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	think_v	3,328	5	3.8263	3	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

us to beleeve the truth of this assertion and yet you spurning at Scripture sense and reason as if your phansie were instar omnium would have our judgements senses Scripture Church and all regulated by your absurd dictates therefore it is an unreasonable thing in you to desire that the holy Ghost should not be Judge of his owne assertions in naturall truths and that there should be more credit given to your conceits which you call industry and experience then to Gods own words Indeed this travell hath God left to the sonnes of men to be exercised with as a punishment for their sins to toile and labour all their dayes about shadowes imaginations and indeed meer nothing groping at the doore of knowledge like blinde Sodomites all their dayes and cannot finde it so that they who have spent their whole life in Astronomie may with Saint Peter say on their death bed Master We have laboured all night but have caught nothing Thus with Martha they are busie about many things and neglect that one thing which is onely necessary 2. It is but a conceit of yours to say That the Scripture accommodates it selfe to the vulgars conceit in saying the Sunne riseth and falleth c. I warrant you if the vulgar should conceive that the heavens were made of water as the Gnostickes held or that the Sunne and Moone were two ships with the Manichees or that the world was made of the sweat of the AEones with the Valentinians or whatsoever other absurd opinion they should hold you would make the Scripture say so and to accommodate it selfe to their conceits The stability of the Earth and motion of the Heaven are absurd and false opinions in your conceit and yet the Scripture affirmes them You are as unapt I know to beleeve that the Sunne moves as others are that it stands still therefore it 's a wonder you do not begin to call the Scripture authority in question that affirmes the Suns motion seeing you say men would be apt to doe so if the Scripture had said the Sunne standeth c. How shall the Scripture please both parties if it say the Sun moveth your side will except against it if it say the Sun standeth ours will be offended at it Why should the Scripture be more loath to offend us then you except it be because we are the stronger side and we have our senses to witnesse with us which you have not I wish you would conceive a more reverend opinion of the Spirit of truth who cannot lie nor will affirme a falshood upon any pretence whatsoever neither will he countenance a lie to confirme a truth or speake false in one thing that wee may conceive his meaning the better in another thing He needs not such weake and wicked helps as falshoods to make us understand his will his word is strong and mighty in operation it 's the power of God unto salvation a sharp two edged sword his hammer his scepter c. As it stands not with his truth to affirme a lie so doth it no wayes consist with the power of his Word and Spirit to helpe our understanding by a lie 3. You say That if the Scripture had said the Earth riseth and setteth and the Sunne stands still the people being unacquainted with that secret would not have understood the meaning of it Answ. What matter is it whether they had understood it or not For you tell us that these things are not necessary in themselves and that it is besides the scope of these places to instruct us in Philosophicall points Will you have the holy Ghost then speake a falshood for feare lest we should not understand the meaning of a secret which is not necessary for us to know if it be not needfull for us to know whether the Earth stands or not so it was lesse needfull for the Scripture to say the Earth standeth when it doth not stand But you doe well to call the motion of the Earth a secret for so it is a great secret hid from the wise and prudent of this world and revealed onely to such babes as your selfe But why is this a secret If it be a naturall effect it is no secret for though naturall causes doe not incurre into our senses yet the effects doe and if this be a secret effect and not sensible it cannot be an effect of nature but I thinke it be such another secret as the Philosophers stone which never was and never shall be Though it be beside the chiefe scope of Scripture to instruct us in Philosophicall points yet it will not follow that these Philosophicall tearmes are to be otherwise understood then as they are expressed There be many Geographicall Historicall and Chronologicall passages in Scripture mentioned incidently and not chiefly to instruct us in such points shall we therefore understand them otherwise then they are set downe or rather the cleane contrary way But when you say the Earths motion is beyond our reach I grant it because we cannot reach that which is not made manifest to us either by sense or reason or divine authority If you can either of these wayes make it appeare I doubt not but our understanding will reach it and if you cannot one of these wayes make it appear to us we will account it a meere nothing For idem est non esse non videri and indeed you say well out of the Glosse that God doth not teach curiosities which are not apprehended easily for your motion of the Earth is an incomprehensible curiosity And it is well said by you againe that the Scriptures authority might be questioned if it did teach naturall things contrary to our senses and therefore if any booke of Scripture should affirme as you doe that the earth moves naturally and circularly I should verily beleeve that that booke had never been indicted by the holy Spirit but rather by a Pythagorean spirit or by the spirit of Dutch beer You condemne Tertullians Heretickes for retching Scripture a wrong way and forcing it to some other sense agreeable to their false imagination and rather then they would forgoe their tenents yeelded the Scripture to be erroneous De te fabula narretur You retch the Scripture a wrong way forcing it to your false imaginations you do not indeed call the Scripture erroneous but you make it to speake one thing and meane the cleane contrary therefore you shall doe well to apply Saint Austins counsell to your selfe and doe not settle your opinion rashly on that darke and obscure conceit of the Earths motion It is true also what you alledge out of Saint Austin that the holy Ghost being to deliver more necessary truths left out to speake of the forme or figure of Heaven c. because hee would not have us spend too much time in these things and neglect the meanes of salvation but you should have done well to have subjoined the following words of that same Father to

