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
were apter for motion When you would have your maid make you some mustard give her a rugged dish and a rugged bullet and tell her that these are apter for motion she will presently entertain this new Philosophie with your interjection ha ha he so when you say that a rugged body carrieth more aire with it then a smooth you meant perhaps the bodies of Satyrs or of the wilde Irish in their rugges But now distrusting your rugged conceit you flie to the earths magneticall vertue whereby it can make all things neer unto it to observe the same revolution this is a farre fetched shift and a strange property of the magnes did you ever know a loadstone move any thing except iron or steele or to move it selfe circularly and to make all things neere to it to observe the same revolution that these conceits are Non sani hominis non sanus juret Orestes 7. I said That when the man or subject the medium and the object were all moved the sight was hindered that the eye could not exactly judge of any thing You answer That it 's true where be seveverall motions but when the subject medium and object are all carried with the same equall motion there is no impediment in the act of sieing But this is a meere shift of yours for though the motion be equall in all yet the sight will be hindered Sit downe in a turning chaire or on a turning table take a booke in your hand and spectacles on your nose and let me turne you about the motion shall be equall in all three but I doubt me you will read ill-favouredly your instance of reading in a ship is nothing for the ship moves sometimes so slowly that it is scarce discernable but let a ship or coach move swiftly and you shall not read distinctly If a ship should move foure miles in a minute as you say the earth doth you should scarce see the booke in which you read much lesse the letters 8. I said out of Aristotle That one simple body had but one naturall motion as the earth to descend the aire to ascend and therefore could not have a circular motion You answer That these right motions belong onely to parts of the elements and that too when they are out of their proper places Indeed you shew your selfe a weake Philosopher for from whence have the parts of the earth their motion of descent but from the whole Doe you not know that old and triviall maxime Propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale If your hand be heavy much more heavy is your whole body if a part of the sea be salt much more salt is the whole 2. When you say that the elements have these motions onely when they are out of their owne places if you meane of the act of ascending and descending you say true but if you meane of the power or naturall possibility you are deceived for though they bee in their proper places yet this naturall power of these motions is not taken from them 3. When you say that a load-stone in respect of its matter and condensity naturally tends downward you doe againe bewray your ignorance in Philosophy for gravity is the cause of descent not matter and condensity for the stars have matter and condensity and yet they neither can nor do descend 4. When you say that the load-stone which is a heavy body and naturally tends downward may naturally move upward you shew your selfe more and more absurd for besides that it is repugnant to the Maxime above said for a simple body to have two contrary motions so it overturns the naturall properties of the elements for if heavy bodies may naturally ascend then light bodies may naturally descend and so we shall not know how one element differs essentially from another and consequently the descending of fire of old upon the sacrifices and the ascending of Elias his body into heaven were not miracles but naturall motions 5. That desire of union and coition which one load-stone hath with another by which it breaks the laws of Nature is but your conceit if one load-stone draw another or if it draw yron upward that ascent is no naturall motion but in some sort is a violent attraction therefore Aristotle's Maxime remaines firme that one simple body hath but one naturall motion and consequently the earth doth not naturally moved round 9. We hold that the gravity and magnitude of the Earth makes it unfit for so swift a motion Your answer is That heavinesse can onely be applied to those bodies which are out of their proper places or to such parts as are severed from the whole To this wee have partly answered already that the essentiall properties of simple bodies are in the whole principally and in the parts by reason of the whole 2. It is false that heavy bodies are not heavy in their proper places for they lose not their essentiall qualities by being in their places Is a mill-stone lesse heavy when it is on or in the ground then when it is raised from the ground Put to your hand and trie if you can with more ease wagge it upon the ground then when it is raised some paces above it 3. When you say That the globe of the Earth in its right place cannot truly be called heavy I say the contrary that it can never be more truly called heavy then when it is there for if it were not heavy there it would not be there it is in its owne place because it is heavy if it were possible to remove it from its place it would never rest till it returned thither because its heavinesse would not suffer it to rest in any other place but in its owne which is the lowest place fit for so heavy a body 4. When you say That in it and in the rest of the Planets there is an ineptitude to motion by reason of the matter