THE New PLANET no PLANET: OR, The EARTH no wand'ring STAR; Except in the wand'ring 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 Philosophical 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.  
LACTANT. do falsâ Sapientiâ lib. 3. cap. 24. Quid dicam de iis nescio, qui cum semel aberraverint, constanter in stultitia perseverant, & vanis vana defendunt, nisi quòd eos interdum puto, aut joci causâ philosophari, aut prudentes & scios mendacia defendenda suscipere, quasi ut ingenia sua in malis rebus exerceant vel ostentent.  
LONDON. Printed by I. Young, and are to be sold by Mercy Meighen, and Gabriel Bedell, next to the middle-Temple-gate. 1646.   

To the Right honourable GEORGE Lord BERKLEY, Baron of Berkley, etc.  
My Lord,  
THey who have been long at sea, when they come on shore, think that the Earth moveth as the Sea did, till their brains be settled; even so these men who have been lately travelling in the new found world of the Moon, which swiftly moveth about the Earth, think when they come down hither, that it is the Earth which moveth: This false imagination I have endeavoured to remove in this Book, which now comes abroad under your Lordship's Name; the reason of my dedication is, because I understand by your Lordship, that the Gentleman, who came down a while ago from the Moon, with news of a late discovery there, is of this opinion; and one who hath relation to your Lordship, which indeed I knew not till now, that the Book is almost printed: my other reason is, for that I am bound in a dutiful recognition of your Lordship's respects to scholars in general, and to me in particular; which showeth that not only are you noble by extraction, but by your affection also and disposition to learning, which is now so much slighted, yea vilified, by such as are either ignorant, or wicked; the one slight learning, because they know it not,— ignoti nulla cupido; and like the Fox in the Fable, disparage the grapes, because he could not reach them; the other rail against learning, as the mad Africans do against the Sun; and how can Owls and Bats love the light, which manifest their deformity? Can thiefs and cutthroats, whilst they are penetrating the works of darkness, abide the light of a torch? The infernal ghosts tremble to see any light, — trepdiant immisso lumine manes: But your Lordship, being the meliore luto,— knows the worth of learning, and therefore loves it; which that you may long know, love, and live, shall be the wish of  
Your Honour's most humble servant to command, ALEXANDER ROSS.   

To the READER.  
GOod Reader, there is a nameless man come down from the Moon, who brings us strange news of a late discovery; to wit, of a world found there; This man of the Moon goeth about to persuade us, in a book which he hath set out, come lately to my hands; that the world, ever since Adam, hath been in a dream, in thinking that the heavens move, and the earth rests: He tells us another tale, to wit, that it is the earth that moveth, and the heavens stand still: He lieth in ambush, and from his dark lurking place, shoots abroad his arrows; so that we can no more see him, then if he were in the Moon still; but it is a cowardly part to hide himself; and from the cloud, in which he is wrapped, to let fly his darts against me, and that Book which a few years ago I wrote in Latin, in confutation of this new fantastical Chimaera. My case is like that of Volscus in the Poet, who knew not whence those darts came that killed Sulmo and Tagus, 
Saevit atrox Volscus, nec teli conspicit usquam  
Authorem, nec quo se arden's immittere possit.  I might be thought, luctari cum larvis, to fight against shadows, as AEneas did going down to hell.  
If I should make any reply to a nameless disputer, but I am advised however to answer him, lest he should sing (iò triumph;) and not to suffer by silence my reputation to be wounded, the truth prejudiced, and the Scriptures abused, with his idle glosses. Therefore here I present to thee the weakness and vanities of this man's conceits, as far as the shortness of time, and my other studies and affairs would permit me; which I pray thee accept in good part, and so farewell.   

The PREFACE.  
THe title of this new book is a may be (that the Earth may be a Planet) but I say that may not be: For a Planet is a wand'ring star, and the Earth is not a star in its essence, nor a wanderer in its motion. And indeed you wrong our common mother, who so many thousand years hath been so quiet and stable, that now she should become a wonderer in her old age; but if she may be a Planet, tell us whether she may be one of the seven Planets, who are called Errones in Latin, (not for that they have an erroneous, but because they have a various motion) or whether she may be an eighth Planet, that so we may make up our week of eight days; for why should not mother Earth have one day of the week, aswell as the other Planets, to carry her name? And so let there be dies terrae, aswell as dies Solis, & Lunae, Earth day, aswell as Sunday, or Moonday; and whereas the Planets are moved according to the motion of the spheres, you had done us a pleasure, if you had told us the sphere in which the Earth moveth: Again, if the Earth be a Planet, and each Planet hath its period of time for finishing its course: Saturn 30. years, jupiter 12. Mars 2, etc. What is the time which you will allot to the Earth for the accomplishing of her annual motion? If it be true, that the lower the Planet is, the swifter it is in its annual motion; as the Moon in 27. days, and 8. hours, doth finish her course, which Saturn ends not but in 30. years' space; doubtless, this Earth-planet, being the lowest of all, must in a very short time expire its annual race. Moreover, if the Earth be the eight Planet, Sol, who is the King of this planeticall Commonwealth, cannot have his throne in the middle, as Antiquity, and Truth too have placed hiw; for he shall have three on his one hand, and four on the other, and so cannot impart his light equally to all. And whereas every one of the Planets hath his office in this Reipublick; to wit, Saturn the Counsellor, jupiter the Judge, Mars the Captain, Venus the Steward, Mercury the Scribe or Chancellor, and the Moon the Messenger: We must needs find out some office for the Earth, otherwise she will be counted idle, and none of the Planets. But that the Earth may be a Planet, is as true as that the Sun may be a burning stone, that there may be a man in the Moon, that there may be an infinite number of Suns and worlds, that the Stars and Planets may have had their first original and being from the Earth, which have been the extravagant conceits of giddy headed Philosophers: But I remember what Aristotle saith of some may-bees or possibilities; 
l.g. Meta. 5.4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may be, may not be, and never shall be, and so the Earth may be a Planet; that is, it neither is, not ever shall be a Planet. But now let us leave your title, and examine the substance of your following Discourse.   

The CONTENTS of this Book.  

CHAPT. I.  
IN the Preface, and first Chapter, is showed. 1. The vanity and falsehood of this new opinion.  
2. The Father's concerning their judgement of the Antipodes cleared and vindicated, and the Philosophers condemned.  
3. Job defended and explained.  
4. Pythagoras' deciphered, and his opinions condemned.  
5. Some Pythgoreans touched and censured. Numa was not of this new opinion, nor Pythagorean.  
6. This opinion hath few followers, and how condemned by the College of Cardinals.  
7. What is to be thought of those who have revolted from the truth of our opinion.  
8. The Church, the Scripture, sense, and reason must be believed in this point of the earth's stability, etc.  
9 This new opinion how and when an heresy.   

CHAP. II.  
1. We must believe the Scripture, not our own fancies.  
2. The Scripture never patronizeth a lie or an error, nor doth it apply itself to our capacity in natural things, though it doth in supernatural mysteries.  
3. We must stick to the literal sense, when the Scripture speaks of natural things.  
4. Some particular Scriptures vindicated from our adversaries false glosses, as namely, Psal. 19 of the Sun's motion like a Giant and Bridegroom, of the ends of heaven, and of his heat. Eccles. 1. of the Suns rising and setting. Jos. 12. of the Suns standing still, of the midst of heaven; how over Gibeon, and how no day like that. Isa. 38. of the Suns returning ten degrees, of the greatness and meaning of this miracle; neither known to the Gentiles. The testimony of Herodotus concerning this.   

CHAP. III.  
1. The Scripture doth not speak according to vulgar opinion, when it calls the Moon a great light, for so it is.  
2. Nor when it speaks of waters above the Heavens, for such there are.  
3. Nor when it calls the Stars innumerable, for so they are.  
4. Nor when it mentions the circumference of the b●as●n Sea to be thirty cubits, and the diameter ten, 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 Viper's eggs, how understood.  
9 The Asp or Adder how he stops his ear.  
10. Of the North and South wind in Scripture.  
11. The Sun shall be truly darkened, the Moon turned to blood, and the stars shall fall, etc.  
12. Of the winds whence they come, etc.  
13. The sea the only cause of springs.  
14. The thunder is truly God's voice.  
15. The 7. Stars.   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. Many Philosophical points are handled in Scripture.  
2. The heavens how round in the opinion of the Fathers.  
3. We must have a reverend esteem of the Father's  
4. How the seas not overflowing the land may be esteemed a miracle.  
5. The works of Nature may be called miracles.   

CHAP. V.  
Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses: as, Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earth's immobility, and heaven's motion.  
2. How the earth is eternal and renewed.  
3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place.  
4. The Scripture useth Metaphors.  
5 How the earth stands out of the water, 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobility is proved  
6. What is meant, 1 Chron. 16. 30. etc. by these words, The world is established, etc.  
7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world.  
8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19 are established: and the Moon and Stars, Psal. 89. 37. etc.  
9 How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. bath foundations.  
10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends, sides, and corners of the earth in Scripture.  
11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the planting of the heavens.  
12. How the earth is established.  
13. What Job means by the earth moved out of its place.   

CHAP. VI  
1. The earth is in the middle and centre of the world, and why.  
2. Hell is in the centre or middle of the earth.  
3. The earth lowest and basest, how.  
4. Every thing is made questionable by some.  
5. Aristotle defended.  
6. The earth is in the centre, because in the midst of the equinoctial Horizon, etc.  
7. The imagination must be conformable to the things, not these to it; the vanity of imagininary circles.  
8. Astronomers reproved, and their vanity showed, chiefly about the bigness of the stars.  
9 The earth is the least cirle: therefore the centre, how understood.   

CHAP. VII.  
1. The Stars have not their light because the Sun is in the centre, nor hath the Sun less light being out of it.  
2. Why the Earth in the centre.  
3. The Sun is not the centre, because the Planets move about him.  
4. The centre is not the most excellent place, neither are the best things next it or in it.  
5. There is an harmony amongst the Stars, though the Sun be not in the centre.   

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 seem to move as well as the sun.  
4. How the eye can be deceived in the motion of a lucid body.  
5. The natural motion of the foundation cannot keep buildings from falling.  
6. The heavens fitter for motion then the earth.  
7. Rugged bodies not fittest for motion.  
8. The sight hindered by the motion of the subject, medium, and object.  
9 One simple body hath but one natural motion, proved.  
10. Essential properties more chiefly in the whole then in the parts, the earth is heavy in its own place how, bigness how a hindrance to motion, of the earth's ineptitude to a swift motion. 11.  
The magnetical 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 sun, censured. 15.  
That the earth turns about the moon is ridiculous.  
16. Some observations to prove that the earth turns about the clouds refuted.  
17. Of a mixed motion, of the place, medium, and space.  
18. Of the motion of comets.  
19 My nine arguments defended. 

1. That the earth's motion would make it hot.  
2. The air purer.  
3. A sound.  
4. Heaven hath all things fit for motion.  
5. Of similar parts and the whole.  
6. The sun is the heart of the world.  
7. It works by motion.  
8. The earth is the firm foundation.  
9 The authority of Divises; the heaven called AEther; the earth hath not two distinct motions.     

CHAP. IX.  
1. The earth cannot be the cause of its own motion.  
2. The vastness and thickness of the heaven no hindrance to its motion.  
3. The matter of the heavens and their smoothness no binderance to their motion.  
4. Bigness helps motion.  
5. The heaven's swiftness illustrated by other motions.  
6. The earth neither the final nor efficient cause of its motion, the heaven sitter for motion, because greater, and more constant; nature worketh not still the most compendious way, some idle similitudes refuted.  
7. Bodies having the same properties have not always the same motion; motion belongs to the noblest creatures.  
8. The smoothness, subtlety, and purity of bodies no hindrance to their motion; the air moves the water, the circular motion of the fire natural how.  
9 Of Intelligences how and why they move the heavens.  
10. Magnetic virtue an idle conceit.   

CHAP. X.  
1. The idle and uncertain conceits of Astronomers concerning the celestial bodies.  
2. The appearances of the Sun, and other Planets cannot be so well discerned by the earth if it did move.  
3. The excellency of Divinity above Astronomy, and an exhorlation to the study of it.    

The new PLANET no PLANET.  

The CONTENTS.  

1. The vanity and falsehood of this new opinion.  
2. The Father's concerning their judgement of the Antipodes cleared and vindicated, and the Philosophers condemned.  
4. Pythagoras' deciphered, and his opinions condemned.  
5. Some Pythagoreans touched and censured. Numa was not of this now opinion nor Pythagorean.  
6. This opinion hath few followers, and how condemned by the College of Cardinals.  
7. What is to be thought of those who have revolted from the truth of our opinion.  
8. The Church the Scripture, sense, and reason must be believed in this point of the earth's stability, etc. This new opinion how and when an heresy.    