planting of the heavens 12. How the earth is established 13. What Job meanes by the earth moved out of its place YOu would faine here overthrow those Scriptures which shew the immobilitie of the earth 1. That place of Ecclesiastes one generation cometh and another passeth but the earth standeth for ever You say That it is not the purpose of this place to deny all kinde of motion to the whole earth but that of generation and corruption But I say that it is neither the purpose of this place to deny the motition of the earth nor to affirme the motion of the sunne for why should he either deny the one or affirme the other which no man doubted of or called in question his drift is to prove the vanity of mankinde from the stability of the earth and motion of the sun windes and waters thus man is inferiour to the earth because the earth is firme stable and immoveable whereas man abideth not in one stay but cometh forth like a flower and is cut downe he flyeth like a shadow and continueth not Or as it is here he cometh and goeth so that coming going are motions to which man is subject and are opposite to the immobilitie of the earth The Antithesis then or opposition here is not between the substance of man and of the earth for man in respect of his substance is permanent as well as the earth if either we consider his soule or his body according to the first matter but the opposition is between the qualities outward estate and life of man and the immobilitie of the earth so that the standing of the earth must be meant either of its permanency or immutabilitie or immobilitie not the first for man as I said is not inferiour to the earth in permancie not the second for the earth is subject as all sublunary things are to mutability and changes therefore the third which is the earths immobility must needs be understood And if Solomon had thought otherwise to wit that the earth moved and the sun stood still he would have said The sunne standeth for ever the earth ariseth and the earth goeth downe c. But for all his knowledge he was ignorant of this quaint piece of Philosophie Againe he proves mans vanity from the motion of the sunne windes and waters though they move and are gone for a while yet they returne againe but man being gone returnes no more so that man hath neither the stability of the earth but passeth away and being past hath not the power to returne againe as the sunne winde and waters doe It is plaine then that the standing of the earth is opposed to its locall motion and to the motion of men coming and going but it were ridiculous as you say to inferre that the earth is immoveable because permanent for the mill and ship may be permanent and yet move this illation is none of ours we say it is immoveable because Solomon here sayes so for he saith it standeth and if standing be motion then the earth moves It is more safe for us to say That the earth is immoveable because Solomon saith it stands then to say it is moveable because the word standing may signifie permanency or abiding As for the motions as you cal them of generation and corruption from which you free the earth they are not indeed motions but mutations Metus est à termino positivo ad terminum poserivum You checke the Jewes for collecting the earths eternity from the word Legnolam albeit I know that this word doth not alway signifie eternity but a long continuance of time yet that the earth is eternall à posteriori I thinke you will not deny except you will tread in some new way of your owne different from that both of ancient and modern Divines who affirme with the Scripture That there shall be a new earth but new in qualities not in substance a change of the figure not of the nature of the forme not of the substance a renovation of that beauty which is lost by man but no creation of a new Essence so that the Jewes might justly inferre from Solomons words that the earth is eternall or stablished for ever You snap at Mr Fuller for urging that these words of Solomon must be all understood literally and not some of them in reference to appearance but without cause for can the same Scripture with one breath blow hot and cold At the same time speake plainly and ambiguously in the same sentence have a double meaning The Scripture which is plaine and simple is farre from double dealing Will any thinke that when Solomon saith There be three moveable bodies the Sun Windes and Rivers that there are indeed but two and that the Sun moves not but in appearance that is moves not at all This is to make the Scripture indeed a nose of wax for what may I not interpret this way Christ fed the people with five barley loaves that is with foure loaves for one was a loafe but in appearance Three Wise-men came from Persia to worship Christ that is two came indeed but the third came onely in appearance You would laugh at me if I should tell you that of any three ships or mills which move really one did move apparently whereas both you I see them move really Now if the Sun doth not move why doth the Scripture say it doth What danger would arise if it spoke plaine in this point You say That the Scripture speaks of some naturall things as they are esteemed by mans false conceipt But this is a false conceit of yours the Scripture doth not cherish or patronise the falshood of our conceits the end of it is to rectifie our erroneous conceits It is true that in high and obscure points of Divinitie the Scripture condescending to our capacity useth the tearms of familiar and earthly things that by them we may by degrees ascend to the love and knowledge of spirituall things for the naturall man understandeth not the things of God but in naturall things which are obvious to our senses we need no such helps If the Sunne stood still it were as easie for us to understand his standing as his moving What you talke of the ends of a staffe and of the ends of the earth is impertinent and frivolous for the Scripture for want of proper words useth metaphoricall and because there is no other word to expresse the remote bounds of the earth then the word End therefore the Scripture useth it But you inferre that because the ends of a staffe and the ends of the earth cannot be taken in the same sense that therefore the motion of the sun and of the winds must be understood in divers senses make an Enthymeme and see the consequence the Scripture saith That a staffe hath ends and that the earth hath ends which cannot be understood properly and in the same sense ergo when the Scripture saith The sunne moveth