and condensity of their bodies you know not what you say For if there be no naturall aptitude to motion in the Planets and in the earth that motion must be violent or preternaturall Why is the motion of the fire downward and of the earth upward violent motions but because these elements have no aptitude to such motions 5. When you make the matter the cause of this ineptitude you know not the grounds of naturall Philosophy for it is the matter that gives the aptitude as the forme gives the act 6. You say That Nature may endow the earth with a motive faculty proportionable to its greatnesse as shee bestowes spirits upon other creatures for instance an Eagle and a Flie proportionable to their severall bodies Sic parvis componere magna selebas There is indeed so me proportion between an Eagle and a Flie but between an Eagle and the vast body of the earth there is none at all If you had compared the motion of the Eagle to the motion of the great bird Ruc
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
not novv spend time in vievving the parts and materials of your Poeticall castle till you have brought it to perfection and then I vvill take a survey of every particular 4. I had said that a bigger body as a mill-stone vvill naturally descent svvifter then a lesse as a pebble stone the cause of this You will not have to be ascribed to the bodies bignesse but to the strength of naturall desire which that big body hath to such a motion Answ. You make a shevv as if you did ansvver our argument but in effect you ansvver nothing for if I should aske you vvhy a mill-stone falls faster then a pebble you will answer because it hath a stronger desire to fall but if I aske againe why it hath a stronger desire you answer because the bigger a thing is the stronger is its desire c. and is not your opinion now all one with mine in effect that it is the bignesse that is the cause of this swiftnesse now the same reason is appliable to bodies moving circularly for though they were in their proper scituations yet there is in them as great a desire to move about the center as there is in elementary bodies to move to and from the center therefore the greater the body is the greater desire it hath to move according to your opinion Againe I said that the winde will sooner move a great ship then a little stone you answer This is not because a ship is more easily moveable then a little stone but because a little stone is not so liable to the violence from whence its motion proceeds This answer is as wise as the former for why is not the stone as liable to the violent cause of its motion as the ship but because it is not so big therefore the ship is more easily moveable then the stone because by reason of its bignesse it 's more liable to the violent cause of its motion And when you say That I cannot throw a ship as farre as a stone I grant it but this will onely argue want of strength in me but not want of aptitude for a swifter motion in the ship then in the stone if I had strength to sling the one as well as the other A bigger bullet out of the same peece will flie farther and swifter then a lesser 5. I brought some instances to illustrate the possibility of the heavens swiftnesse as the sound of a cannon twenty miles off of the sight of a starre in a moment of the light passing suddenly from East to West of the swiftnesse of a bullet carried by the powder to these you answer That the passage of a sound is but slow compared to the heavens motion that the species of sound or sight are accidents and so is the light that the disproportion is great betwixt the heavens motion and the swiftnesse of a bullet Answ. Let the sound and light and species be what they will be they are moved and if they be accidents they cannot be moved alone but with the subject in which they are inherent therefore if there be such swiftnesse in the motion of these what need we doubt of the swiftnesse of the heavens and if accidents can be so swiftly moved with and in their subjects much swifter must be these heavenly substances having no resistance whose matter is so pure that it is a great furtherance to their motion and though there be great disproportion betwixt the bullets motion and the heavens swiftnesse yet the motion of the one serves to illustrate the swiftnesse of the other And yet I take not upon me as you doe peremptorily to tell how swift the heavens are and though I said that the light was an accident yet I said also that it was corpori simillimum that it comes very neere to the nature of a body neither did Aristotle prove the light to be no body because of its swiftnesse as if no body were capable of that swiftnesse for then he should contradict himselfe as you use to doe but he meanes that no sublunarie body had so swift a motion It had been folly to illustrate the swiftnesse of the bullets motion by the motion of the hand in the watch for there by many other motions far swifter then this to expresse the bullets motion but of sublunary motions there be none swifter then those I alledged to illustrate the motion of heaven 6. You would have the earth to be both the efficient and finall cause of its motion But indeed it is neither the one nor the other for if it move at all it must be moved by another mover then it selfe and God made the heavens not for the earth but for man so the diurnall and annuall motions have man for their finall cause and heavenly movers for their efficient 2. You say That nature is never tedious in that which may be done an easier way This I will not grant you for nature doth not still worke the easiest but the most convenient way but I deny that the earths motion is either more easie or more convenient then that of heaven for a light body such as heaven is is more easily moved then a heavy and it is more convenient that the foundation of our houses should remain firme and stable then moveable as I said I could tell you how laborious and tedious nature is in the perfecting of mans body and of many other things therefore she doth not take still the most compendious way 3. You say It is not likely that the heaven should undergoe so great and constant a worke which might be saved by the circumvolution of the earths body How tender hearted are you are you afraid that the heavens will grow wearie and I pray you is not heaven sitter to undergoe a great and constant worke then the earth so small so dull so heavy so subject to change a great worke is fit for a great body and a constant work fit for that body that knoweth no unconstancy 4. You are deceived when you say That the heaven receiveth no perfection by its motion but is made serviceable to this little ball of earth The perfection of heaven consisteth in its motion as the earths perfection in its rest neither was heaven made to serve this ball but to serve him who was made Lord of this ball 5. Your Similies of a mother warming her childe of a Cooke rosting his meat of a man on a tower of a Watch maker are all frivolous For a mother turneth her childe and a Cook his meat to the fire because the fire cannot turne it selfe to them the motion is in them not in the fire so he that is on a tower turnes himselfe round to see the countrey because the countrey cannot turne it selfe about him If you had proved to us that the heaven cannot move but that it is the earth that moveth then we should yeeld that the earth did foolishly to expect the celestiall fire to turne about her but
truth of his miracles the terrour of his judgements the greatnesse of his majestie be seene if these things shall not truely and really be effected you may as well say that all former miracles were but in shew or appearance as Christs turning of water into wine his walking on the Sea his raising of the dead curing of diseases appeasing of the storme c. Is it a thing more incredible for the Sun to be miraculously darkened at Christs second coming then it was at his passion when the Sun lost his light the Moone being at full Which miracle was acknowledged by that learned Areopagite being then in Egypt Or is it more incredible that the Moone shall be turned into bloud then for clouds to raine bloud of which bloudy showers you may read in the Roman and French stories and in our owne Chronicles at home of bloud that rained seaven dayes together in this Island so that the milke was turned into bloud What say you of all the waters of Egypt which were turned into bloud and if wee may beleeve the Church stories when Felix the Martyr suffered for not delivering up the Bible to be burned about the yeare of Christ 302. the Moone was turned into bloud thus God is able to make your world in the Moone Aceldama And why shall we not as well beleeve that the Starres shall fall as that they sought against Sisera or that a new Starre conducted the Wise-men to Christ God is as able to shake the Heavens and the Stars from them as a winde is to shake a fig-tree and spoile it of leaves he that setled the Stars may remove them And to tell us that these Meteors which wee call falling Stars are meant is a childish conceit seeing such doe fall almost every night and are the meer works of nature no wayes fit to expresse Gods judgements and the terrour of that day 12. Christ saith to Nicodemus that he knew not whence the winde cometh nor whether it goeth You inferre that none knows this as the vulgar thinke and therefore this and such like phrases are to be understood in relation to their ignorance and the Scripture you say speaks of some naturall effects as if their causes were not to be found out because they were generally so esteemed by the vulgar I perceive you are none of the vulgar but de meliore luto for it seemes you know these causes which the vulgar know not you are gallinae filius albae a happy man that knowes the hid cauises of things Foelix qui poteris rerum cognoscere causas I confesse my ignorance in the most of these naturall causes Philosophers reasons are not satisfactory to me Obstat cui gelidus circum praecordia sanguis But if the wiser sort know from whence the winde commeth which the vulgar doe not so likewise must the wayes of the Spirit in our regeneration be known to them also though not to the vulgar but sure that is not Christs meaning for he meanes that the way and manner of our regeneration are as hid secret to men without divine revelation as the wayes of the winde are and as none knows the one so none the other 2. If you know from whence the winde cometh and whither it goeth I pray tell us and hide not your light under a bushell perhaps you will say that it cometh from North or South East or West if you can say no more you were as good lay your finger on your lip with Harpocrates and say nothing For tell us out of what part of the earth or sea doth the North-winde arise when it blowes over our Island and how farre doth it goe or where doth it end Whence came the great South-West-winde which the 27. of December last sunke so many ships overturned so many trees overthrew so many barnes and dwelling houses and where did this winde end Can you tell us whence the Brises or trade-windes under the line which blow continually from East to West doe proceed or doe you know whence the Aniversarie windes in Egypt called Etesiae doe come These begin to blow when the dog-starre ariseth and continue forty dayes together such windes blow in Spaine and Asia but from the East in Pontus from the North. I thinke that though you should aske of the Finlanders who used to sell windes if you will beleeve Olaus they cannot informe you 3. How can Philosophers tell us from whence the winde cometh when they know not as yet what the winde is whether an exhalation or the aire moved whether it ariseth out of the sea as Homer thinks or out of the bowells and caves of the earth as others suppose Pliny will tell you of Caves where the winde blowes continually and Neptune in Virgil will shew you that AEolus hath no power in his kingdome but in the hollow caves and rockes of the earth tenet ille immania saxa Illâ se jactet in aulâ AEolus caeco c. 4. St. Austine was no vulgar man and yet hee confesseth his ignorance that he knowes not out of what treasure God bringeth forth his windes and his clouds indeed wee may all acknowledge with Seneca that our knowledge is but ignorance and because of the uncertainty of humane conjectures it is best to content our selves with the knowledge of that supreme cause of all naturall effects revealed to us in Scripture 13. Solomon you say doth onely mention the sea being obvious and easily apprehended by the vulgar to be the cause of springs and rivers though in nature there be many other causes of them I answer Solomon doth mention the sea onely not because the vulgar apprehends it so but because indeed and verily it is so to wit the onely prime cause of springs and rivers If you should tell mee that raine and vapours are other causes you would say nothing for these are subordinate to the sea hee that names the prime and superiour cause of any effect doth not exclude but include all subordinate and inferiour causes If I say the sea is the cause of springs I say inclusively that raine and vapours which have their originall from the sea are the causes also When the Jewes said they were the sons of Abraham they excluded not Isaac and Iacob When Saint Paul saith that God giveth to every seed its body hee excludes not the Sun Raine Earth and the formative power of the seed which are subordinate causes to God 2. Solomons drift was not to make a Philosophicall discourse about the causes of rivers but to shew the vanity of things by the continuall issuing and returning of rivers from and to the sea as hee had done before by the Sunnes motion 14. For the thunder which David calls the voice of God wee say that this phrase is not to be understood with relation to some mens ignorance as you fondly conceit but to Gods omnipotency and providence who by his thunder as by a voice speaks unto the world and
the shore and looking upon trees I see no other motion in them then what is caused by the winde When I am in a ship I perceive the motion of the other ship that saileth by me though the motion of both be equall and uniforme but when I am in an Island I can neither perceive the motion of it nor the motion of the other Island that is by it And although the motion of the eye makes a thing seeme to move which doth not move yet it doth not make the thing seeme to move which doth really move if it be within distance for being in a ship I have discerned the running of horses and carts upon the shore really though the shore it selfe moved apparently therefore though I should yeeld that the earth did move yet that motion could not make me thinke that the sun did not move really no more then the motion of the ship can hinder me from discerning the true motion of a horse or wheele on the shore and albeit motion be not the proper object of the eye yet it is an object neither is the eye more deceived in apprehending or receiving the species of motion then it is in receiving the species of colours caeteris paribus the action of the eye or passion which you will being no other towards the motion of a coloured object then towards the colour of a moving object Againe it would be considered whether the naturall motion of the earth as you call it and the violent motion of a ship produce the same effect in our eye as because the moving of a ship makes the shore seeme to move therefore the moving of the earth makes the sunne seeme to move 2. Your words seeme to be contradictory when you say That motion is not the proper object of the sight nor belonging to any other peculiar sense We say that colours are the proper object of the sight because they belong not to any other peculiar sense and that motion is not the proper object of the eye because it doth belong to other peculiar senses but your other words are false when you say That the common sense apprehends the eye it selfe to rest immoveable For when the eye is moved the common sense apprehends it to be moved and so when it rests the common sense apprehends it to rest otherwise it and the imagination should be still deceived But when you say That the eye is an ill judge of naturall secrets you should have said That it is no judge of naturall secrets for the visible workes of nature are no secrets natures secrets are invisible and therefore are judged by reason not by sense Now though this be a good consequence the earth doth not move because it doth not appeare so to us yet this consequence will not hold the earth doth move because it appeares to move for an object that is immoveable may seeme to move because the eye is moved but when we see a great body neere us to stand still wee justly inferre that it moveth not because we see it not For the apparent motion of the shore there is a manifest cause but for the apparent rest of the earth there can be no cause for if it did move it would not seem to rest being there is no cause not so much as imaginable of this supposed rest but rather the contrary for if it did move it and all things else would seeme to move as for the apparent bignesse of the sunne and moone I have already told you a reason but you have not nor can you tell mee a reason for the apparent rest of the earth 2. I objected That if the motions of the heavens be onely apparent that then the motion of the clouds would be so too your answer is That I might as well inferre that the sense is mistaken in every thing because it is so in one thing Answ. You should have rather inferred that as the sense is mistaken in one thing so it might be in any other thing but I will stand to your illation the sense is mistaken sometimes in every thing when it is mistaken in one thing of the same kinde the eye is mistaken in the bignesse of one star and so it is in the bignesse of every star because the reason or cause of the mistake is alike in all to wit the distance The eye is mistaken in the motion of one tree or house upon the shore and so it is in all the trees and houses it seeth on the shore for the reason of this mistake is alike in all to wit the agitation of the eye even so if the heavens move apparently the clouds also move apparently Nam in horum motu potest decipi visus non minus quam in motu coelorum these are my words which you cunningly left out The eye is deceivable in the one as well as in the other therefore my eye being alike disposed in respect of its agitation by the supposed motion of the earth to the heavens and to the clouds it will follow that as it is mistaken in the one so it is in the other and consequently wee must no more trust our eyes in the motion of the clouds then in the motion of the heavens if the earth did move Therefore what you speake of Anaxagoras his opinion concerning the blacknesse of the snow is fit for your selfe for to hold the snow to be blacke and the earth to move are both alike absurd and ridiculous but this opinion is more dangerous then that As for your conceit of the common sense conceiving the eye to be immoveable I have said already that it is false and indeed the opinion of one that seems to want common sense and as boldly without proofe doe you affirme that the clouds though they seeme not to move are carried about with our earth by a swift revolution for so you make the inferiour bodies against that order that God hath placed in the world to move the superiour as if you should say The foot originally moves the head and not the head the foot But this is no hinderance you say why we may not judge aright of the other particular motions It is true I judge aright of the particular motions of the clouds when I see them carried to and fro by the winde and so I judge aright of the motion of the sunne but when I see the sun and a cloud moving from East to West and you should tell me that the sunne doth not move though the cloud doth move I would know the reason why my eye should be more deluded in the one then in the other seeing the motion of the earth and so of my eye is alike disposed to both It is as much as if you would tel me when I see a horse and a man run both on the shore that the man runs but not the horse whereas my eye is alike disposed to both As for your similies of a man walking in the
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 quà m 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
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
you had spake within compasse If one should say that a little wheele and a great mill-stone may be moved according to the proportion of their bodies so likewise may the hill Athos or Atlas be turned about he would be counted ridiculous and yet there is a farre greater proportion between a mill-stone and those hills then between an Eagle and the Earth 7. Though the magnitude of the earth make it incapable of so swift a motion yet this doth not make the heaven much more incapable as you say For it is the magnitude joyned with the heavinesse of the earth that makes it incapable of such a motion but the heavens are not heavy though great A cloud which may be a mile or two about hath a greater magnitude then a pebble small stone and yet you see with what facility the cloud is carried whereas the stone is not moved though it were high in the air but with the motion of descent 8. As for the swiftnesse of the earth's course which exceeds not you say the celerity of clouds driven by a tempestuous winde of a cannon bullet which in a minute flies foure miles c. These I say are the phansies of a crasie braine in a dream you are the onely darling and favourite of Nature who both knowes the Earth's motion and how much it can runne in a minute It seemes this incredible swiftnesse of the earth hath made your head giddy that you know not what you write and how can it be otherwise for if you be carried 240. miles in an houre and your pen whilst it is forming almost every letter foure miles in a minute your braines flie as fast as the bullet out of the cannon If this be true I doe not think that either you know what you write or where you are nay you could not write at all nor were it possible for you to live or for your lungs and heart to move or draw breath Your subsequent discourse of the Earths magneticall property is grounded as indeed all your Book upon ridiculous suppositions and on such grounds do you raise the structure of your Babel or bables 1. You suppose that the lower parts of the Earth do not consist of such a soft fructifying soyl as in the surface because there is no use for it But what if I should suppose the contrary that it doth consist of a fructifying soyle and that there be people there aswell as in your Moone I doubt not but I could prove it with as good reasons as you do your world in the Moon 2. You suppose it consists of a hard rock is substance because these lower parts are pressed close together by the weight of the heavy bodies above them What if I should suppose the contrary that the softest ground is in the lowest parts as being farthest from the Sun which hardneth the earth therefore they that dig deep into to the bowells of the earth finde it still softer and softer the deeper they goe And wee know that many fruits and heavy bodies are hard and stonie without but soft within the earth then is not like a cheese that by pressing groweth hard 3. You suppose that this rockie substance is a load-stone But what if I should suppose it to be a diamond which is more likely both because it is the more precious stone and Nature commonly layeth up the most precious things within her most inward parts and because it is harder for according to your doctrine the pressing close of heavy bodies is the cause of hardnesse 4. It 's probable you say that this rockie substance is a load-stone because the earth and load-stone agree in so many properties What if I should say that they disagree in many more properties and that therefore this cannot be the load-stone But what an Argument is this the earth and loadstone agree in many properties therefore the lower part of the earth consists of load-stones as if you would say A man and an horse agree in many properties therefore the lower part of a man consists or is made up of a horse or thus The elementary and our culinary fire agree in many properties therefore the inmost or lower part of the one consists of the other 5. You say well that what hath all the properties of the load-stone must needs be of that nature but because you are not well read in the Master of syllogismes you inferre that the inward parts of the earth consist of a magneticall substance which is the conclusion without an assumption which should have been this but the lower parts of the earth have all the properties of the load-stone which wee deny Now let us heare how you prove it The difference you say of declination and variation in the mariners needle cannot proceed from it selfe being the same every where nor from the heavens for then the variation would not be still alike in the same place but divers according to the severall parts of heaven which at severall times happen to be over it therefore it proceeds from the earth which being endowed with magneticall affections diversly disposeth the motions of the needle I answer the Earth may have a disponent vertue to alter the needle and yet not be a load-stone so the heavens are the causes of generation corruption alterations c. in the world and yet they are not capable of these qualities the Moon causeth the sea to ebbe and flow doth shee therefore partake of the like affections or hath shee the properties of the sea The load-stone disposeth the motions of the yron will you therefore inferre that the load-stone hath the properties of yron 2. If the variation as you say of the needle be divers according to the severall parts of heaven passing over it it must follow that the needle must vary every minute and scruple of an houre even here where we live seeing every scruple or minute divers parts of the heaven are still passing over it 3. If the Inclination or motion of the needle towards the North is caused by the heaven not by the earth why should not the variation and declination of it be caused by the heaven likewise You are driven to hard shifts when you are forced to flie to similitudes for want of proofs to strengthen your weak and absurd assertions for similitudes may illustrate they cannot prove 2. Because you cannot shew any similitude of the earth's motion with such things as you are acquainted you are forced to borrow similitudes from those things with which you are not acquainted rather then you will seeme to say nothing You flie beyond the Moon Saturne and Iupiter must serve you at a dead life but I know not upon what acquaintance This is your conceit A bullet or any part of the earth being severed from the whole observes no lesse the same motions then if they were united to the whole whereas Jupiter Saturne c. doe constantly and regularly move on in their courses hanging in the
by sense or reason demonstrations are of things true and reall not of dreames and imaginations therefore neither your pictures nor bare words shall perswade us that dayes moneths yeares houres weekes c. are or can be caused by the earths motion till first you have proved that the earth moveth you that cannot abide Eccentrickes and Epicycles in the heavens are forced now to make use of them both for the motion of the Moone and of the earth too so that you have not mended but marred the matter rejecting Ptolomy because of Eccentrickes and Epicycles aud yet you admit Copernicus with his new devised Moone Eccentricks and Earth Eccentrickes so that you thinke by these fictions to solve the divers illuminations bignesse eclipses c. of the Moone A phantasticall Astronomer might devise other wayes besides these of Ptolomy and Copernicus to shew the different appearances of the Planets for of things that are uncertaine and beyond our reach divers men will have divers conceits and conjectures many have held and doe at this day yet maintaine that the stars have soules and are living creatures and why may not this be as true as your opinion that there is a world of living creatures in the Moone What if I should hold that the eight spheare is a solid substance therefore called firmamentum full of holes some great and some small so that these lights which wee call starres are but beames of that bright and cleare heaven above called Empyreum shining through these holes Or if I should say that every starre had its Angel moving it about the earth as wee use in darke nights to carry lanternes divers Nations of Asia Africke and America have divers opinions of the starres and few or none true all which do argue our ignorance and foolishnesse we are but Curvae in terris animae coelestium inanes But any of these conjectures mentioned is as probable as yours of the earths motion therefore I was not without sense and reason when I concluded my Booke with this Argument That if the Sunne stood still there could be no variation of the shadow in the Sunne Diall you will say that may be altered by the earths motion but I say to you as I said to Mr. Carpenter prove that and what I profered to him I also profer to you Phillida solus habeto You will say this may be easily proved if I will admit the earth to move but so you may say that you will easily prove an Asse to flye if I should admit that hee hath wings but I will not admit that upon a false maxime of your devising you shall inferre what you please What if I should admit an absurd conceit of yours that the Earth draweth the Moone about can you prove mee that when the Moone shineth there is any variation of shadowes when both the luminous and opace body are moved with the same motion 2. The difference you say betweene Summer and Winter between the number and length of dayes and of the Sunnes motion from Signe to Signe and all other appearances of the Sunne concerning the annuall motion may be seene by your Figures and easily solved by supposing the earth to move in an Eccentricall orbe about the Sunne Answ. Not the Sunnes appearances but your phantasies are to be seene by your figures the earth doth not move because your figure represents it it is also an easie matter to suppose things that never were nor can be you suppose the earth to move about the Sunne and not the Sunne about the earth you may as well suppose the house to be carried about the candle and not the candle about the house and so all appearances may be solved as well this way as the other for if the house did move about the candle the house shall be seene as well as if the candle did move about the house and why may we not suppose the house to move sometimes neerer to and sometimes farther from the candle the neerer it moveth the more it is illuminate c. But what Cato is so grave as to refraine from laughter at such absurd and foolish suppositions You spend much paper to shew how the Planets will appeare direct stationary retrograde and yet still move regularly about their owne centers This is Magno conatu magnas nugas dicere and who but Iudaeus apella will beleeve that one motion of the earth should cause so many different appearances in the severall Planets howsoever you talke of Ptolomie's Wheele-worke I preferre his Wheele to your Whirlegig It is more easie for many Planets to wheele about then for one rocke or piece of earth to whirle about but you are as exact in placing the Planets as if you had been upon the top of Iacobs ladder You place Mercury next to the Sunne hiding himselfe under his rayes you say well for theeves doe use to hide themselves but for one to hide himselfe in the open light is not usuall darknesse one would thinke were more proper then that But how Mercury hath a more lively vigorous light then any of the other I understand not I should rather thinke that there were a more lively vigorous light in the Sun Moone and Venus And whereas you say that Venus in her conjunction with the Sunne doth not appeare horned is true but if her husband Vulcan had beene as neere the Sunne his hornes doubtlesse had beene seene doe not you know how much ashamed Venus was when the Sunne looked upon her being in bed with Mars Now that the orbe of Mars containeth our earth within it I will not deny but I am sure our earth containeth Mars within it who is oftentimes too exorbitant Toto saevit Mars impius orbe And that the orbe of the Moone comprehends the earth in it because shee is sometimes in opposition to the Sunne is a feeble reason as though the opposition of two round bodies should be the cause why that which is in the midst betwixt them should be within the circumference of either of their circles or orbes Other Planets have their oppositions is therefore the earth within the orbe of either of them Or why is the earth more within the orb of the Moone then of the Sun seeing the Moone is no more in opposition to the Sun then the Sun is to the Moone 3. You conclude your Booke with a large digression upon the commendations of Astronomy which hath for its object the whole world you say And therefore farre exceeds the barren speculation of universale and materia prima Answ. It seemes you have left nothing for the objects of other sciences if Astronomy must ingrosse the whole world for its object 2. Vniversum belike exceeds Vniversale with you and the extent of the one is not so large nor the speculation so fruitfull as of the other but surely your Vniversum or world in the Moone is as barren a notion as that of Vniversale 3. The knowledge of Philosophy and Logicke