CHAPT. I.  
I Had showed how unreasonable it was, that an upstart novelty concerning the Earth's motion, 
Cont. Lansbergium, l. tsect. 1. c. 20.  should thrust out a truth of so long continuance and universality, as this of the Earth's immobility. You answer, That we must not so dote upon antiquity, as to count that Canonical, which is approved by the consent of the Ancients. To this I answer: 1. Make it appear that your opinion of the Earth's motion is true, and ours false; and we will prefer yours, though new. 2. If you can make it appear that your opinion is any ways useful or advantageous, we will admit it. 3. Suppose that both your and our opinion were but conjectural, and that there were but an equal probability in both; yet you must not prefer, nor equal your opinion to ours, because we have antiquity and consent of all times, of all nations, of so many holy, wise, and learned men for us, which you want; in this respect then, if both our opinions were put in the balance, yours will be found too light, though you should add to the scale that heavy Prussian Copernicus. 4. Though there were no hurt in your opinion, yet we may not entertain it; for the world is pestered with too many opinions already; and a great many might be well spared. 5. But whereas your opinion is false, absurd, and dangerous, as we have partly showed, and will show afterwards, we were mad to receive it; having neither truth, reason, sense, consent, antiquity, or universality to countenance it. 6. That which you call the preserving of Philosophical liberty, is indeed the losing of the reins to exorbitant wits, to run headlong into every kind of absurdity. 7. We do not enslave ourselves to the opinion of any one man, (as you suppose we do) but we are of the opinion of all men, of all times, and nations. You enslave yourself to one man, and is guilty of that which you accuse in us: Quis tulerit Gracchoes? 8. We condemn not your opinion because it is new, but because not true. A new falsehood, a false novelty; and such a new deformed brat is to be choked in the infancy: Principiis obsta; kill the Cockatrice in the egg. 9 You say it's but a novelty in Philosophy, but I say it intrencheth upon Divinity: for Divinity tells us, that the standing of the sun, and moving of the earth are the miraculous works of Gods supernatural power: your new Philosophy tells us, that they are the ordinary works of Nature; and so this scope being granted, you may turn Divinity into natural Philosophy, and confound the works of God, and of Nature. 10. You tell us, That Antiquity consists in the old age of the world, not in the youth of it. What Antiquity? Of the world? then you speak not properly, as you say you do, but tautologically; the world's old age consists in its old age. If you mean that your opinion is not new, but old, because the world is old, you speak absurdly: for old opinions are so called, not because they were found out in the youth, or in the old age of the world, but because they have continued a long time in the world; and so new opinions are new, though found out in the old age of the world. Opinions have no relation to the ages of the world, but to their own continuance: Are you older than your great Grandfather, because the world is older now, than it was when he lived? 11. You are the fathers (you say) in such learning as may be increased by experiments and discoveries, and of more authority then former ages. Why do you not tell us plainly, that you are fathers of learning, as well as in learning? but indeed you are not the fathers of learning, you are only fathers of your new discoveries and fresh experiments; that is, of new, fond, and savourlesse fancies: and why you must be of more authority then former ages, I see no reason. Shall not jubal, and Tuball-Cain, the inventors and fathers of their Arts, be of as great authority, as you that are the fathers of such misshapen monsters, though they lived in the infancy, and you in the old age of the world? Why should I rather credit you in telling us of a world in the Moon, and of the Earth, that it is a planet, than those wise men of former ages, who never dreamt of such idle and ridiculous conceits? You say, Truth is the daughter of time; so say I, but errors, heresies, falsehoods, are times daughters too. We see how fruitful this later age of the world is of new and frivolous opinions. But how much are you beholding to old mother Time, who hath bestowed her eldest daughter, Truth, upon you, having passed by so many worthy Suitors in all ages? this is a transcendent favour, you are homo perpaucorum hominum, and have been wrapped in your mother's 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, Time's daughter: you mistrust your cause, and the validity of your arguments; and that you have employed your pen more to show your wit, then to evince our understanding.  
2. You will not have this Philosophical 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 own cause. Whom then will you name for Judges, seeing Scriptures, Fathers, senses, Peripatetics, are rejected; reasons and arguments you have none: I think you must be fain to call for some of your people out of the Moon. juno Lucina. fer opem. But in calling of the Father's ignorants in this part of learning, you do 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 
* Plin. li. 2. cap. 65. August. de civet. li. 16. cap. 9 Macrob. in som. Scipionis li. 2. c. 5. Lactanti. de falsá Sapien. li. 3. cap. 24.  Philosopher's opinions concerning them were vain: 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 strait of Gibraltar, was not navigable; and they confessed that it could not be passed. 3. The reasons which they alleged to prove Antipodes were not demonstrative, nor experimental, but merely conjectural; so that the Fathers could receive no satisfaction from their reasons. 4. They held that those Antipodes were another race of men, than 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 western people were Antipodes to us; sometimes the Southern people; sometime confounding Antipodes and Antichthones. 6. They would necessarily infer from the roundness of the earth, that the lower hemisphere was dry earth, and inhabitated with people: the consequence of which S. Austin denies. 7. They held that the opposite earth to ours had an opposite motion. Of these, and other vain opinions concerning Antipodes, you may see in Pliny, Austin, Macrobius, Lactantius, etc. It was not then out of ignorance, or peevishness, but upon good grounds and reasons, that they denied Antipodes, 
l. Categ. c. 10.  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 Philosophical 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 we believe them never a whit the less 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 experimental, nor demonstrative, nor any ways satisfactory; but for the stability of the earth, and motion of heaven, we have both sense, reason, authority, divine and humane, consent, antiquity, and universality, as is said; and what can be wanting to confirm a truth, which we have not to confirm this? 4. You say, That Solomon was strangely gifted with all kind of knowledge: then would I fain know why he 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 affairs, from the earth's stability, and constant motion of the sun.  
3. job, (you say) for all his humane learning, could not answer these natural 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 hail, rain or dew, ye or frost? which any ordinary Philosopher in these days might have resolved. Answ. You would make job, who was both a King and a Priest, a very simple man, if we would believe you. But how know you that job could not answer God? Marry, because he says of himself, That he uttered that, he understood not: things too wonderful for him which he knew not. 
job. 42.3.  But, Good Sir, these words are spoken of the secret ways of God's providence, and of his hid and unsearchable judgements, which are these wonderful things that job knew not nor understood; for his judgements are a bottomless depth, his ways are past finding out; and they are not spoken of natural causes of meteors. I pray, were there not hail and snow, rain and dew, ice and frost, in those days, and did not he know that these meteors were generated of vapours, as well as you? or what should be the cause of his stupidity, and of your quickness of apprehension? Alas! how do we please ourselves in the conceits of our supposed knowledge, whereas indeed we have but a glimmering insight in Nature's works, a bare superficial and conjectural knowledge of natural causes? Doubtless job was not ignorant but modest, in acknowledging the insufficiency of Philosophical reasons, and therefore thought it better to be silent, then to show his folly in superficial and vain answers: For both Astronomy, and natural Philosophy, are arts of Diviners, rather than Disputers; and Philosophy is but opinion, saith Lactantius; 
Lactan. de fals. i Sapi. lib. 3. cap. 3.  and even in those things which Philosophers brag that they found out, they are opinantes, potius quam scientes; carried with opinion, rather than knowledge, saith S. Austin; 
Aug. ad Lau. li. 1. cap. 10.  which I have found by long experience. job knew that though humane and Philosophical reasons would seem plausible enough to man, yet that God, to whom only truth is known, would check him, and account his wisdom but folly, to speak with Lactantius. 
Lact. li. 3. ca 3. defal. Sap.  If he had answered God that the sea is bounded from overflowing the land, because the dryness of the earth resisteth the moisture of the sea, which is the reason of Philosophers; God would have showed 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 cowtries. I doubt not but if God had asked you the causes of clouds and rain, you would have answered him, that they were generated of moist vapours elevated into the air, and there dissolved or squized by heat or cold; but then why be there no clouds nor rain in Egypt, seeing the Sun elevates vapours out of Nilus? So you will tell me that hail or snow are generated of moist vapours, condensate by cold into that form: but then why in the hottest countries, even under the line, are the greatest showers and biggest hail? So might I reason with you of the other Meteors; but that I will hasten to be rid of this task, having other employments.  

Cont. Carpentar. Sect 2. c. 10.  4. I had said that there was no credit to be given to Pythagoras, whom you make a patron of your opinion; because he was both a sorcerer, as Saint Austin showeth, and the father of many monstrous absurdities, 
Aug. l. 7. de Civit. c. 35.  as I have showed out of Theodoret. 
Theod. ser. ad Grac. infid.  You would salve his credit by telling us, that all men are subject to errors; and I deny it not: but it is one thing for a man to fall into an error accidentally, and an other thing to broach a multitude of errors. A man may speak a lie by chance, and that shall not derogate from his credit; but if he use to lie, I will scarce believe him when he speaks truth. That Pythagoras was a witch, his name showeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; either because he spoke as Apollo Pythius did, falsely and obscurely; or because he was possessed with the Pythian Spirit, or the Devil who deluded the Gentiles; who appearing and deceiving them in the form of the Serpent Python, which he was said to kill, was called Pythius. His causing of an Eagle to fly to him by certain conjuring words, and being at the same time in two several places, at Thurii and Metapontii, with many other such like conjuring tricks, show what he was. Pliny saith, 
Plin. l. 30. c. 1.  that he went to Egypt, and many other places to learn Magic: the Pythagoreans would kill no Serpents, so highly they honoured them. Saint Austin saith out of Varro, 
Decivit. Dei, l. 7. c. 35.  that Pythagoras was much addicted to hydromancy and Necromancy, and to consult the infernal Spirits by blood. And Tertullian deciphers him to be a notable impostor, 
Tertul. l. de Anim. c. 28, 29.  who to make people believe his doctrine of transanimation, hid himself seven years under ground; macerating his body with hunger, thirst, nastiness: hazarding his health and life with damps and filth, to confirm a gross lie. Quomodo credam non mentiri Pythagoram, qui mentitur ut credam? He that will with swearing, lying, and deceiving tricks, persuade us that he was in Hell, and that he had been Aethalides, Euphorbus, Pyrrhus, and Hermotimus, 
Vide Laertum, l. 8. de viit. Phil.  would make small bones to broach such monstrous opinions, as of the motion of the Earth, and immobility of the heavens, out of ambition to get him a name. And this is the goodly Patron of your opinion. Dignum patella operculum. The man of eminent note and learning as you call him; highly esteemed for his divine wit and rare inventions. Again when you say, that many of his absard sayings are to be understood in a mystical sense: why will you in a literal sense understand his sayings of the Earth's motion, and Heaven's immobility?  
5. I had said that indeed Pythagoras was not the Author of this opinion, for no ancient writer ascribes it to him; you reply, that many ancient Authors ascribe it to the Pythagorean Sect. For proof whereof, in stead of many authors, you bring one, as if one were a multitude; and that one is Aristotle. Answ. There is a difference between Pythagoras, and Pythagoreans; between the Scholar and the Master: I spoke of Pythagoras; Aristotle, of the Pythagoreans. The Scholars oftentimes broach opinions which the Masters never knew; it is ordinary in all Heretics and Sectaries to father opinions on the first founders, and on other learned men, which they never knew nor dreamt of. That impure sect of the Nicolaitans, fathered their opinions on Nicolas the Deacon. The Arians would have made the world believe that Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and Lucian the Martyr, had been the authors of their impieties. The Donatists allege Saint Cyprian for the author of their separation from the Catholic Church: and the madheaded Circumcellions called themselves Donatists. Therefore, when you say that it appears by Aristotle's testimony, that Pythagoras thought the Earth to be one of the Planets, you are deceived; for he speaks not of Pythagoras, but of the Pythagoreans, of which number you are one; not only for affirming the Earth to be a Planet, but also in holding transanimation; for you make no difference between Pythagoras and his disciples: thinking (as it seems) that the soul of Pythagoras which had been in so many bodies before, was now entered into the bodies of the Pythagoreans. 2. I said that Pythagoras held, that the heavens by their motions made a musical harmony, which could not consist with the earth's motion; you say it may consist, but you do not prove how it may; tell me, for what end doth the Heaven move? Is it not for the benefit of the Earth? But if the earth move to receive its benefit from the Heaven, surely the Heaven moveth to no end or purpose. Again, you would fain escape by telling us, That Pythagoras meant by the musical consent, i. the proportion and harmony that is in the bigness and distance of the Orbs. You tell us so, but how shall we believe you? This saying of his is not reckoned amongst his symbolical speeches; and if it be symbolical, why not that saying of the Earth's motion? Is not that also mystical?  
6. You set down seven or eight men of special note (as you say) for their extraordinary learning, and for this opinion. Answ. If this opinion makes men to be of special note, than you must needs be a noted man, or shall be hereafter, when you are come down from the Moon, or freed from the cloud that enwraps you, for you are of this opinion; but you might have spared your labour, for these men were Pythagoreans; and I told you before, that Pythagoreans were of this opinion; but few of these were noted men for their extraordinary learning: they were obscure men, and very little spoken of in old Histories. Aristarchus the Tyrant, Aristarchus the Poet, and that rigid Aristarchus the Grammarian, and censurer of Homer, were noted men; but not your Aristarchus the Mathematician. So Philolaus, Nicetas Syracusanus, Ecphantus and Lysippus have little said of them: as for Heraclides Ponticus, he was a man noted more for his ambition, then for his learning; in that he affected to be a god, causing his friends to convey his dying body out of the way, and a dragon to be laid in his bed: that the world might think he was now a dragon; and that he should be worshipped in that form: and indeed he showed himself to be that, which he desired to be; to wit, a beast, and not a man. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
O. 5.  as Diogenes Laertius speaks of him. As for Plato it is not certain if he were of your opinion, and if he had been, the matter is not great. And as for Numa Pompilius, he was not Pythagoras his scholar, for he lived about a hundred years before Pythagoras; 
Solin c. 16.  who live about the time that Brutus was Consul, who drove out the Kings, as Solinus witnesseth, and Tully. 
Cic. 4. Tuscul.  Livy saith, 
Litius Dec. 1. l. 1.  that he flourished in the time of Servius Tullus. Neither doth Plutarch affirm that Numa was scholar to Pythagoras, 
Plutarch. in Numa.  but because their institutions were much alike, it was supposed by some (saith he) that Numa had familiarity with Pythagoras. It is true that Numa built a round Temple, not in reference to this opinion of the Earth's motion, as you dream; for he was not of this opinion; but in reference to the roundness of the world, as Plutarch saith: And he placed the Vestal fire in the middle, not to represent the Sun in the centre of the world, (that is your gloss,) but to represent the site of the elementary fire, which he conceived to be in the midst of the world.  
7. Sure, Brag is a good dog with you; for you tell us that there is scarce any of note or skill, who are not Copernicus his followers; and more there are of his opinion, than all the rest put together; and yet you tell us but of one Cardinal Cusanus, and six more, to avoid tediousness. But in this you speak by the figure Antiphrasis, by contraries: You name but one Cardinal on your side, and within three leaves after, you tell us of two Sessions of Cardinals on our side who condemned this opinion: are not twelve more than one? and shall not the judgement of so many be preferred to one? How many more can you pick out of the whole College of Cardinals, that were of your opinion, beside Cusanus, who was known to be a man that affected singularity? But I think you looked through a multiplying glass, when you concluded from the induction of five Copernicits, that there were more of his opinion, than all the rest put together. Are you not like him who thought that all the ships and goods that came into the Pyreum were his own? And yet of these five which you muster up for your defence, there was one, even the chiefest, and of longest experience, to wit, Galileus, who fell off from you; being both ashamed, and sorry that he had been so long bewitched with so ridiculous an opinion; which was proved to him both by Cardinal Bellarmine, and by other grave and learned men; that it was contrary both to Scripture, Divinity, and Philosophy: therefore Galilee on his knees did abjure, execrate, and detest, 
Mercure Francois An. 1633.  both by word and writ, his error which you maintain; and promised with his hand on the holy Evangil, never to maintain it again: the other five, are men of no great note, except in your Books.  
8. You advise us out of Aristotle and Ptolemy, to speak that which is most likely; to entertain that which is most agreeable to reason; to frame such suppositions of Heaven as be most simple: and you tell us that Rheticus and Keplar wish that Aristotle were alive again. But your advice is superfluous, and their wish is ridiculous: for we speak and entertain that which is most reasonable; if we do not, prove it, that we may amend our error. Our suppositions of Heaven are not so simple as could be wished; but we were better content ourselves with them, then move the earth with you: for that is, ex fumo in flammam, to leap out of the frying-pan into the fire. Now to wish Aristotle alive, or to think that he or Clavius would ever be of your opinion, are mere dreams and fancies. And though Clavius had found that Ptolemy's Hypotheses had not been so exact as should be; yet he would not have been so mad, as to believe the Earth's motion, and the Sun's rest. And though some have fallen off from Aristotle's and Ptolemy's opinion, to Copernicus, that will but little help your cause: for in all professions there have ever been some unconstant and giddyheaded men; many have fallen off from Christianity to Mahumetism; from Calvinisme to Anabaptism; will you condemn therefore their former professions? so some have revolted from Copernicus to Ptolemy. You challenge then too great a privilege, when you say that none who having been once settled with any strong assent on your side, that have afterwards revolted from it: besides that it is false, there was never any profession that could brag of such a privilege: not Christianity the best of all professions. And though some men reject that opinion in which they were nursed, and have approved for truth, and now embrace your absurd Paradox, which is condemned in the Schools; yet it will not follow that yours is the righter side: for will you say that because many Christians become Turks and Jews; many Orthodox men have become Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Macedonians; that therefore these Heretics were in the right? There are too many wavering Spirits shaken like reeds, and carried about like clouds with every wind of doctrine, unsettled and instable in all their ways.  
You tell us, that most of those opposers of your opinion, have been stirred thereunto, either by a partial conceit of their own inventions, for every one is affected to his own brood: or by a servile fear, in derogating from the ancients authority; or opposing of Scripture Phrases; or by judging of things by sense rather than by reason. Answ. The first of these reasons will be retorted upon yourself; for the partial conceit of your own inventions, and the affection you carry to your own brood, have made you fall off from that ancient and universal truth, to embrace an error: and this was it that moved Copernicus to oppose Ptolemy, Alphonsus, and the other famous Astronomers. Therefore, Tycho did not oppose Copernicus to make way for his own Hypothesis as you say, but to maintain that truth which had so long continued in the world. As for your second reason, I answer, that we should not without extraordinary and urgent cause, derogate from the authority of the ancients; much less, from the meaning of Scripture phrase; which the Church of God from the beginning hitherto hath delivered to us: neither do we adhere to the meaning of Scripture phrase, out of a superstitious fear of the supposed infallible Church, as you say; but out of a filial fear to the true Church, our Mother, the ground and pillar of truth: If we hear not the voice of this Mother, we cannot have God for our Father. A wise son honoureth his father, but he is a fool that will despise his mother. Why should we think that you or Copernicus can better understand the Scripture phrase, than the Church of God from time to time hath done? this was the proud conceit of Nestorius, that he only understood the Scripture phrase, as Vincentius complains of him. 
Vincent. Lyr. adver. Hares.  That which you call the new Creed of Pius the Fourth, that no man should assent unto any interpretatione of Scripture, which is not approved by the ancient Fathers; is indeed the old Creed of the Church, as Vincentius showeth: 
Vincent. ibid.  let us no ways no ways (saith he) depart from that sense which our holy Fathers and predecessors have maintained. And again, whatsoever (saith he) the Catholic Church hath of old retained, that only shall a true Catholic maintain and believe: therefore he shows that it is the trick of Heretics to delight in novelties; and to reject and despise old doctrines. Us profanis novitat bus gaudeant, antiquitatis scit a fastidiant. If then the Jesuits, in reverence to the Church's authority, and to the ancient Fathers do oppose this opinion they deserve commendation: and so did these Cardinals that called it in, and punished the defenders of it. Thirdly, you say that we judge of things by sense, rather than by reason; but indeed you have no reason to say so: for although that sensitive things, such as the Earth's stability, and Sun's motion, are to be judged by sense; 
Cont. Lansbergum.  yet we have many reasons for us, whereby we judge it must be so as I have showed heretofore. But I confess we judge not by your reasons, because they are but shadows of reason, and no way satisfactory: neither do we so tie the meaning of Scripture to the letter of it (as you say,) but that we give freedom to raise other senses, whether allegorical, tropological, or anagogical; so they be not repugnant to faith and good manners. But in historical things, Saint Austin tells us, that we must chiefly adhere to the literal sense; 
L. 8. De Genes. ad lit. c. 1 etc. 2.  and it is a Maxim in the Schools, that we must not reject the literal sense, which is not contrary, agendis aut credendis, to the Creed or the Law: neither is it unlawful to conclude Philosophical points from the letter of God's word, seeing there is but one truth in Divinity and Philosophy. But to conclude Philosophical points flat contrary to the letter of divine Scripture, as you do, is too much boldness: therefore, I will speak to you in the words of Saint Austin, 
L. 1. De Genesi ad litter. c. 21.  writing of the Philosophers of his time; Quicquid de tuis voluminibus his nostris literis contrarium protuleris, an't aliqua facultate oftendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus esse falsissimum. Your assertion of the Earth's motion, is contrary to the letter of the Scripture; therefore we doubt not to say, is it most false. As for our ignorance of your Astronomical grounds, it is excusable, seeing your own ignorance is the cause of it: how can the Scholar know, if the Master be ignorant himself of these Principles which he undertakes to teach; or knows not which way to make them intelligible? How can the blind lead the blind? Non obtusa adeo gestamus pectora. We are not so dull but we can understand other Principles: but yours being Chimaeras, fictions, non entities; having no other ground but your own fancy, cannot inform our understandings which have entities for their objects.  
9 No council hitherto (say you) have censured this opinion for an Heresy. Answ. The Church by her counsels doth not presently censure Heresies; she knows best her own times and seasons, and reasons too. The Physician doth not always in the beginning of a disease, prescribe purging physic. 2. From the Church's forbearance to censure an Heresy, you must not conclude the nullity of an Heresy: for the Heresies of Arius, Macedonius, Euryches, and Nestorius, were Heresies, before they were censured by the four general Counsels. And the Church, saith Saint 
Lib. quast. E. vang. in Mat. 4. 12.  Austin, suffers and bears with many Heretics, so long as they do not pertinaciously maintain, nor maliciously (to the disturbance of the Church) spread abroad their falsehoods; Quod si fecerint, tune pollantur. Many are Heretics in sore Coeli, which are not in foro Ecclesie: and he is not only an Heretic which denieth an Article of the Creed, but he also that gain-sayeth any plain place of Scripture. The broacher or maintainer of any false and new opinion, is an Heretic saith Saint 
Lib. de. utilit. s●edend. c. 1.  Austin. 3. Either you have not read, or have not observed the censure of Galilies' opinion by the council of Cardinals; who not only call it a false opinion, erroneous in the faith, a doctrine contrary to the holy Scripture: 
Le Mercure Franc. an. 1633.  but also in plain terms they call it Heresy. 4. When you say that Fromundus calls it a rash opinion, bordering upon Heresy, that Paul the Third was not so much offended at Copernicus, when he dedicated his book to him; that the Fathers of Trent call Epycicles and Eccentrickes, but fictions: these are such weak helps to support your cause, that if you lean on them, they will prove no stronger than reeds or cobwebs: if I should insist on them, I should but discover your weakness, in alleging of them. And likewise, your instancing of Shonbergius, who importunately begged the Commentaries of Copernicus: was is not rather out of curiosity to see how he could defend such an absurd Paradox, than out of true affection to embrace it? So Herod desired to see Christ; I doubt not but many will desire to see your book of this subject, which (I dare presume) will never be of your opinion. Lastly, where as you say, It is absurd not to assent to any thing in natural questions, but what authority shall allow of. I say, it were both absurd and dangerous for men's souls, and the peace of the Church, if men were suffered to assent to any absurdity, against Scripture, sense, reason, and the Church's authority.   

CHAP. II.  

1. We must believe the Scripture, not our own fancies.  
2. The Scripture never patronizeth a lie or an error, nor doth it apply itself to our capacity in natural things, though it doth in supernatural mysteries.  
3. We must stick to the literal sense, when the Scripture speaks of natural things.  
4. Some particular Scriptures vindicated from our adversaries false glosses: as namely, Psal. 19 of the Sun's motion like a Giant and Bridegroom, to the ends of heaven: And of his heat, Eccles. 1. Of the Sun's rising and setting. Josh. 12. Of the Sun standing still, of the midst of braven; how over Gibeon, and how no day like that. Esay 38. Of the Sun's returning ten degrees; of the greatness and meaning of this miracle: whether known to the Gentiles. The testimony of Herodotus concerning this:   
IT were happy for us (say you) if we could exempt Scripture from Phisophicall controversies. And I say, It were happy for us, if all Philosophical controversies could be decided by Scripture; or if men would be so modest, as to rest contented with Scripture phrases, and expressions of such Philosophical points, as are mentioned there: But what hope is there to end controversies, when many are so wedded to their own fancies, that neither will they yield to Scripture, except they may have leave to interpret them; nor to reasons, except they may have leave to form them; nor will they trust their own senses, but will captivate and enslave them also to their groundless imaginations? The Scripture tells us in plain terms, the Earth is immovable: our senses do assure us, and many reasons which I have heretofore alleged, induce us to believe the truth of this assertion: and yet you spurning at Scripture, sense, and reason, as if your fancy 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 own assertions in natural 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 travel hath God left to the sons of men, to be exercised with, as a punishment for their sins; to toil and labour all their days about shadows, imaginations, and indeed mere nothing; groping at the door of knowledge (like blind Sodomites) all their days, and cannot find it; so that they who have spent their whole life in Astronomy, may with Saint Peter, say on their death bed; Master We have laboured all night, but have caught nothing. Thus with Martha, they are busy about many things, and neglect that one thing which is only necessary.  
2. It is but a conceit of yours to say, That the Scripture accommodates itself to the vulgars' conceit, in saying, the Sun riseth and falleth, etc. I warrant you, if the vulgar should conceive that the heavens were made of water, as the Gnostickes held; or that the Sun and Moon 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 itself 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 affirms them. You are as unapt I know to believe that the Sun 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 affirms the Sun's motion: seeing you say men would be apt to do so, if the Scripture had said, the Sun standeth, etc. 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 witness 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 affirm a falsehood upon any pretence whatsoever; neither will he countenance a lie, to confirm a truth; or speak false in one thing, that we may conceive his meaning the better in another thing. He needs not such weak and wicked helps as falsehoods, 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 sceptre, etc. As it stands not with his truth to affirm a lie, so doth it no ways consist with the power of his Word and Spirit, to help our understanding by a lie.  
3. You say, That if the Scripture had said, the Earth riseth and setteth, and the Sun 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 Philosophical points. Will you have the holy Ghost then speak a falsehood? for fear lest we should not understand the meaning of a secret, which is not necessary for us to know: if it be not needful for us to know whether the Earth stands or not; so it was less needful for the Scripture to say the Earth standeth, when it doth not stand. But you do 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 only to such babes as yourself. But why is this a secret? If it be a natural effect, it is no secret; for though natural causes do not incur into our senses, yet the effects do; and if this be a secret effect and not sensible, it cannot be an effect of nature; but I think it be such another secret as the Philosopher's stone, which never was, and never shall be.  
Though it be beside the chief scope of Scripture to instruct us in Philosophical points: yet it will not follow, that these Philosophical terms are to be otherwise understood, then as they are expressed. There be many Geographical, Historical, and Chronological passages in Scripture, mentioned incidently, and not chiefly to instruct us in such points: shall we therefore understand them otherwise then they are set down, or rather the clean contrary way? But when you say the Earth's 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 ways make it appear, I doubt not but our understanding will reach it: and if you cannot one of these ways make it appear to us, we will account it a mere nothing. For idem est non esse, & non videri: and indeed you say well out of the Gloss, 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 again, that the Scriptures authority might be questioned, if it did teach natural things contrary to our senses; and therefore if any book of Scripture should affirm, as you do; that the earth moves naturally and circularly, I should verily believe that that book had never been indicted by the holy Spirit, but rather by a Pythagorean spirit, or by the spirit of Dutch beer.  
You condemn Tertullias Heretics for retching Scripture a wrong way, and forcing it to some other sense agreeable to their false imagination; and rather than they would forgo their tenants, yielded the Scripture to be erroneous. De te fabula narretur. You reach the Scripture a wrong way, forcing it to your false imaginations; you do not indeed call the Scripture erroneous, but you make it to speak one thing, and mean the clean contrary; therefore, you shall do well to apply Saint Augustine's counsel to yourself, and do not settle your opinion rashly on that dark and obscure conceit of the Earth's motion. It is true also what you allege out of Saint Austin, that the holy Ghost being to deliver more necessary truths, 
In Gen. ad Fteram.  left out to speak of the form or figure of Heaven, etc. because he would not have us spend too much time in these things, and neglect the means of salvation; but you should have done well to have subjoined the following words of that same Father, to wit; That is true which is affirmed by divine authority, rather than that which is guessed at by humane infirmity. For there he speaks of Philosophical points, which seem to be contrary to Scripture: but you are mistaken when you say, that God descends to our capacity in natural things; and conforms his expressions to the mistake of our judgements, as he doth apply himself to our apprehensions, by being represented like a man. There is infinite odds between God and natural things; we that are corporal cannot understand spiritual things, much less that infinite Spirit, but by familiar expressions; yet such as do in some sort represent his attributes to us: as he is said to have eyes, hands, etc. by which are signified his knowledge, operations, etc. But for natural things there was no such necessity, because natural men, by nature's light are able to understand natural things: so we know what a circular motion is; and if the Earth did truly move, we should as soon apprehend the motion of it, as we do the Sun's motion: therefore, there was no need why God should descend to our capacity in affirming an untruth, because we cannot understand the Earth's motion. God then doth not conform his expressions to the error of our judgements; for our judgements do not err in this; but he speaks according to the truth of the thing, which we judge and apprehend as it is. We apprehend the fire to be hot; if you were of an opinion that it were cold, (which you may as well maintain as the Earth's motion) you would doubtless tell us, that the Scripture in saying the fire is hot, applies itself to the vulgar error or mistake of our judgements; thus you may make the Scripture to serve you for defence of any absurdity, by using such a subterfuge, and running into such a starting hole.  
4. You examine those particular Scriptures which are urged to prove the Sun's motion, and you tell us that they are spoken in reference to the appearance of things, and the false opinions of the vulgar; and in the 75. pag. of your Book, you say it is a frequent custom for the holy Ghost to speak of natural things, rather according to appearance and common opinion, than the truth itself. I would 1. know if this consequence be Logic; the holy Ghost speaks of natural things according to appearance, frequently, and of some, ergo continually, and of all; or particularly of this; to wit, the Earth's immobility. The Scripture oftentimes speaks of God according to men's opinion and capacity; as, that he is angry, that he reputes, etc. Ergo, the Scripture speaks still of God thus: and so, when the Scripture says, that God is a Spirit, or just, or infinite, or eternal; that may be understood (if your Logic be good) according to opinion or appearance; this will prove a dangerous kind of reasoning. 2. Why doth not the holy Ghost tell us in plain terms, that the Earth moves, if it doth move? what end hath he to tell us that it is immovable? Is it because we are not capable to understand such a high mystery? that is ridiculous. For is it a greater mystery than Christ's Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. which are set down in plain terms? but indeed it is no mystery; it's easy to understand the Earth's motion, if it did move. Or is it because the holy Ghost would not give offence to the world, in telling them plainly that the Earth moved, being an opinion so repugnant to sense and reason? Then doubtless he would not have told us, that the Sun and Moon stood still at Ioshua's command; or that the Sea was divided by Moses Rod; and those other miracles of holy Writ, as much repugnant to sense and natural reason, as the Earth's motion is: the holy Ghost useth not to hide or mince the truth, for fear of offending men. 3. There is great odds between asseverations and allusions; between the affirmation of a truth, and an allusion to a fiction The Scripture speaking of perverse men that will not hear God's word, alludes to the fiction (as you call it,) of the adder stopping his ear; ergo, when the Scripture speaks of the Earth's immobility, it speaks according to common opinion. A goodly consequence; as if you would say, the Scripture speaks figuratively of Christ, when it calls him a Lamb, a Door, a Vine: ergo, when the Scripture speaks of the beheading of john Baptist, it speaks according to common opinion: if there be no better Logic taught in the Universities of the Moon, we will never send our Sons thither. 3. It is a rule in Saint Austin, that we should expound Scripture as the Saints have expounded it before us; 
De verbis Domini, Ser. 18.  Quomodo bac verba intellexerunt Sancti, sic utique intelligenda sunt: But name me that Saint that ever expounded these Scriptures, which speak of the Heaven's motion and of the Earth's immobility, according to appearance and common opinion. Of St. Augustine's mind was the sixth general Council, prohibiting any man to interpret Scripture, otherwise then the Lights and Doctors of the Church, have hitherto expounded them by their writings; which Canon is confirmed in the eleventh Session of the third Lateran Council. 5. The ancient Fathers warn us, that we do not deviate or depart from the literal sense of Scripture, so long as no absurdity doth follow thereupon: now, no absurdity doth follow upon the literal sense of the Earth's immobility; but upon your sense and exposition many absurdities follow; therefore we must not depart from the literal sense. 6. Where the holy Ghost speaks obscurely and figuratively in one place, he doth in another place open himself in plain terms, as Saint 
In Isai. c. 19  Hierome observes: but speaking of the Earth's immobility, he useth still the same phrases; neither doth he explain himself otherwise in any one place; which doubtless he would have done, if he had meant otherwise then he spoke. 7. I absolutely deny that the holy Ghost speaks of natural things, otherwise then in truth and reality; and not (as you say,) according to common opinions. As for your expositions of these Scriptures which are for us, and your instances against our opinion; they are wrested, and false, and impertinent, and of no solidity, as we will show by our answer or reply to each of them severally.  
1. It is usual with you to cut your throat with your own sword, and to bring passages against yourself; for you would prove that the Scripture speaks of the Heaven's motion, in reference only to the Vulgars' false opinion; because, 
Psal. 19  The Sun is in his glory like a Bridegroom; and in his motion like a Giant. I answer, if the Sun be in his motion like a Giant, then sure the Sun hath motion; for how can that which is not, be compared to that which is? Similitudes cannot illustrate non entities. 2. If the Sun were not a glorious creature, David had not compared his glory to without motion, he had not compared his motion, to the motion of a Giant: if there be no motion in the wind and thunder, it had been idle to give wings to the one, or arrows to the other, as David doth. 3. Will you make the Scripture not only assures a falsehood in positive terms, but also bring similitudes to illustrate it? this is to make the holy Ghost a cherither, fomenter, and maintainer of untruths; for so it must be, if the Sun move not, the Scripture showing it doth move, and declaring by similes how it doth move. 4. What consequence is this? The Scripture compareth the Sun to a Bridegroom, and a Giant; ergo, the Scripture speaking of the Sun's motion, speaks in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar? it is all one with this: The Gospel compares Christ to a Bridegroom; ergo, the Gospel speaking of Christ's humanity, speaks in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar. 5. There is odds between positive speeches and comparisons; the Sun is never called a Bridegroom in Scripture, but is said to be like a Bridegroom: Simile non est idem. But in Scripture still, the Sun is said to move, and the earth to be stable, in positive terms. 6. That David in this comparison did allude to the fancy of ignorant people, supposing the Sun by night to rest in a chamber, is but your groundless conceit: you might say rather that he alluded to the fiction of Poets, describing Aurora to go to bed every night with Tythonus; Tythous croceum ●●● quens' Aurora cubile: or to that golden bed which Vulcan made him; in which he is carried through the Sea. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But neither to this pleasant bed, nor to that of Tythonus, nor to the Vulgar conceit doth David allude; but simply sets out God's Majesty in the glory of the Sun, by a familiar example, taken from the glory of a Bridegroom coming out of his chamber. 7. This former part of the Psalm is interpreted by the Fathers mystically of Christ, whose motion and alacrity to run his race from the womb to the grave, from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven; I hope you will not say, are to be understood in reference to the false opinion of the Vulgar. 8. He is not compared to a Giant, in respect of his bigness in the morning, (as you say) no more than he is to a dwarf, in respect of his littleness at noon; but in respect of the indefatigable swiftness of his motion, he is compared to a mighty runner: for there is no mention made of a Giant in the Hebrew text, neither was it fit to compare him to a Giant. 9 Nor doth David allude to the Vulgar opinion, when he speaks of the ends of Heaven; for in a round globe or circle there are no ends: but he speaks with relation to the Hemisphere, which you must needs yield hath ends; for it terminates and ends in the Horizon, called therefore Finitor. Besides, in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts, it is not said, the ends; but the remotest parts of Heaven: and so you cannot deny but some parts are remoter from us then other parts. 10. Neither hath the Scripture any reference to the common mistake, as if the Sun were actually hot, when it saith, (nothing is hid from the heat thereof:) these Philosophers who deny any actual heat in the Sun, yet say the Sun is hot: and I doubt not but you have said so many a time, and yet you have no reference to any actual heat in the Sun. Do not you use to call cinnamon-water, and such like distilled waters, hot waters? and yet they are actually cold. Philosophers tell us that Saturn is cold, and yet they do not think that he is the subject of cold, but the cause only. The Scripture saith, That none can avoid the anger of God; and yet you will not say that this passion is in God. The Sun than is hot, not by any heat in him, but by calefaction from him.  
2. When the Scripture saith, 
Eccles. 1.  The Sun riseth and goeth down; this is not spoken in relation to the circumference which is equally distant from the Centre; but in reference to the Horizon as you confess, or rather to the situation of Judea; and so of other Country's: and in this respect, the Sun doth not only seem, but doth in very deed rise and fall to the Inhabitants. For doth not the Sun truly ascend when he comes to your meridian, and truly descend, when he removes from it? Doth he not truly ascend and descend, to those who have him for their Zenith in their meridian? Astronomers tell us that there is a true and real rising and falling of the Stars, as well as an apparent; and then are they not truly said to rise and fall, when they do truly ascend above, and descend beneath the Horizon? If the Sun doth not truly ascend and descend, than the shadows do not truly increase and decrease; and so our Sun-dialls do not truly show us the hours of the day, but in show only, and in appearance; but we see that the shadow still decreaseth, as the luminous body ascendeth, and increaseth as that descendeth. Virgil's Tytirus can tell you so much: 
Majoresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae,  
Et Sol discadens crescentes duplicat umbras.   
3. 
Josh. 12. 14.  Joshua saith, That the Sun stood still in the midst of heaven: Now, Heaven (you say) hath no midst but the Centre, and so this is also spoken in reference to the Vulgar opinion. Answ. By the Centre, either you must understand the Earth, or the Sun; the Earth indeed is in the midst of the world, but not in the midst of Heaven; for it is not there at all: if it were, Christ needed not to ascend to Heaven, being in the midst of it, when he was on the earth. Wicked men than would have the best of it; for as they have the largest possessions on earth, so should they have the largest shares in heaven. If by the Centre you mean the Sun, than you speak in reference to the Vulgar opinion; for the Centre is in the midst of Heaven, the Sun is the Centre; therefore the Sun is in the midst of Heaven, and so Joshua saith. 2. By the Heaven he doth not understand the whole celestial Globe, but the Hemisphere; and so this having its Horizon or outmost limits and extremes, must also have its middle: and what can that else be, but the Meridian passing through the Zenith? Thus than it is demonstrable that whatsoever is equally distant from the extremes is in the midsts; but the Sun being in the Zenith or Meridian, is equally distant from the extremes: therefore the Sun being in the Zenith, is in the midst of Heaven. 3. The Hebrew Doctors tell us, that when the Sun stood still, he was then in the Summer's solstice, being the Tropic of Cancer; from which Judea is not far distant: and so in that regard also Joshua might truly say, that the Sun was in the midst of Heaven, being then over their heads. 4. If it be a vulgar opinion to say, that the Sun is in the midst of Heaven; then all the chief learned both in Divinity, Philosophy, and Poetry, speak as the Vulgar do; for they use the same phrase: hence came the word Meridian, Meridies, Midday, Midnight. If the Sun were not every day in the midst of Heaven; how should the Artificial day be divided into equal parts? Therefore Clavins tells us, that the Meridian is called by Astronomers, 
In cap. 2. Spharajaero B●se.  the midst of Heaven; the line of the midst of Heaven, etc. And the Prince of Poets speaks both of the Sun and Moon in the midst of Heaven: 
jam medium Phoebus conscenderat igneus orbem. 
Geor 4.   
Phoebe— 
AEn. 10.   
Noctivago curra medium pulsabat Olympum.   
5. I would know of you if all Vulgar opinions be false. That (I hope) you will not say: If then the Vulgar speak sometime truth, why may not the Scripture speak truth with the Vulgar? or why should truth be of less esteem, because vulgar? it should be otherwise, for, Bonum quo communius eo meliús.  
It is ridiculous to think with you, that the Sun was over Gibeon only in appearance and vulgar conceit: For indeed the Sun was truly over Gibeon, although he was no more over that then over other places. Suppose you were in Paul's Church, and divers others were there too; is the roof of that Church over your head only in appearance and vulgar conceit, because it is over other heads as well as yours; or because it is much larger than your head? Or must that phrase be thought improper, the roof is over your head? 2. The figure Eclipse is frequent in Scripture, when there some words wanting in a phrase which are to be supplied: as, 2 Sam. 6. 6. Vzza put forth to the Ark, is understood, his hand. So 2 Chro. 10. 11. I with Scorpions, is understood, will chastise you. So here, Sun stand still in Gibeon, is understood, while we are fight? and so the words must be rendered: Stand still whilst we are fight in Gibeon; for not only the city, but its territories where Ioshua's army was, are called by the same name. So, Moon in the valley of Ajalon, is understood, go not down.  
These words, (There was no day like that before it, or after it) you say, are not to be understood absolutely, but in respect of the vulgar opinion; because there be longer days under the Pole. Answ. joshua spoke not this with any reference to vulgar opinions, but to the Climate in which he lived, and where the miracle was showed; it was the longest day that ever was in those parts; and what reason had he to except the days under the Poles, being nothing to his purpose? When Christ saith, There be twelve hours in the day, his words cannot be understood absolutely; for there be more hours where the Horizon hath any obliquity; and the higher the Pole is elevated above the Horizon, the more hours have the days in Summer; yet his words are true, in sphera recta, and in those Countries that are under and near the Line. And what will you conclude from this? that because these and such like phrases, are not to be understood absolutely; therefore this phrase (the Sun moves,) is not to be understood absolutely? But I will reply. These phrases are true in respect of the Climate they were spoken of; ergo this phrase also, (the Sun moves) is true, in regard of the Climate it is spoken of. If then Judea be the place where the Earth is stable, and the Sun moves, your opinion is quite overthrown by the force of your own instance: for if the Earth be immovable in any Climate, and the Sun movable, we have that which we desire: it lieth on you to show how, and why the Sun should move there, and not elsewhere; why and how the earth moves here and not there. 2. These words of Ioshua's, perhaps have no reference to the length of the day, although the vulgar Translation read it so; but rather to the greatness of the miracle, the Heavens harkening to the voice of a mortal man. joshua acknowledgeth, That never any such day was before or since; that the Lord harkened to the voice of a man: 
Esay 38. 8.  For so the Hebrew and Greek read it.  
4. The Scripture saith, That the Sun returned ten degrees in the dial of Achaz; this you will have to be understood of the shadow only: 
2 King. 20. 11.  So I perceive the Sun and the shadow, light and darkness, is all one with you. Take heed of the woe denounced against them that call light darkness, and darkness light: Why may you not in other places, aswell as in this, by the Sun understand the shadow: as, At Ioshua's command the Sun stood still; that is, the shadow stood. We shall shine as the Sun, that is, we shall be dark as the shadow? 2. You mince the miracle, and the power of God too much; for, is it not as easy for him to make the Sun go back, as to make the shadow return? Wherein is his absolute Sovereignty seen, and his transcendent puissance, but in the obedience of all creatures, even of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, to his commands? St. 
De Civit. lib. 21. c. 8.  Austin, disputing against the Gentiles, showeth them, That Nature is not the supreme guider of all things; and he instanceth in the standing, and going back of the Sun. His Argument had been of no force, had not the Sun moved at all, as you think. 3. If the shadow moved only without the Sun, then either that shadow moved itself, which is ridiculous to think; or it was moved by the motion of the dial, or of the gnomon and index of the dial: Now, if the dial or gnomon was moved by God or an Angel, tell us where you read it. Why might it not as well be turned about with a man's hand, or by some engine, and so this would have been a suspected miracle; or else the shadow returned according to the motion of some other luminous body, & so this were to multiply miracles needlessly; for 1. that light must be created for that purpose. 2. It must have a particular motion of its own. 3. It must be a greater light than that of the Sun, otherwise the shadow had not been discernible. 4. It must either be united to some other light, or else vanish; all which was needless: is it not safer than to adhere to God's word? from which when we wander, we fall into many byways. And whereas you tell us, That the miracle is proposed only concerning the shadow: I answer, we are not to consider so much what is proposed, as what was effected. God useth to effect more, than he proposeth, and to perform more than he promiseth. 2. You say, There would have been some intimation of the extraordinary length of the day, as it is in that of joshua: I answer, there was no such reason, why the length of this day should be mentioned; because this day was much shorter than Ioshua's, in respect it fell out in the winter solstice; whereas that of 
Vide in josuam Munster. Lyram, etc.  joshua was in the summer solstice, as the Hebrew Doctors observe. 3. Had the Sun returned, This had been (you say) a greater miracle than those which were done on more solemn occasions. Answ. God regards not the solemnity of occasions, in showing of his miracles; if he had, Christ had never wrought his miracles in obscure and remote places, as hills and deserts: He would rather have showed his transfiguration in Jerusalem, to all the world, then upon Mount Tabor, only to three Disciples. He useth his miracles, as he did the loaves; he bestowed seven loaves on four thousand men, and but five loaves upon five thousand: on small occasions God sometimes produceth great miracles, and upon great occasions sometimes he showeth none. 2. We must look rather to the fitness of the miracle, then to the solemnity of the occasion: the Sun represented the King, who was the life and glory of his kingdom. God would let him and all men see, that as he only hath power to rule, and alter the course of the Sun; so it is he only, that rules and turns the hearts of Kings: the Sun was obedient to God's command, so should the King be. As the Sun moves to and fro, so doth the shadow; and as the King is affected, so is the people. The going down of the Sun bringeth sadness on the earth, so doth the death of a King. 3. The occasion of this miracle was not so small as you take it; the sickness, prayers and tears of a good King; the prayers of a great Prophet, the affection that God would show his people, in delivering them from the hand of Assyria; and the love that he carried to such a King, that rather than his faith shall fail, the Sun shall change his course; and the lesson that he would teach us, that we should honour Kings, whom God doth so much honour; as to make the King of Planets stand still at the request of one, to go back at the petition of another: these I say were the occasions of this miracle. 4. The going back of the Sun is not a greater miracle (as you say) than his standing still; for the standing of the Red-sea, was as great a miracle, as the going back of Jordan. 5. The shadow in the history of the Kings is only mentioned, because the shadows moving was more visible than the Suns. 6. This sign (you say) appeared not in the Sun, because the wonder was done in the land. Answ. The sign was in the Sun, and that the Babylonians saw; they sent to know the wonder, that is, what strange effect it had done in the land of Judea. There be oftentimes strange Prodigies in the Air, which cause strange effects on the Earth. If I should send to Italy or Germany, to know of some strange Prodigies seen there in the Air; and if I should inquire what wonder or effect these had wrought in the land, or in these country's; would you conclude that there was no prodigious sign at all in the Air? The Wisemen saw a new Star, which showed to them the miraculous birth of a new King; because they came to Judea, to see the wonder done in the land: you will therehence conclude, that there was no sign at all in the Heaven, neither Star, nor motion of a Star. 7. You doubt of the truth of the Sun's going back, because no mention of it in ancient Writers: But if you will doubt or deny all passages and miracles of Scripture, which are not mentioned by the Heathen writers, our Bible will be reduced to a small handful: they mention not the standing of the Sun, will you deny that too? But you reply, That they had some light of it, by alluding to it in the Fable of Phaeton, when the Sun was so irregular in his course, that he burned some part of the world: but indeed, this seems rather to allude to the Suns going back, then to his standing; for an irregular course is more like a retrograde motion, than a standing still. But it is most likely that this Fable alludes to the conflagration of Sodom, and the other cities of the plain: 
2 Chr. 32. 31  but however the Gentiles were not ignorant of this miracle, as may be seen by that message sent to Ezechias by the Babylonians, who were then the only Astronomers. And Saint Austin proves, that this miracle was known to the Heathen, by that Verse in Virgil: Sistere aquam fluviis, & vertere sidera retro: Ascribing both the standing of the Red-sea, 
De civet. Dei l. 21. c. 8.  and of Jordan; and the going back of the Sun, to Art, Magic, which the Scripture attributes to the power of God. But Ioseph's in his first book against Apion, will tell you the reasons, why the Gentile writers made little mention of the Jewish affairs and miracles; partly out of ignorance; as knowing little or nothing of the Jews; because they were not a people given to travel, or merchandising, and dwelled not in maritime towns: and partly out of malice to that Nation, they concealed God's love to them, and the wonders done amongst them; and indeed most of the ancient Records by injury of time, fury of fire and waters, and neglect of those that should have kept them are lost; both amongst the Gentiles and the Jews, as those Books of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which are only named in Scripture.  
You reject the testimony of 
L. 2.  Herodotus concerning the returning of the Sun, (which he calls the rising of the Sun in the West;) because he exceeds in the computation of years: but by this means you will wrong all Historians, if you question the substance of the story for an error in the circumstance: an error in the computation of time takes not away the truth of the thing itself. The China people reck on an incredible number of years from the Creation of the world; yet you will not deny but that they had some knowledge of the Creation, and that their relation of it is true. The Chaldeans and Egyptians reckon 432. thousand years before the Flood; will you therefore say, they had no knowledge of the Flood? The Septuagints reckon from Adam to the Flood, 2262. years; whereas the Hebrews number only 1656. years; and yet the Fathers reject not the Septuagints testimony concerning the Flood; but most of them also follow their supputation. And how do you know but that Herodotus number of years may agree well enough with ours; seeing divers Countries did reckon their years diversely. The Arcadian year consisted but of three months; the Acarnanian of six: the Roman at first but of ten. The Egyptian year was various; for sometime it consisted of thirteen months, sometime but of four, and sometime of three only, and of two, and of one only sometime. Therefore doubtless Herodotus years were either Arcadian, or Egyptian; and so compare them with our years, you will find that there is no such odds as you make: and that in speaking of the Sun's retrogradation, he hath not reference to the times that never were. And whereas you say that this miracle happened when Hesiod flourished, you fail in your Chronologie; for Hesiod was above a hundred years before this miracle was effected, if you will believe Gentbrard and the other Chronologers. 
Chron. l. 1.   
You are a wise Philosopher to tell us, that the shadow (as well as the heat and beams) is the effect of the Sun. Can darkness 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 dark and condensate body, but not of the luminous. Take heed that the light which is in you be not darkness, for then how great will that darkness be?   

CHAP. III.  

1. The Scripture doth not speak according to vulgar opinion, when it calls the Moon a great light, for so it is.  
2. Not when it speaks of waters above the Heavens, for such there are.  
3. Nor when it calls the Stars innumerable, for so they are.  
4. Nor when it mentions by circumference of the brasin Sea to be thirty cubits, and the diameter ten, 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 Viper's eggs, how understood.  
9 The Asp or Adler how he stops his ear.  
10. Of the North and South wind in Scripture.  
11. The Sun shall be truly darkened, the Moon turned to blood, and the stars shall fall, amp; c.  
12. Of the Winds whence they come, etc.  
13. The sea the only cause of springs.  
14. The thunder is truly God's voice.  
15. The 7. Stars.   
IN this Proposition you go about to show us, That the Scripture in natural things conforms itself to our conceived errors, and that it speaks of things not as they are in themselves, but as they appear. And yet the testimony of Vallesius which you bring to help you, overthrows you; for, 
Prooem. Philes sacr..  Whatsoever (saith he) 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 natural things be most true, than they cannot agree with our erroneous conceits; for truth and error agree like light and darkness: and you confess yourself that all natural 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 we must take it upon your bare word that that only is the true sense which your side delivereth: and I pray you what heresy may not be maintained by Scripture this way? for heretics will also say, That all things in Scripture are true, certain, 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 less than any visible star. Answ. Other Astronomers will prove as strongly as you can, that Mercury is the least of all stars; shall we believe you, or them? 2. Though I should yield that the Moon were a small star 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 yield less light than a candle; Mercury, which you say is bigger than 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 appear much lesser, nor the light of Mercury much bigger: the eye which is the light of the body, is not the clearer because the bigger; there is not so much light in an Ox eye, as in an Eagles': Divines hold, That the light which was created the first day, was no other than the light of the Sun diffused over the hemisphere; the whole hemisphere is much bigger, I hope, than the body of the Sun; and yet the world, I think, was not more enlightened the first day, than the fourth, when that diffused light was contracted and compacted in a narrower compass. 3. To what end should there be so much light in each star exceeding the light of the Moon? 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 we receive by many degrees more light from one half of the Moon, than we do from all the stars together. Surely God made nothing in vain; but in vain hath the stars so much light, if man, for whom they were made, receive no sight nor benefit from this light. 4. Astronomical positions concerning the magnitude and height of each star, on which they ground their dark conjecture of light, are toys and fictions of their own heads: they make false Maxims, and on these they build confused Babel's of their own conceits: yield 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 bigness of each star, Haud secus ac si oculo rubricam dirigat uno. 5. I will tell you what St. Austin saith of this Question, and of the Astronomers of his time: 
De Genes. ad litter. l. 2. cap. 16.  Let them (saith he) talk of heaven, who have but small interest in heaven; we confidently believe that these lights are greater than others, which the Scripture commends to be such. Let them give us leave to trust our own eyes; it is manifest that they give more light to the earth than all the rest do, etc. The Scripture then, and our own senses assure us that these are the great lights. If you say that each star is a bigger light in itself then the Moon, I will believe it when I see it; or have talked with one of your world in the Moon, who perhaps can inform us better, than any reason you can bring to evince us.  
2. We 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 we hold, That it is an erroneous conceit to forsake the true fountains of knowledge, to dig cracked cisterns; to prefer any opinion to the plain text of Scripture. What a forced exposition is it, to call clouds and rain below in the air, and which are oftentimes lower than the tops of hills, to call these I say, 
Psal. 148.  waters above the heaven, of which the Psalmist speaks; whereas these waters are so far below the heaven? And how can any conceive, that the second day there was rain below in the air, and that God by the Firmament did separate that rain from the waters of the sea? And though I should yield that the air is called heaven sometime Synecdochically; and that rain or clouds being in the air, may be said to be in heaven: yet I cannot yield, that therefore they are above the heaven, for to be above, and to be in, differ much: therefore I hold with the ancient Doctors of the Church, That there be waters above the heaven, which is no more incredible (saith St. Austin) that there may be waters in the upper part of the great world, 
De civitat. l. 11. cap. 34.  then that there may be waters in a man's head, which is the upper part of the little world. If we look (saith St. Ambrose) 1. On the greatness and omnipotency of God in creating the world. 
Hexam. l. 2. cap. 3.  2. On his ordinary power in preserving the world, sustaining all things by the word of his might, by which he holds up the sea that it may not drown the low land. 3. On his miraculous power in causing the waters of the Red-sea to stand upon an heap, and jordan to go back: which miracle he made visible, that thou mayst believe these things which are invisible; then why should we doubt of these waters which be above the heavens? If any ask me what is the nature, use, or end of those waters, and how they are there; St. Austin shall answer for me: 
De Genes. ad lit. l. 2. cap. 6.  Quomodo, aut quales ibi aquae sint, etc. how, or what kind of waters these be, is uncertain; 
Gen. 15. 5.  but that there be waters there we doubt not, because greater is the authority of this Scripture, than the capacity of all humane wit.  
3. When the Scripture speaks of innumerable stars, you say, 
Psal. 147. 4.  that is to be understood according to the vulgar opinion: 
jer. 35. 22.  but I say, that it is the opinion of the best Learned, 
Inc. 1. sphae.  that they cannot be mumbred, even Clavius, whom you cite for you, confesseth, That though Astronomers have reduced the most conspicuous stars to the number of 1022. yet that there are multitudes of stars, besides these, that cannot be told, Hoc nunquam negabo, (saith he) I will never deny this: and he saith also, That God so enlarged Abraham's sight, that he made him see all the stars of heaven. If then you look in a clear winter's night towards the North; if you look on the milky way, if you consider the Stars towards the South pole, not discernible by us; 
De civet. Dei l. 16. c. 23.  you must confess that the Scripture speaks properly, and not according to vulgar opinion, when it saith, That the Stars are innumerable: therefore saith Saint Austin, Whosoever brags that he hath comprehended and set down the whole number of the Stars, as Aratus and Eudoxus did; Eos libri hujus contemnit authoritas; the authority of Scripture contemns them. But when you tell us, That the Israelites did far execed the number of the Stars; that is nothing to our purpose: besides we can easily answer, that God did not compare Abraham's carnal seed to the Stars, but his spiritual seed. His carnal seed is compared to the sand and dust; and so writes Saint Austin. Again, when you have found out the true number of all the Stars, 
August. ibid.  then tell us, whether they or Abraham's seed be greatest in number.  
4. You prove that the holy Ghost speaks not exactly of natural secrets; for he sets not down the exact measure or proportion of Solomon's brazen sea. Answ. I had thought that a brazen vessel had been the work of art, and not a secret of nature: that Geometrical proportions are secrets of nature, is a maxim only in your Philosophy. 2. I had said that josephus held this sea not to be perfectly round; You reply, That then the disproportion will be greater, and that Scripture which calls it round, is to be believed before josephus. I answer, that I alleged not josephus to prefer him in my belief to the Scripture, but to show that there could not be an exact proportion, between the diameter and the circumference, in a vessel not exactly round; and yet the Scripture doth not say, it was exactly round, but only round. Every thing that is called round is not of an exact round figure; 
Rev. 4.  an egg is called round; 
Psal. 125.  The Rainbow is said to be round about the Throne. And the hills to be round about jerusalem. And children to sit round about the table etc. Which you will not say are to be understood of an exact round figure. But indeed I know not how to please you; if I allege Scripture, you answer, that Scripture speaks not exactly of natural secrets; that it accomodates itself to the errors of our conceits; that it speaks according to the opinion of the vulgar, etc. If I allege josephus or any other Author, than you tell us, that Scripture is to be believed before josephus; so that you are more slippery than any eel. 3. I had said, that the Scripture for brevity's sake in numbering, used only to mention the greater number, and to omit the letter; as Jacob's family were seaventy souls, which indeed were seaventy five; and many other such passages I alleged. You answer, that this confirms your Argument; For the Scripture is so far from speaking exactly of Philosophical secrets, that in ordinary numbering, it doth conform to common customs. Answ. 1. Show us that this kind of numbering, was the common custom. 2. Will it follow: The Scripture doth not exactly number, sometimes for brevity's sake; ergo, it never speaks exactly of Philosophical points? 3. If this consequence be good, than it will follow, that you never speak exactly of Philosophical points: for you sometimes in mentioning of numbers, omit the lesser number; as when you say seaventy Interpreters, whereas there were seaventy two. Lastly, I answer, that there is great odds between an historical narration of the measure of a vessel, as it was taken by the workmen, who are not still exact Geometricians: and a plain and constant affirmation of a Philosophical truth. He that wrote the Books of the Kings, sets down the circumference of the brazen sea to be thirty cubits, and the diameter to be ten; for so doubtless the measure was taken by the workmen: but when the Scripture saith, The earth is immovable; it records this as a Philosophical or Theological maxim; and not as an historical passage. Concerning the ends and sides of the earth, and of heaven we will speak anon.  
5. That the earth is founded on the waters, is not the opinion of common people, but rather the contrary; for they are led by sense as you use to say: and their sense shows them, that the seas are above the earth; and reason will teach them, That a lighter body cannot be the foundation of a heavier. But you bring a ridiculous reason, why some think the earth to be upon the water: Because when they have traveled as far as they can, they are stopped by the sea: By the same reason, if you were travelling and stopped by a river, or lake; you will conclude that the earth is upon that river or lake. But your opinion is true in some sense; for when we are stopped by the sea, lake or river, we get up into a boat or ship, and then indeed earth is above water: but I think you was asleep when this waterish reason dropped from your pen. I have already showed how the earth is said to be upon the sea; 
Cons. Lansberg. l. ●. sect. 1. 6. 9  that is, (by the Hebrew phrase which wants comparatives) that it is higher than the sea; and that it is in some parts of it above the seas, floods, and rivers, that are in the concavities of the earth.  
6. You speak much of the right and left side of Heaven, and dextro Mercurio; you have conveyed a great part of your discourse out of Clavius, without acknowledgement: but quorsum perditio bac? This waste of words might have been better spared, as being impertinent. For that place of 
job 23.8, 9  job speaks indeed of the right and lest hand, but not a word of heaven: neither is there any right or lest sidein heaven, nor needs there to be. For the left side is more imperfect and weak than the right, which cannot be said of heaven, being an uniform, and every way perfect body. And how can there be a right and left side, where there is neither sense nor life, nor distinction of organical parts? Therefore, in trees and plants, there is no right or left side, though they have life; much less can this be in heaven. 2. Tell us what part of heaven doth the Scripture call right or left? this I know you cannot tell. 3. Though the Scripture should speak after the vulgar phrase, in naming the right and left side of heaven: doth it therefore follow, that the Scripture speaketh so concerning the stability of the earth? 4. Whereas you say, That Aristotle's opinion in this point is delivered upon wrong grounds, supposing the Orbs to be living creatures, and assisted with Intelligences: I confess that he calls the heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as having a soul or spirit, which he calls Intelligence, we Angel, by which the heaven is moved: but he doth not hereby suppose the heaven to be a living creature; for the Angels are not informing sormes of their Orbs, but assisting. When the Angel was in the pool of Bethesda, and moved the water, you will not infer upon this, that the pool was a living creature: whatsoever is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, animatum, that is, hath a soul or spirit in it; is not therefore a living creature: for so you may say a pair of bellows, or wind instruments of music, are living creatures; for wind, breath and air, are called sometimes souls: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anima, or animus, is common to them all. Quicquid ignes, animaeque valent: Phrygias audire animas, are spoken of bellows, and musical instruments; so, Phrygius cornus liquida canit anima: And yet I will not deny, but metonymically, heaven may be called a living creature; as being that which giveth life to living creatures: or by Analogy, it may be said to live, in respect of the Angel which supplies the room of a soul, not in giving life, but, motion to it. 5. It was no wrong ground in Aristotle to say, that the heavens were assisted with Intelligences, seeing they cannot move themselves being simple substances; neither can natural form give such multiplicity of motions, as are in the heavens; neither are they moved by other bodies; for these bodies at last must be moved by spirits; neither do natural bodies move naturally in their place, but, to their place: now the heavens are in their place. Of this opinion were not only the Philosophers, but also the Christian Doctors: 
De cognit. ver. vitae. c. 6.  heavenly bodies are moved by the ministry of Angels, saith Saint Austin. Origen saith, that the Angels have the charge of all things, of earth, and water, air, and fire: and perhaps Saint 
Hom. 8. in jerem. Epist. 59 ad Aritum. Sect. 1. c. 6. Sect. 1. c. 1,4,5.  Hierome mistook his meaning, when he attributes to Origen this error, of assisting reasonable souls to the heavens; he meant the Angels. And Thomas, by that Spirit, that compasseth the world by its motion, Eccles. 1. 6. understandeth an Angel. It were strange to think that so many Angels should be assigned by God for the earth; and for inferior officers towards men, and none should have the moving of the heavens: but of the Angels moving their spheres, I have spoken already against Mr. Carpenter.  
7. The Spirit (you say) 
Prov. 8.5. 10.8.  applies himself to the common tenant generally received heretofore, in attributing wisdom and understanding to the heart; whereas reason and discursive faculties, have the chief residence in the head. Answ. 1. 
Eccles. 1.13, 16, 17. & 8. 5.  How know you that this was the general tenant in Solomon's days? From what stories of these times have you had this? The word (heretofore) must signify the time before Solomon: I doubt me, if you should be put to it, you could not prove that the opinion of the understandings residence in the heart, was the common tenant in the world before Solomon; but I perceive you would have it to be so, because Solomon placeth understanding in the heart: as if the Scripture set down no positive Doctrines, but what were common tenants, whether true or false. 2. The word (heart) here may signify the soul or mind; as it doth often in Scripture, and in humane writings too; the soul is called heart, and the heart is called soul oftentimes. So in Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eating their souls, that is, their hearts with cares. 
Odyss. 1.  And in Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to be without reason or understanding: vecordes and excordes, are men whose minds are distempered. So in Saint 
1 Pet. 3.4.  Peter, By the hidden man of the heart, is meant, the renovation of the mind. If then by the heart is understood the mind or soul, you must needs grant, that it is a tenant no less true than common, that the understanding is in the heart, whether you take it for a part, or for a power, or for a faculty of the soul. 3. This was not a common tenant many years after Solomon; for neither Empedocles, nor the Epicures, nor the Egyptian Philosophers, nor the Arabians, nor the Academics, held the understanding to be in the heart; but some in the head, some in the breast, some in all the body. Herodotus affirmed it to be in the ears; Blemor in the eyes; Strato in the eyebrows: only the Peripatetics and Stoics, placed it in the heart. 4. The holy Ghost attributes understanding to the heart; not because it was a common, but because a true tenant: for howsoever Galen and his Sectaries hold the contrary, yet it is certain, that the heart is the true seat of the understanding. For 1. The will is in the heart, therefore the understanding is there also; such is the dependency of these two faculties, the one from the other, that the will is never without the understanding; and indeed these two are but one in essence; for the will is nothing else, but the understanding dilated, extended, enlarged to the desire and fruition of that object which it apprehends. 2. The Apostle saith, That we believe with the heart, (except you will have this also to be spoken according to opinion, and not according to truth) but without understanding, we cannot believe; 
Secund. Sec. 9.4. artic. 2.  For to believe (saith Thomas) is the act of understanding, moved by the will to assent. 3. The heart is the original subject of sense and motion, and consequently of understanding; which cannot be in us without sense and motion. 
Oportet intelligentem speculari phantasmata. Arist.  4. Understanding is in the soul, the soul in the spirits, the spirits in the blond, and the blood is originally in the heart; which though it be in the liver as in a cistern, and in the veins as conduit-pipes, yet it is in the heart, as in the fountain. 5. The animal spirits in the brain, in which they say the understanding is, are both generated of, and preserved by the vital spirits of the heart, being conveyed thither by certain arteries, small strings, or fibrae. 6. In a sudden fear, which is the passion of the heart, the understanding is much darkened and disturbed. 7. 
Lib. d cord.  Hypocrates every way a better man than Galen affirms this truth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: men's, mind or understanding is in the left ventricle of the heart. That Book, De morbo sacro, which goeth under the name of Hypocrates, which contradicteth this truth, is justly affirmed by Galen to be none of his. 8. Though I should yield to the Galenists, that the understanding is in the brain; yet I will yield that it is there only instrumentally and secondarily, and in respect of its act or exercise; for originally, principally, and in respect of its faculty, it is in the heart only: neither would there be any exercise of understanding in the brain, if it were not from the influence which it receiveth from the heart. Neither is this strange, that the act should be in one part, and the faculty in another; for the faculty of seeing is in the brain, and yet the act of seeing is in the eye: so that though the eye were lost, yet the faculty would remain still in the brain. As for any thing that the Galenists can say against this, it is of no moment; for although the brain be hurt, wounded, or inflamed, yet the faculty of understanding is not lost, though the act or exercise be hindered. Besides, there is a frenzy or alienation of the mind, upon a hurt or inflammation of the Diaphragma, as well as of the brain; therefore, the ancient Physicians called this muscule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it being hurt, the mind was hurt: the remedies applied to the head by which the brain is cured, do not argue that the understanding is there; but that there it doth exercise itself: and yet remedies are applied sometimes to those parts where the disease is not, but in some other place; but this I leave to Physicians. I remember that Philo will have the understanding which he compares to a King, to be in the head; because there be all the senses, as the King's guard: but he is deceived, for the guard may be in the same house with the King, but not in his bedchamber. The guard or outward senses are in the outward court, the inward senses are in the privy chamber, but the King himself is in the heart, as in his bedchamber. If any reply that the head is uppermost, and therefore the worthiest part of the body, and fittest for the King to be there; I answer no; for the garret or upper part of the house is for the servants to lodge in; the King ought to be in the most inward and safest part of his palace. It is evident then by what we have said, that the holy Ghost by placing the understanding in the heart, did speak according to truth, and not to common opinion; and therefore to write that the spirit of truth who leadeth us into all truth, speaketh rather according to opinion then truth; is a note blacker than your ink, unfit to fall from the pen of a Christian. For even allegories, tropes, figures and parables, are truths: but I impute this slip rather to negligence in you, than malice.  
8. The viper's eggs will not help you: 
Esay 59 5.  Ova aspidum ruperunt, they have broken the viper's eggs, as you translate it: but 1. The viper hath no eggs; for whereas other Serpents lay eggs, the viper excludeth young vipers and not eggs: therefore called vipera, quasi vivipara: Vipers eggs are such chimaeras, as your world in the Moon. 2. The aspis and the viper are of different kinds; to say that aspis is a viper, is as true, as if you did say, a cat is a pig, or a crow is a goose. Read AElian, Pliny, and others who have written the stories of these creatures, and Physicians who make treacle of vipers, not of asps; if you will not believe me. It was a viper, not an aspe, that leapt upon Saint Paul's hand: they were asps, not vipers, that Cleopatra applied to her breasts. 3. This Scripture doth not allude to that common fabulous story of the viper, as you say, breaking his passage through the females bowels: but it compares the counsels and plots of wicked men to the eggs of the asps, which being white and fair to the eye, are venomous within, and cannot be broken without the endangering and poisoning of him that breaks them: so wicked men's smooth counsels and plots, howsoever specious in their pretences, are notwithstanding venomous and deadly in their intentions and execution. 4. Though I should grant you that vipers have eggs, yet it is one thing for men to break vipers eggs, and another thing for young vipers to break through the bowels of the female; the Scripture speaketh of the former breaking, and not of the latter; neither hath it any relation at all in this place to that story of the vipers breaking through the belly of the female.  
5. Nor is this story so fabulous as you take it, having the patrociny of so many great and grave Authors for it; namely, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Herodotus, AElian, Plutarch, Horapollus, Pliny, Saint Basil, 
Exercit. 201  Saint Hierome, Isiodor, and divers others. Scaliger indeed writes, that he saw a viper bring forth her young ones without hurt; and perhaps Angelus, Brodaeus, and some others have seen the like: but what though we have seen some unhurt? it is a hard skirmish where none escapes. To infer that no vipers are killed by their young ones, because some are not, is as much as if you would say, no women are sick or pained in their childbirth, because some are not. Thus you see that you can make no treacle or antidote of your viper for the strengthening of your opinion; the very names which are given by the greeks and Latins to this creature, show that this is no fiction; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having much pain in bringing forth; and vipera, quasi vi pari●ns. But we will shake off this viper from our pen, as Saint Paul did that viper in Malta from his hand; and if your viper hath bit us, let us see if your aspe (for so naturalists do write) will cure us.  
9 The aspe (which you translate the adder) stops his ears, (saith the Psalmist) 
Psa. 58.4,5.  against the voice of the charmer. This you say is fabulous, if we may believe many naturalists, yet the holy Ghost alludes to it because it was the general opinion of those days. Answ. You are a great Antiquary, for you know the common opinions that were in David's days, and you tell us not out of what records or manuscripts you have this; but indeed I will not believe you, nor your many naturalists, whom you, should have named, and showed us their reasons, why they think this to be fabulous. 2. You will not (I think) hold enchanting of Serpents to be fabulous, except you will (as you use to do) contradict both sacred and profane, ancient and recent stories. 3. Nor will you deny that there is great cunning and prudence in Serpents to avoid dangers, and to preserve themselves; our Saviour will have us to learn wisdom of them; why then may not the aspe naturally have this piece of policy to stop his ear? 4. Though there were no such natural policy in the Serpent, yet may he not be taught by enchanters to do so? You shall read in stories of stranger matters done by Serpents; if you will read Irenaeus, Austin and Epiphanius of heresies, you shall find how that sect of the Valentinians or Gnostickes called (from worshipping of the Serpents) Ophits, did team and teach their Serpents to come out of their holes or boxes where they were kept, to crawl on their altars; eo lick their oblations, to wrap themselves about their eucharist, and so return to their holes: the like is recorded by Virgil of a Serpent on the altar which AEntas erected on his father's tomb: 
Tandem inter pateras & levia pocula Serpent, 
AEn. 5.   
Libavitque dapes, etc.  I will not speak of Olympias her Serpent, and of many others. 5. May not Satan who hath still abused the Serpent to superstition, cause the aspe stop his ears when he is enchanted? Is it a more incredible thing for an aspe to stop his ear, then for a Serpent to speak and discourse, as he did to Eva. I could tell you strange stories of the Serpent Epidaurius at Rome; of that Serpent that barked at the ejection of Tarqvinius, and of others recorded by grave Historians, which I will not account fabulous, though you perhaps will; because I know that Satan by permission can do strange things. 6. It is manifest that beasts, birds, and fishes, are diversely affected, with joy, fear, courage, anger, etc. according to the quality of the sound which they hear: why then should the relation of the aspe stopping his care be accounted so incredible? It may be as natural for him to stop his ear at an ungrateful sound, as for other creatures to run away from it. 7. Though men have but small knowledge of this, 
7. In Psal. 57 & 67.  yet (as St. Austin saith) the Spirit of God knows better than all men do; who had not recorded this had it not been true; so that what is by men accounted an opinion, in Scripture it is truth, saith the same Father: by all this you may see that the holy Ghost speaketh not according to men's opinions, but according to truth; and though you should erect your two Serpents over your door, 
Pinge duos angues.  as the Gentiles used to do over their temples, yet they will not privilege your opinion.  
10. The North wind which the Scripture calleth cold and dry, the southwind which is hot and moist, are phrases as you say which do not contain any absolute general truth: for though the Northwind to us on this side of the line be cold and dry, yet to those beyond the other tropic it is hot and moist. Answ. There is no absolute general truth in most of the sublunary works of nature, for they are subject to much change; and especially the winds which are the emblems of unconstancy. So that even here in this Island I have known northern winds warm and moist, and southern cold and dry; and if you read Acosta he will tell you, that ordinarily beyond the line, the Northwind is cold and dry, 
Histor. Indicar. l. 3. c. 3.  as it is in this side; and not hot and moist (as you say) though it blow from the line. The winds do vary according to the climate they blow through, and yet they keep not the same tenure still in the same climate: the Northwind is ordinarily cold and dry in that climate, where these Scriptures of job and Proverbs were penned; and the Scripture speaketh only of that climate: 
job 37.9. & 22.17. Pro. 25.29.  and yet if you will believe Acosta's own experience, these Scriptures are true also of the Northwind beyond the line. But what will you infer upon this? marry that this proposition, the earth is immovable, contains not a general truth, because the Northwind is not generally cold and dry; as if you would say, this proposition, the sea ebbs and flows, contains not a general truth; ergo, this proposition, man is a reasonable creature, is not generally true; who will not laugh petulants spleen, to hear such Logic? But you give a reason why this phrase of the coldness and dryness of the Northwind is not generally true, because in some places it is hot and moist: prove unto us that the earth in some places moves circularly, and then we will yield that this phrase of the earth's immobility is not generally true. 2. These Scriptures which you allege for the coldness of the Northwind may be diversely understood: for job 37.9. there is mention made of dispersers or scatterers, but not of the Northwind: and this quality is in every wind to disperse the clouds, as well as to bring them. In the Pro. 25. 23. it is said, that the Northwind bringeth forth rain; for so the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, as well as to drive away; and so junius and Tremelius translate it, gignit; and instead of Aquilo, they have Caecias, which is the North-East-winde, though some think it to be the North-West: so the seaventy Translatours have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to excite and stir up: so job 37. 21. where some translate, fair weather; in Hebrew, Greek, and in the old Latin Translation, it is, Gold cometh out of the North. Thus upon tottering and uncertain foundations, you raise the structure of your wild fantasies.  
11. The darkening of the Sun, the turning of the Moon into blood, and the falling of the Stars will not help you; for these are not natural effects, but miraculous works of God to be done afore Christ second coming: and to say that these things shall be but in show or appearance, is to make us think that God will affright the world, as we do little children with hobgoblins. How will the truth of his miracles, the terror of his judgements, the greatness of his majesty be seen, if these things shall not truly and really be effected? you may as well say, that all former miracles were but in show or appearance: as Christ's turning of water into wine; his walking on the Sea; his raising of the dead; curing of diseases; appeasing of the storm, etc. Is it a thing more incredible for the Sun to be miraculously darkened at Christ's second coming, than it was at his passion, when the Sun lost his light, the Moon being at full? Which miracle was acknowledged by that learned Areopagite, being then in Egypt. Or is it more incredible that the Moon shall be turned into blood, then for clouds to rain blood? of which bloody showers, you may read in the Roman and French stories, and in our own Chronicles at home, of blood that reigned seven days together in this Island, so that the milk was turned into blood. What say you of all the waters of Egypt which were turned into blood? and if we may believe the Church stories, when Felix the Martyr suffered, for not delivering up the Bible to be burned, about the year of Christ, 302. the Moon was turned into blood: thus God is able to make your world in the Moon Aceldama. And why shall we not as well believe that the Stars shall fall, as that they sought against Sisera, or that a new Star conducted the Wisemen to Christ? God is as able to shake the Heavens, and the Stars from them, as a wind is to shake a figtree and spoil it of leaves: he that settled the Stars may remove them. And to tell us that these Meteors which we call falling Stars, are meant; is a childish conceit, seeing such do fall almost every night, and are the mere works of nature, no ways fit to express God's judgements, and the terror of that day.  
12. Christ saith to 
john 3. 8.  Nicodemus, that he knew not whence the wind cometh, nor whether it goeth. You infer that none knows this as the vulgar think; and therefore this, and such like phrases are to be understood in relation to their ignorance; and the Scripture (you say) speaks of some natural 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 seems you know these causes which the vulgar know not: you are gallinae filius albae; a happy man that knows the hid cavises of things: Foelix qui poteris rerum cognoscere causas. I confess my ignorance in the most of these natural causes; Philosophers reasons are not satisfactory to me: Obstat cui gelidus circum praecordia sanguis. But if the wiser sort know from whence the wind cometh, which the vulgar do not; so likewise must the ways of the Spirit in our regeneration be known to them also, though not to the vulgar: but sure that is not Christ's meaning; for he means that the way and manner of our regeneration are as hid & secret to men without divine revelation, as the ways of the wind are: and as none knows the one, so none the other. 2. If you know from whence the wind cometh, and whither it goeth, I pray tell us, and hide not your light under a bushel: 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 Northwind arise, when it blows over our Island; and how far doth it go, or where doth it end? Whence came the great South-West-winde, which the 27. of December last sunk so many ships, overturned so many trees, overthrew so many barns and dwelling houses? and where did this wind end? Can you tell us whence the Brise's or trade-windes under the line which blow continually from East to West, do proceed? or do you know whence the Aniversarie winds in Egypt, called Etesiae, do come? These begin to blow when the dogstar ariseth, and continue forty days together; such winds blow in Spain and Asia, but from the East; in Pontus from the North. I think that though you should ask of the Finlanders who used to sell winds, (if you will believe Olaus) they cannot inform you. 3. How can Philosophers tell us from whence the wind cometh, when they know not as yet what the wind is, whether an exhalation, or the air moved, whether it ariseth out of the sea, as Homer thinks, or out of the bowels and caves of the earth, as others suppose. Pliny will tell you of Caves where the wind blows continually; and Neptune, in Virgil, will show you, that AEolus hath no power in his kingdom, but in the hollow caves and rocks of the earth: 
— tenet ille immania saxa,  
— Illâ se jactet in aulâ  
AEolus & caeco, etc.—  4. St. Austin was no vulgar man, 
In Psal. 134  and yet he confesseth his ignorance, that he knows not out of what treasure God bringeth forth his winds, and his clouds; indeed we may all acknowledge with Seneca, that our knowledge is but ignorance; and because of the uncertainty of humane conjectures, it is best to content ourselves with the knowledge of that supreme cause of all natural effects revealed to us in Scripture.  
13. Solomon (you say) doth only mention the sea being obvious, 
Eccles. 1.7.  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 only, not because the vulgar apprehends it so, but because indeed and verily it is so; to wit, the only prime cause of springs and rivers: If you should tell me that rain and vapours are other causes, you would say nothing, for these are subordinate to the sea; he that names the prime and superior cause of any effect, doth not exclude, but include all subordinate and inferior causes. If, I say, the sea is the cause of springs, I say inclusively, that rain and vapours (which have their original from the sea) are the causes also. When the Jews said they were the sons of 
1 Cor. 15.  Abraham, they excluded not Isaac and jacob. When Saint Paul saith that God giveth to every seed its body, he excludes not the Sun, Raine, Earth, and the formative power of the seed, which are subordinate causes to God. 2. Solomon's drift was not to make a Philosophical discourse about the causes of rivers, but to show the vanity of things by the continual issuing and returning of rivers from and to the sea, as he had done before by the Sun's motion.  
14. For the thunder, which David calls the voice of God; we say that this phrase is not to be understood with relation to some men's ignorance, as you fond conceit, but to God's omnipotency and providence; who by his thunder, as by a voice, speaks unto the world: and a powerful voice it is to shake the hearts of the proudest Atheists, even of Caligula himself; and to teach the most perverse Epicures, that there is a God in heaven who ruleth and judgeth the earth. No eloquence prevailed so much with Horace as this, 
lib. 1. Od. 34.  when he was parcus Deorum cultor, an Epicure: it made him renounce his error,— & retro vela dare; by which the Gentiles acknowledged there was a supreme God, whom they called jupiter, and that he had the power of thunder, 
— qui fulmine concutit orbem.  
— qui foedera fulmine sancit.  So the same Virgil acknowledgeth that the thunder made the people to stand in awe of God: 
— an te Genitor cum fulmina torques,  
Nec quicquam horremus, etc. 
Act. 4.   By this, God moved the hearts of the Romans to use the Christians kindly, when by thunder he overthrew the Marcomans; and the Christian Legion from thence was called, The thundering Legion. It is his weapon with which he fights against wicked men, and which he flings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against perjurers, as Aristophanes saith: all the thundering disputations of Philosophers, and the small sparks of light or knowledge which they have of natural causes, are but toys; they are no better than glow-worms. What is the croaking of frogs, to the cracking of thunder, or the light of rotten wood, to lightning in the air? Therefore, in spite of all Naturalists, 
Psal. 29.  let us acknowledge with David, that it is the Lord that maketh the thunder, that this voice of the Lord breaketh the Cedars, and divideth the flames of fire, and shaketh the wilderness, etc. Besides, the thunder is called God's voice, as the wind God's breath, by an Hebraisme: as tall Cedars and high mountains are called the Cedars and Mountains of God: the voice of God is as much as if you would say, an excellent voice. Then whatsoever Naturalists affirm peremptorily of the thunder, I will with job and David, acknowledge God to be the only cause; and will ask with job, The thunder of his power who can understand? Quis tonitrus sonum, aut quemadmedum oriatur explicandis rationibus assequi possit? 
job 26.14.  saith Symmachus, on these words of job.  
15. The constellation called the 7. Stars, are found (you say) by later discoveries, to be but six: What if I should grant you this, and more too then you desire; to wit, that of old they were accounted but six of some: 
lib 4. Fast. in Apparen.  So Ovid, 
Dicuntur septeno, sex tamen esse solent.  
So Aratus,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And generally the Poets held, that though Atlas had seven daughters, called Atlantides from him; yet one of them, to wit, Merope, or as others say, Electra, hides her face: but divers others hold there be seven to be seen. And S. Basil tells us in plain terms, that there are seven stars of these, and not six, as some think: but let there be seven, 
In Caten. Comitoli in job 9  or but six, what is this to your purpose? Marry, that the Scripture, Amos 5.8. speaks of seven stars, according to common opinion, being but six in Galilies' glass; but indeed the Scripture speaks neither of six nor seven, but of a certain constellation, which the Seventy Interpreters leave out, as a thing unknown to them. Symmacbru, and Theodotion interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old Latin hath it Arcturus, which is a star in Boötes behind the tail of the great Bear; in English we call them Seven stars, and to mine eyes they seem to be so many: But if in Galilies' glass there be but six; it's no wonder, for you tell us elsewhere, That the better the glass is, the less will the stars appear. It is not like then, that so small a star can be seen through it: Let therefore the number of 7. remain, it is a sacred nnmber; — numero Deus impare gaudet.   

CHAPT. FOUR  

1. Many Philosophical points are handled in Scripture.  
2. The heavens how round in the opinion of the Fathers.  
3. Wre must have a reverend esteem of the Fathers.  
4. How the seas not overflowing the land may be esteemed a miracle.  
5. The works of Nature may be called miracles.   
HEre you tell us of Learned men which have fallen into great absurdities, whilst they have looked for the grounds of Philosophy out of Scripture, which you show by the jewish Rabbins, and some Christian Doctors. Ans. As it is vanity to seek for all Philosophical grounds in the Scripture, so it is stupidity to say there be no Philosophical grounds or truths to be found in Scripture: whereas Moses, job, David, Solomon, 
Cont. Lan the. l 1. sc. 1. c. 7. Rerum divinarum humanarumque, cognitio.  and other Penmen of the holy Ghost, have divers passages of Philosophy in their writings, as I have showed heretofore of divers constellations out of job: and why may not Philosophical truths be sought for out of Scripture, seeing Philosophy is the contemplation or knowledge of divine and natural things; both which are handled in Scripture, divine things principally, natural things in the second place; that by natural things we may come to the knowledge of Divinity, and by this to the attainment of eternal felicity. Therefore in Scripture is recorded the creation, the cause, qualities, and effects of the creature, that by these we may come to the knowledge of the Creator. If the Gentile Philosophers had not found much Philosophy in Scripture, they had never conveyed so much out of it, (as they did) into their Philosophical books, 
Serm. 2. add Grac. infid.  as Theodore showeth. The idle opinions of many Philosophers, which are grounded neither on sense, nor reason, (as yours of the Earth's motion) are not to be sought for in Scripture, but Philosophical truths which are grounded on either, or both, may be sought and found there: and whatsoever idle conceits the Jews have had of Scripture, or their idle fables which they have grounded on it, concern us not: they were a giddy headed people, given over to a reprobate sense, groping at noon day; having their hearts fat, and their eyes blinded, that they may not see: their seeking for Philosophical truths in Scripture was not the cause of their foolishness, (for few or none of them were addicted to the study of Philosophy) but their own voluntary blindness, pride, stubbornness, and contempt of Christ the internal and essential Word of God, are the causes of their ignorance in the external Word; so that they (having forsaken the truth) follow lies. But as for the Christian Doctors, they have not exposed themselves to errors, by adhering to the words of Scripture, but you are fallen into gross errors by rejecting the words of Scripture: These which you count errors, are truths; as, That the Sun and Moon are the greatest lights, That there are waters above the firmament, That the stars are innumerable, as we have already showed. As for the roundness of the heaven, though the Father's doubt of it, yet they do not absolutely deny it. justine Martyr doth but ask the question, Whether their opinion may not be true, 
Resp. ad Qu. 93. Hexamer. li. 1. cap. 6.  which hold the roundness of the heaven. St. Ambrose saith, that it is sufficient for us to know that God hath placed the heaven over us like a vault, and stretched it out like a curtain or skin. St. chrysostom (whom Theodoret and Theophylact do follow) deny the roundness of heaven, as it hath relation to our climate or habitation; for so the heaven is indeed, 
Psal. 104.2. Isa. 40.22.  as the Scripture saith, a vault or skin; so that albeit the whole heaven being considered with the whole earth, be round, yet being considered with reference to parts or climates of the earth, it is not round: 
De Genes. ad litter. l. 2. c. 9  Or we may with St. Austin so understand the word [vaults] or [curtain] or [skin] that these terms may stand well enough with the roundness of heaven; si sphaera est, undique camera est: if it be spherical, it is a round vault; pellis in rotundum sinum extenditur, a skin may be made round or spherical: for a round bladder (saith he) is a skin; so than neither the word vault, skin, canopy, or tabernacle, are words repugnant to the roundness of heaven, neither have you such reason to insult over the Fathers, as if absolutely and peremptorily they had denied the roundness thereof: 
August. In Psal. 104.  For S. Austin showeth, that the stretching out of heaven like a skin, is mentioned only to show the power of God, and with what facility he made the heavens, with more ease than we should extend a skin: and St. Hierome saith, that the opinion of the earth's roundness is the most common opinion, agreeing with Ecclesiastes. 
Higher c. 3. ad Ephes.  So when the Fathers say that the earth is founded on the seas, etc. they do but follow the Scripture phrase, which how to be understood we have already showed, and will touch it again anon.  
3. Suppose these were errors; yet you must not take advantage from some errors in the Fathers, to lessen their credit in other things; they were but men, and had not the perfection of knowledge which is in Angels, called therefore Daemons and Intelligentiae. St. Bernard saw not all things; we should be sparing in raking into their errors, in uncovering of their shame; and like flies, delighting in their sores. But yet you cannot obtain your purpose in ripping up of their errors; for it will not follow: the Fathers erred in denying the spherical figure of the heaven, etc. therefore they erred in denying the motion of the earth: must it follow, that because S. Cyprian erred in the point of rebaptisation, therefore no credit must be given to him in affirming Christ's incarnation? and, I pray, what great error was this in them, to conclude from manifest places of Scripture, 
job 8.8.  that the seas not overflowing the land is a miracle, 
Prov. 8.29.  and that they are restrained by the special power of God? 
jer. 5.22.  I grant that all seas are not higher, nor so high as some lands; 
Psal. 104.  but it is manifest, that the sea in some places is much higher than the land, as the Hollanders and Zelanders know; and that their lands are not overwhelmed with the sea in a storm, is a miracle; and the finger of God is to be seen in restraining of them: which seas, when he is angry with the inhabitants, he lets loose sometimes, to the overthrow of towns and villages: 
— Camposque per omnes,  
Cum stabulis armenta trahunt—  In the days of Sesostris King of Egypt, it was by measure and observation known, that the Red-sea was much higher than the land; but we need not go so far, the coast of our own Island in divers places being lower than the sea, will prove this to be true; where we may daily see God's power, in curbing the violence of that furious creature: 

Du Eartas 3. Day. — For the Eternal knowing  
The Seas commotive, and unconstant flowing,  
Thus kerbed her, and against her envious rage,  
For ever fenced our flowery mantled stage:  
So that we often see those rolling hills,  
With roaring noise, threatening the neighbour's fields;  
Through their own spite to split upon the shore,  
Foaming for fury that they dare no more.   
5. Why then may not this be called a miracle, whereas many strange, yea ordinary effects of nature are called miracles? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Martial. Perseverantia consisetuimis amisit admirationem. De Trin l. 3. c. 2. c. 5. etc. 6.  Plato called man the miracle of miracles: and David saith, that fearfully and miraculously he was made. Do not you know that Diana's Temple, the Egyptian Pyramids, and the rest of those stupendious buildings, were called the seven miracles of the world? not only Gods extraordinary works above nature, but also his ordinary works in nature, are miracles, though they be not so accounted (saith Saint Austin) because we are so used to them. For as it was a miracle to turn water into wine in Cana of Galilee, so (he saith) that miracle is seen daily: for who draws the moisture or water from the earth by the root into the grape, and makes wine, but God? That God's finger is to be seen in every work of nature, the Poet doth acknowledge: 
Virgil. l. 4. Geor  — Deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris, coelumque profundum. A miracle is so called because it excites admiration; and do we not admire God's power in earthquakes, prodigious births, thunders, lightnings, and in the Eclipses of the great Luminaries? therefore Saint Austin checks the vanity of Philosophers who went no higher in the contemplation of these natural effects, then to natural causes; not looking unto God the supreme cause of all. Hence than it appears that the Fathers are not mistaken, in attributing the not overflowing of the sea to a miracle: howsoever (as your figure showeth) the sea may seem to be, and yet is not higher than some lands. Neither is there any contradiction in Scripture, though sometime it make the sea higher than the land, and sometime lower; for so it is according to the diversity of coasts; and because of much moisture and water found in the bowels of the earth, and in that it is encompassed with the sea, it may be said, that the earth is founded on the waters: therefore no man can be deceived in concluding points of Philosophy from expressions of Scriptures (as you say) but from the misunderstanding of Scripture; for what is true in Philosophy cannot be false in Divinity; for in subalternal sciences there can be no repugnancy.   

CHAP. V.  

Divers Scriptures vindicated from false glosses; as, Eccles. 1. 4. by which is proved the earth's immobility, and heaven's motion.  
2. How the earth is eternal and renewed.  
3. The Scripture speaketh not plainly and ambiguously in the same place.  
4. The Scripture useth Metaphors.  
5. How the earth stands out of the water, 2 Pet. 3. 5. by which its immobility is proved.  
6. What is meant, 1 Chron. 16. 30. etc. by these words, The world is established, etc.  
7. What is meant Psal. 90. 2. by the earth and the world.  
8. How the heavens Prov. 3. 19 are established: and the Moon and Stars, Psal. 89. 37. etc.  
9 How the heavens 2 Sam. 22. 8. hath foundations.  
10. What are the pillars of heaven in Job 10. of the ends, sides, and corners of the earth in Scripture.  
11. What is meant Isa. 51. 6. by the planting of the heavens.  
12. How the earth is established.  
13. What Job means by the earth moved out of its place.   
YOu would feign here overthrow those Scriptures which show the immobility of the earth. 
Eccles. 1.4.  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 kind 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 affirm the motion of the sun: for why should he either deny the one, or affirm the other, which no man doubted of, or called in question? his drift is to prove the vanity of mankind, from the stability of the earth, and motion of the sun, winds and waters; thus man is inferior to the earth, because the earth is firm, stable, and immovable; whereas man abideth not in one stay, but cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down, he flieth 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 immobility 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 soul, or his body, according to the first matter; but the opposition is between the qualities, outward estate, and life of man, and the immobility of the earth, so that the standing of the earth must be meant either of its permanency, or immutability, or immobility: not the first, for man (as I said) is not inferior 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 earth's 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 sun standeth for ever, the earth ariseth, and the earth goeth down, etc. But, for all his knowledge, he was ignorant of this acquaint piece of Philosophy. Again, he proves man's vanity from the motion of the sun, winds, and waters, though they move and are gone for a while, yet they return again; but man being gone returns no more: so that man hath neither the stability of the earth, but passeth away, and being passed, hath not the power to return again, as the sun, wind, and waters do. It is plain then, that the standing of the earth is opposed to its local motion, and to the motion of men coming and going; but it were ridiculous, as you say, to infer that the earth is immovable, because permanent; for the mill and ship may be permanent, and yet move; this illation is none of ours, we say it is immovable because Solomon here says so; for he saith it standeth; and if standing be motion, than the earth moves. It is more safe for us to say, That the earth is immovable, because Solomon saith it stands; then to say it is movable, because the word standing may signify permanency, or abiding. As for the motions (as you call 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 check the Jews for collecting the earth's eternity from the word (Legnolam:) albeit I know that this word doth not always signify eternity, but a long continuance of time; yet that the earth is eternal, à posteriori, I think you will not deny, except you will tread in some new way of your own different from that both of ancient and modern Divines, who affirm 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 form, not of the substance; a renovation of that beauty which is lost by man, but no creation of a new Essence; so that the Jews might justly infer from Solomon's words, that the earth is eternal, or established 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 speak plainly and ambiguously; in the same sentence have a double meaning? The Scripture which is plain and simple, is far from double dealing. Will any think that when Solomon saith, There be three movable 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 four loaves, for one was a loaf but in appearance. Three Wisemen came from Persia to worship Christ, that is, two came indeed, but the third came only 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 plain in this point? You say, That the Scripture speaks of some natural things, as they are esteemed by man's false conceit: But this is a false conceit of yours; the Scripture doth not cherish or patronise the falsehood of our conceits; the end of it is to rectify our erroneous conceits. It is true that in high and obscure points of Divinity, the Scripture condescending to our capacity, useth the terms of familiar and earthly things; that by them we may by degrees ascend to the love and knowledge of spiritual things; for the natural man understandeth not the things of God: but in natural things which are obvious to our senses, we need no such helps. If the Sun stood still, it were as easy for us to understand his standing, as his moving.  
What you talk of the ends of a staff, and of the ends of the earth, is impertinent and frivolous; for the Scripture for want of proper words useth metaphorical: and because there is no other word to express the remote bounds of the earth, than the word End, therefore the Scripture useth it. But you infer that because the ends of a staff, 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 staff hath ends, and that the earth hath ends, which cannot be understood properly, and in the same sense; ergo, when the Scripture saith, The sun moveth, and the wind moveth, both cannot be understood properly and in the same sense: as if you would say, The Scripture affirms that Angels are the sons of God, and that Judges are the sons of God, but not in the same sense: ergo, when the Scripture saith, That the raven flew out of the Ark, and the dove flew out of the Ark: both must not be understood in the same sense, but the one properly, the other in appearance.  

2 Pet. 3.5.  Our second proof out of Scripture which you go about to undermine, is that of Saint Peter: The heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water. You say, That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is equivalent to (fuit,) but I say, that this were to confound two predicaments, to make the essence and accident all one: the site or immobility of the earth, and the essence or existence thereof cannot be one or equivalent. 2. This were to commit a plain tantology, for so the words must run; The earth was, was out of the water; if these two words (was) and (standing) be equivalent. 3. The Apostles scope is not only to show that God made all the earth, (as you say) but that he made it thus; that is, standing or immovable: that he is the author not only of its being and essence, but also of that inseparable accident of immobility. 4. We collect not the rest and immobility of the earth from the bare expression of its being or creation, but from its being thus made; for so we may reason; What God hath made to stand fast out of, and in the water, is immovable; but God hath made the earth thus: ergo, it is immovable. 5. It were ridiculous to conclude the immobility of a ship or a mill-wheele, because a part of them was made to stand above, and another part under the water for they were not made for that end to stand, but to move: But if you had brought your Simile from the rocks of the sea, you had done well; for God made these rocks to stand partly above, and partly under the water; and he made them not to fleet with the Isles of the lake Lommond, therefore they are not movable, for God hath made them immovable; and so he hath made the earth: therefore, both the old and new Latin translations, do use the word consistere, which signifieth constanter stare.  

1 Chr. 16.30 Psal. 93.1. & 96.10.  Our third Argument is taken from these words, The world is established that it cannot be moved; which words you will have to be spoken of the world in general, or the whole fabric of heaven and earth; but you are widely mistaken; for in the Hebrew text, the word [holam] which signifieth the whole universe of heaven and earth, is not used in any of these places; but the word [Tebel] which signifieth the round globe of the earth, or the habitable world, as Pagnine hath it. So the Greek Interpreters in all these places use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth the whole bulk of the world, so called from its beauty: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, habitor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, habito.  Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always used for the habitable earth, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Synod of men dwelling upon earth, and not of Angels or stars: And when the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed the title of Oecumenicus Episcopus, he did not purpose (for all his pride) to bring the Angels and stars within the verge of his Diocese or Episcopacy. So the old Latin translation never useth the word mundus, but orbis, and orbis terrae; and junius with Tremelius, use the words orbis habitabilis, that is, the earth; so that orbis is not used for mundus in any classic Author in prose, but for the earth, or regions and dominions of the earth: as, Orbis Asiae, Europae, orbis Romanus, etc. Besides, in the 96. