselfe That hee uttered that he understood not things too wonderfull for him which hee knew not But Good Sir these words are spoken of the secret waies of Gods providence and of his hid and unsearchable judgements which are these wonderfull things that Iob knew not nor understood for his judgements are a bottomlesse depth his waies are past finding out and they are not spoken of naturall causes of meteors I pray were there not haile and snow raine and dew yce and frost in those daies and did not hee know that these meteors were generated of vapours as well as you or what should be the cause of his stupidity and of your quicknesse of apprehension Alas how doe wee please our selves in the conceits of our supposed knowledge whereas indeed wee have but a glimmering insight in Natures works a bare superficiall and conjecturall knowledge of naturall causes Doubtlesse Iob was not ignorant but modest in acknowledging the insufficiency of Philosophicall reasons and therefore thought it better to be silent then to shew his folly in superficiall and vaine answers For both Astronomy and naturall Philosophy are arts of Diviners rather then Disputers and Philosophy is but opinion saith Lactantius and even in those things which Philosophers bragge that they found out they are opinantes potiùs quàm scientes carried with opinion rather then knowledge saith S. Austine which I have found by long experience Iob knew that though humane and Philosophicall reasons would seem plausible enough to man yet that God to whom only truth is known would check him and account his wisedome but folly to speak with Lactantius If hee had answered God that the sea is bounded from overflowing the land because the drienesse of the earth resisteth the moisture of the sea which is the reason of Philosophers God would have shewed him the folly of his reason by the daily flowing of the sea on the dry lands and by the many inundations of the sea over whole couutries I doubt not but if God had asked you the causes of clouds and raine you would have answered him that they were generated of moist vapours elevated into the aire and there dissolved or squized by heat or cold but then why be there no clouds nor raine in Egypt seeing the

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

of a Gyant if there be no motion in the winde and thunder it had been idle to give wings to the one or arrowes to the other as David doth 3. Will you make the Scripture not onely ass●er● a falshood in positive tearmes but also bring similitudes to illustrate it this is to make the holy Ghost a cherither fomenter and maintainer of untruths for so it must be if the Sunne move not the Scripture shewing it doth move and declaring by similies how it doth move 4. What consequence is this The Scripture compareth the Sun to a Bridegroome and a Gyant ergo the Scripture speaking of the Suns motion speakes in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar it is all one with this The Gospel compares Christ to a Bridegroome ergo the Gospel speaking of Christs humanity speakes in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar 5. There is ods between positive speeches and comparisons the Sun is never called a Bridegroome in Scripture but is said to be like a Bridegroome Simile non est idem But in Scripture still the Sun is said to move and the earth to be stable in positive tearmes 6. That David in this comparison did allude to the phansie of ignorant people supposing the Sun by night to rest in a chamber is but your groundlesse conceit you might say rather that he alluded to the fiction of Poets describing Aurora to go to bed every night with Tythonus Tythous croceum ●●● quens Aurora cubile or to that golden bed which Vulcan made him in which he is carried through the Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But neither to this pleasant bed nor to that of Tythonus nor to the Vulgar conceit doth David allude but simply sets out Gods Majesty in the glory of the Sunne by a familiar example taken from the glory of a Bridegroome coming out of his chamber 7. This former part of the Psalme is interpreted by the Fathers mystically of Christ whose motion and alacrity to run his race from the wombe to the grave from heaven to earth and from earth to heaven I hope you will not say are to be understood in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar 8. He is not compared to a Gyant in respect of his bignesse in the morning as you say no more then he is to a dwarfe in respect of his littlenesse at noone but in respect of the indefatigable swiftnesse of his motion he is compared to a mighty runner for there is no mention made of a Gyant in the Hebrew text neither was it fit to compare him to a Gyant 9. Nor doth David allude to the Vulgar opinion when he speakes of the ends of Heaven for in a round globe or circle there are no ends but he speaks with relation to the Hemisphere which you must needs yeeld hath ends for it terminates and ends in the Horizon called therefore Finitor Besides in the Hebrew Greeke and Latine texts it is not said the ends but the remotest parts of Heaven and so you cannot deny but some parts are remoter from us then other parts 10. Neither hath the Scripture any reference to the common mistake as if the Sun were actually hot when it saith nothing is hid from the heate thereof these Philosophers who deny any actuall heat in the Sun yet say the Sun is hot and I doubt not but you have said so many a time and yet you have no reference to any actuall heate in the Sun Do not you use to call cinnamon-water and such like distilled waters hot waters and yet they are actually cold Philosophers tell us that Saturne is cold and yet they doe not thinke that he is the subject of cold but the cause onely The Scripture saith That none can avoid the anger of God and yet you will not say that this passion is in God The Sunne then is hot not by any heate in him but by calefaction from him 2. When the Scripture saith The Sunne riseth and goeth downe this is not spoken in relation to the circumference which is equally distant from the Center but in reference to the Horizon as you confesse or rather to the scituation of Judea and so of other Countreys and in this respect the Sunne doth not onely seeme but doth in very deed rise and fall to the Inhabitants For doth not the Sunne truely ascend when he comes to your meridian and truely descend when he removes from it Doth he not truly ascend and descend to those who have him for their Zenith in their meridian Astronomers tell us that there is a true and reall rising and falling of the Starres as well as an apparent and then are they not truely said to rise and fall when they doe truely ascend above and descend beneath the Horizon If the Sunne doth not truely ascend and descend then the shadowes doe not truly increase and decrease and so our Sun-dialls doe not truely shew us the hours of the day but in shew onely and in appearance but wee see that the shadow still decreaseth as the luminous body ascendeth and encreaseth as that descendeth Virgils Tytirus can tell you so much Majoresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae Et Sol discadens crescentes duplicat umbras 3. Joshua saith That the Sunne stood still in the midst of heaven Now Heaven you say hath no midst but the Center and so this is also spoken in reference to the Vulgar opinion Answ. By the Center either you must understand the Earth or the Sunne the Earth indeed is in the midst of the world but not in the midst of Heaven for it is not there at all if it were Christ needed not to ascend to Heaven being in the midst of it when he was on the earth Wicked men then would have the best of it for as they have the largest possessions on earth so should they have the largest shares in heaven If by the Center you meane the Sunne then you speake in reference to the Vulgar opinion for the Center is in the midst of Heaven the Sunne is the Center therefore the Sun is in the midst of Heaven and so Joshua saith 2. By the Heaven he doth not understand the whole celestiall Globe but the Hemisphere and so this having its Horizon or outmost limits and extreames must also have its middle and what can that else be but the Meridian passing through the Zenith Thus then it is demonstrable that whatsoever is equally distant from the extreames is in the midsts but the Sun being in the Zenith or Meridian is equally distant from the extreames therefore the Sun being in the Zenith is in the midst of Heaven 3. The Hebrew Doctors tell us that when the Sun stood still hee was then in the Summers solstice being the Tropicke of Cancer from which Judea is not farre distant and so in that regard also Joshua might truly say that the Sunne was in the midst of Heaven being then over their heads 4. If it be

Ioshua was in the summer solstice as the Hebrew Doctors observe 3. Had the Sunne returned This had been you say a greater miracle then those which were done on more solemne occasions Answ. God regards not the solemnity of occasions in shewing of his miracles if he had Christ had never wrought his miracles in obscure and remote places as hills and deserts He would rather have shewed his transfiguration in Jerusalem to all the world then upon Mount Tabor onely to three Disciples He useth his miracles as he did the loaves he bestowed seaven loaves on foure thousand men and but five loaves upon five thousand on small occasions God sometimes produceth great miracles and upon great occasions sometimes hee sheweth none 2. We must looke rather to the fitnesse of the miracle then to the solemnity of the occasion the Sunne represented the King who was the life and glory of his kingdome God would let him and all men see that as he onely hath power to rule and alter the course of the Sunne so it is he onely that rules and turnes the hearts of Kings the Sunne was obedient to Gods command so should the King be As the Sun moves to and fro so doth the shadow and as the King is affected so is the people The going down of the Sunne bringeth sadnesse on the earth so doth the death of a King 3. The occasion of this miracle was not so small as you take it the sicknesse prayers and teares of a good King the prayers of a great Prophet the affection that God would shew his people in delivering them from the hand of Assyria and the love that hee carried to such a King that rather then his faith shall faile the Sunne shall change his course and the lesson that he would teach us that wee should honour Kings whom God doth so much honour as to make the King of Planets stand still at the request of one to goe backe at the petition of another these I say were the occasions of this miracle 4. The going backe of the Sunne is not a greater miracle as you say then his standing still for the standing of the Red-sea was as great a miracle as the going backe of Jordan 5. The shadow in the historie of the Kings is onely mentioned because the shadowes moving was more visible then the Suns 6. This signe you say appeared not in the Sunne because the wonder was done in the land Answ. The signe was in the Sunne and that the Babylonians saw they sent to know the wonder that is what strange effect it had done in the land of Judea There be oftentimes strange Prodigies in the Aire which cause strange effects on the Earth If I should send to Italie or Germanie to know of some strange Prodigies seene there in the Aire and if I should enquire what wonder or effect these had wrought in the land or in these countreys would you conclude that there was no prodigious signe at all in the Aire The Wisemen saw a new Starre which shewed to them the miraculous birth of a new King because they came to Judea to see the wonder done in the land you will therehence conclude that there was no signe at all in the Heaven neither Starre nor motion of a Starre 7. You doubt of the truth of the Sunnes going backe because no mention of it in ancient Writers But if you will doubt or deny all passages and miracles of Scripture which are not mentioned by the Heathen writers our Bible will be reduced to a small handfull they mention not the standing of the Sunne will you deny that too But you reply That they had some light of it by alluding to it in the Fable of Phaeton when the Sun was so irregular in his course that he burned some part of the world but indeed this seems rather to allude to the Suns going backe then to his standing for an irregular course is more like a retrograde motion then a standing still But it is most likely that this Fable alludes to the conflagration of Sodome and the other cities of the plaine but however the Gentiles were not ignorant of this miracle as may be seen by that message sent to Ezechias by the Babylonians who were then the onely Astronomers And Saint Austin proves that this miracle was knowne to the Heathen by that Verse in Virgil Sistere aquam fluviis vertere sidera retro Ascribing both the standing of the Red-sea and of Jordan and the going backe of the Sunne to Art Magicke which the Scripture attributes to the power of God But Ioseph's in his first booke against Apion will tell you the reasons why the Gentile writers made little mention of the Jewish affairs and miracles partly out of ignorance as knowing little or nothing of the Jewes because they were not a people given to travell or merchandising and dwelt not in maritime towns and partly out of malice to that Nation they concealed Gods love to them and the wonders done amongst them and indeed most of the ancient Records by injury of time fury of fire and waters and neglect of those that should have kept them are lost both amongst the Gentiles and the Jewes as those Bookes of the Kings of Judah and Israel which are onely named in Scripture You reject the testimony of Herodotus concerning the returning of the Sunne which he calls the rising of the Sun in the West because he exceeds in the computation of years but by this means you will wrong all Historians if you question the substance of the story for an errour in the circumstance an errour in the computation of time takes not away the truth of the thing it selfe The China people reck on an incredible number of yeares from the Creation of the world yet you will not deny but that they had some knowledge of the Creation and that their relation of it is true The Chaldeans and Egyptians reckon 432. thousand yeares before the Floud will you therefore say they had no knowledge of the Floud The Septuagints reckon from Adam to the Floud 2262. yeares whereas the Hebrews number onely 1656. yeares and yet the Fathers reject not the Septuagints testimony concerning the Floud but most of them also follow their supputation And how doe you know but that Herodotus number of yeares may agree well enough with ours seeing divers Countreys did reckon their years diversly The Arcadian year consisted but of three moneths the Acarnanian of sixe the Roman at first but of tenne The Egyptian year was various for sometime it consisted of thirteen months sometime but of foure and sometime of three onely and of two and of one onely sometime Therefore doubtlesse Herodotus years were either Arcadian or Egyptian and so compare them with our yeares you will finde that there is no such oddes as you make and that in speaking of the Sunnes retrogradation he hath not reference to the times that never were And whereas you say

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