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

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

thinke you of a Hedge hog when he wraps himselfe up in his prickles as round as a bowle is the best part then more in the middle of his body then it was before Or hath the earth which is of a round forme better things in the center then in the superficies What difference is there betweene the middle and out-side of a round stone Againe you say the center is not the worst place although Aristotle proves it from the dignity of the thing containing over that which is contained and your reason is That though the center be contained yet it is one of the termini or limits of a round body as well as the circumference but I reply that though it be one of the limits yet it is contained and therefore more ignoble then that which containeth it so you have but offered to answer this argument and indeed you know not how to answer it 6. If we suppose the sunne to be in the center say you we may conceive an excellent harmony both in the number and distance of the Planets For my part I give you leave to conceive what you will so that you doe not obtrude your conceits on us as oracles but will keep them to your selfe if you continue to divulge them we will conceit that your conceits are but idle phansies if you cannot set them forth with better proofes then as yet you have done We are confident the earth is in the center and doe conceive that there is an excellent harmony in the Planets though the sunne be not in the center and therefore to say that the harmony would be disturbed if the sunne were amongst the planets you wrong both Pythagoras your master whose conceit of the musicall harmony in heaven was grounded on the motion of the Planets and injurious to Apollo himselfe the author of musicall harmony and the continuall companion of the Muses without whom there can be no consort CHAP. VIII 1. How the eye is deceived and how not and that if the earth moved we should see it 2. Motion and rest how the objects of the eye and of the common sense 3. If the earth moved the clouds would but sceme to move as well as the sunne 4. How the eye can be deceived in the motion of a lucid body 5. The naturall motion of the foundation cannot keep buildings from falling 6. The heavens sitter for motion then the earth 7. Rugged bodies not fittest for motion 8. The sight hindred by the motion of the subject medium and object 9. One simple body hath but one naturall motion proved 10. Essentiall properties more chiefly in the whole then in the parts the earth is heavy in its owne place how bignesse how a hinderance to motion of the earths ineptitude to a swist motion 11. The magneticall qualities of the earth a fiction 12. Similitudes no prooses the seas ebbing and flowing what 13. The whole earth moveth not because the parts move not round 14. Absurd phrases and the spots about the sunne censured 15. That the earth turnes about the moone is ridiculous 16. Some observations to prove that the earth turnes about the clouds refused 17. Of a mixed motion of the place medium and space 18. Of the motion of comets 19. My nine arguments desended 1. That the earths motion would make it hot 2. The aire purer 3. A sound 4. Heaven hath all things sit for motion 5. Of similar parts and the whole 6. The sunne is the heart of the world 7. It workes by motion 8. The earth is the firme foundation 9. The authority of Divines the heaven called AEther the earth hath not two distinct motions THe chiefe businesse of this Chapter you say is to desend the earths diurnall motion Indeed you are too busie Non amo nimium diligentes neither is this businesse of yours anything else then idlenesse otiosi negotium And because you cannot answer our objections you are as busie here as you can be to illude them and to delude the world with your great brags Rhodomontado's but let us see with what dexterity you dissipate the strength of our arguments you doe as Cacus did to Hercules Cacus being too weake to resist that invincible champion laboured to escape his hands by darkning the cave and Hercules his eyes with smoake and ashes which hee belched out against him the like stratagem you use with intricate words and smoakie phrases to darken the understanding of the Reader 1. We objected that if the earth did move we should perceive it you answer but in many intricate and ambiguous tearms which were tedious to relate That the sight judges of motion deceitfully your reason is because motion is not the proper object of the sight nor belonging to any other peculiar sense and that the common sense apprehends the eye it selfe to rest immoveable as when a man is carried in a ship Ans The sight is oftentimes deceived either in respect of the distance of the object so the stars appeare lesse then they are or in respect of the agitation of the object so a square thing seemes round being swiftly turned about 2. In respect of the indisposition of the medium and so the Planets rising and falling seeme biggest the aire being thickned 3. In respect of the organ when the eye optick nerves or visive spirits are disturbed vitiated indisposed or agitated and so things that rest seeme to move because the eye moveth for that apparent motion is not the object of the eye as a true motion is but as it were the effect of the eye moved So then tell us the cause why we cannot perceive the earth move seeing it moves with such a stupendious swiftnesse You cannot say that the distance of it nor the indisposition of the medium are the causes the eye then must be the cause But are all mens eyes from the creation till now so disturbed or agitate with an insensible motion that they cannot perceive the earth nor any part of it to move and yet doe perceive the sunne to move What will you make God so defective in his work of mans body as to give him such eyes which shal continually delude him neither shall they ever apprehend their object though never so neere or the medium though never so well disposed Or will you make him so envious as to give us such eyes by which we should receive the knowledge of visible objects and yet cannot see them when they are so neere us This is the curse of the Sodomites who could not see Lot's dore though they were close by it Your simile of the ship will not hold for though it be true that the shore apparently moves when the ship removes yet we see and feele the true motion of the ship as well as we see or rather seeme to see the apparent motion of the shore When I have beene in a ship I have observed by looking on the mast how swiftly it is moved from the shore but being on