Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	know_v	reason_n	2,948	5	4.7939	4	true

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

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

at all of any sphear but it is within the sphears therefore the Earth not the Moon is fittest to be the center Thus you have made mee say more now then I did before You had no reason then to put so much vinegar in your ink but you are a namelesse Moon-man wrapt in a cloud Cernere ne quis te ne quis contingere possit But be not so high conceited of your selfe though your habitation be in the Moon yet learn humility Tecum habita noris quàm sit tibi curta supellex As for the other Objections which you say are not worth the eiting are indeed such as you know not how to answer them therefore you slight them as the Fox did the grapes which he could not reach CHAP. VII 1. The Starres have not their fight because the Sun is in the center nor hath the Sun lesse light being out of it 2. Why the Earth is in the center 3. The Sun is not the center because the Planets move about him 4. The center is not the most excellent place neither are the best things next it or in it 5. There is an harmony amongst the Starres though the Sun be not in the center IN this Proposition you say That the Sun may be the center and you tell us of deformities wheeles and screws as if Nature in framing of the world had been put to such hard shifts by Ptolomie's and Tycho's Hypothesis But indeed the wheeles and screwes you speak of are the whirle-gigs of your own head and I hope your Creed is that not Nature but the God of Nature framed the world but let us consider the weight of your arguments by which you would prove Copernicus his Assertion 1. You say That the light which is diffused in the starres is contracted in the center which can onely be by placing the Sun there so then it seemes by you that if the Sun were not in the center the light of the starres could not be so eminently contained and contracted in the Sun either you must mean that the starres could not receive so much light as they doe from the Sun or else that the Sun could not have in himselfe so much light as hee hath if hee were not in the center But both these are frivolous whimsies for neither hath any starre its light because the Sun is in the center as you would have nor would the Sun lose any of his light if he were out of the center no more then a candle can lose its light though it be not placed in the midst of the roome Now whether the light of the starres be all one with that of the Sun or any parcell of it is not yet fully resolved In your next Edition tell us more plainly what you meane by the light in the starres contracted in the center and wee will give you a more satisfactory answer 2. Because Clavius and others say That the Sun was placed in the midst of the Planets that hee might the more conveniently distribute his beat and light amongst them the force of this reason you say may more properly prove him to be in the center I answer that it will rather prove the Earth to be in the center thus The Sun is in the midst of the Planets that they may the more participate of his light so is the Earth placed in the midst and center of the world that the Sun might the more conveniently distribute his light and heat to it for the Sun was made chiefly for the Earth's sake and the inhabitants thereof neither doe the stars so much need his light and heat as we without which we can neither live nor procreate and as it is questionable whether the stars receive their light from the Sun though the Moon doth so is it much to be doubted that they receive no heat from the Sun seeing Saturne is cold and the Suns heat comes by reflexion which cannot be in the starres 3. You say That the Planets move about the center of the world and that I grant you but Saturne Jupiter Mars Venus Mercury move about the body of the Sun ergo the Sun is in the midst of the world Answ. If you had been better acquainted with the master of Syllogismes you had not framed such a lame Syllogisme as this for thus it runnes in briefer tearmes some Planets move about the center of the world some Planets move about the Sun ergo the Sun is the center of the world Besides that it consists all of particulars the conclusion is falsly inferred against the lawes of the third figure for it should be formed in the first figure thus What moves about the Sun moves about the center of the world the Planets move about the Sun ergo they move about the center of the world and all this I grant you that the Planets move about the earth which is the center now then I hope you will not say that the Sun is the center of the world because the Planets move about him no more then Iericho was the center of Canaan because the Priests went about it 4. When you tell us that the revolution of Venus and Mercury is about the Sun because they are never at any great distance from him you alledge a cause fit to be laughed at for is the vicinity of one starre to another the cause of its revolution about that starre because the mill-wheele is not farre distant from the miller doth it therefore goe about the miller 5. The reason which you alledge from Pythagoras is also weak for though the sunne in respect of his light were the most excellent body and the center the most excellent place yet it will not follow that he is there for we see that the most excellent creatures are not placed still next the center or in it but farthest from it as man is placed in the superficies or circumference of the earth and not in the center of it the heart is not in the midst of the body if the middle or center were alwayes the sittest place for a luminous body God would have commanded Moses to set the candlesticke with the lamps in the midst of the tabernacle and not in the side of it our eyes had beene placed in our navels not in our heads And albeit Plato say that the soule of the world resides in the innermost place of it yet I hope you doe not by this understand the sunne and you did well to alledge Macrobius against your selfe in comparing the sunne in the world to the heart in a living creature for as the heart is not in the center of the body neither is the sun in the center of the world But you give us a profound reason why in living creatures the chiefest part is not alwayes placed in the midst because they are not of an orbicular forme as the world is then it seems that the outward figure is the cause why the best part is not placed in the midst What

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

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

how 9. Of Intelligences how and why they move the heavens 10. Magneticke vertue an idle conceit IN this Chapter ampullas loqueris sesquipedalia verba you talk not like a man of this world but like one who hath dwelt long in the Moone or as if you were Iupiters secretary with Minos and had the honour with AEolus Epulis accumbere divûm You dispute of the magnitudes and distances of the orbs and of the swiftnesse of their motion with that exactnesse as if you had measured them with a line but I wonder how you could stand steady to take their measure seeing the foundation on which you stand whirles you about foure miles every minute of an houre I should thinke that your head was giddy when you wrote this and that indeed you can no more dispute of these things then a blinde man can doe of colours neither can we give you any credit untill first you goe thither and bring us a certificate signed with the hands of these Angels which turne about the orbes otherwise you will but loose your labour Nec quidquam tibi prodest Aereas tentasse domos anintóque rotundum Percurrisse polum 1. You will have us suppose that the earth is the cause of this motion but this wee may not suppose for if there be any motion in the earth the earth is the subject of that motion but not the cause for nothing can move it selfe movens mobile are distinct things but what if we should suppose what you desire what will be gained thereby to wit this That the heavens shall be freed from their inconceivable swiftnesse and is not this a goodly reason We cannot conceive how the heavens move so swiftly as they say ergo we must suppose the earth to move Shall we suppose the fire to be cold because we cannot tell how the sunne is hot If one cannot tell how the eye seeth will you bid him suppose that the foot seeth This is homines ex stultis insanos facere let the swiftnesse of heaven be never so great we cannot suppose the earth to move For that they may be swifter then our thoughts is not impossible if either we look on Gods power or on the aptitude in these bodies for such a motion But you will not have us flye to Gods power what he can doe I pray you then whither shall we flie If we goe up into heaven he is there if we goe downe to hell he is there also c. Whatsoever is done in heaven and in the earth c. he doth it himselfe saith David Hee sustaineth all things by the word of his power In him we live move and have our being therefore the Philosophers said well that he was the first mover and that the outmost heaven was the first moveable But if you will have us looke unto the usuall way of providence what is most likely to be done then we say that it is most likely that the heavens move and the earth stands still as is already proved 2. You say the heavens being vast materiall condensate substances are not capable of such a motion I heare words but to no purpose for you should tell us whether the matter of heaven and the condensation thereof be like this of the earth and whether the mover be so weake as that he cannot turne about that vast body I had told you heretofore that bodies move swifter or slower not because they are greater or lesser but because they are heavier or lighter Motion which you call a Geometricall thing but you are in this decived depends not from quantitie lesser bodies move oftentimes flower then the greater a snaile then an elephant a pebble stone then a great cloud it is not then beyond the phansie of a Poet or mad-man as you madly speake for the heaven to move very swiftly but if any man will take upon him to tell exactly how swiftly the heaven moveth or that the earth moveth at all I must needs tell him that he needs hellebor 3. When we say that the heavens are bodies without gravitie you answer us with your recocted coleworts or idle evasion of yours so often repeated That the whole earth in its owne place is not heavy which shift we have divers times already refuted but when you say That the heavens being of a materiall substance it 's impossible but that there should be in them some ineptitude to motion you speake like one who is a stranger to Philosophie for if it were not for the matter there would be no motion in the world As the forme moveth so it is by reason of the matter that all things are moved so that where there is matter there can be no ineptitude to motion in respect of the matter But it is a rugged conceit in you when you say That it 's not conceiveable how the upper spheare should move the lower unlesse their superficies were full of rugged parts or else they must leane one upon the other Answ. What rugged parts are there in the superficies of winds and clouds when the windes move the clouds or what ruggednesse is there in smooth waters when in rivers the formost waters are moved forward by the hindermost Or in the smoake when it carrieth upward a piece of paper But when you say That the farther any spheare is distant from the primum mobile the lesse it is hindered by it in its proper course It is true and yet not repugnant to Ptolomies opinion who saith That in heaven there is no reluctancie for his meaning is that there is no inferiour spheare that hindereth the swiftnesse of the primum mobile and that is the reason why it is so swift because it hath no resistance either from the forme or from the matters or thicknesse of the medium Novv In nova fert animus you vvould faine play the Poet and build castles in the aire but indeed you have already played the Poet too much for your vvhole booke is nothing else but a heap of fictions your vvorld in the Moone your moving earth your standing heavens your figures and characters what are they else but pleasant dreames and idle phansies fit enough to be inserted into Ovids Metamorphosis if you could digest them into good verses And you doe not onely play the Poet but the Painter also in your figures for a fictitious Picture is a visible Poem and a Poem is an audible Picture Painters and Poets have authority you knovv But you wonder much why Poets have not feigned a castle to be made of the same materials with the solid orbes Answ. I thinke the reason is because they did not knovv that there vvere people in the Moone if they had knovvn this doubtlesse they vvould have fitted them vvith inchanted castles and other buildings novv vvhat they have omitted doe you that posterity vvhen you are dead may say Nunc non cinis ille Poetae Faelix now levior cippus nunc imprimit ossa But I vvill

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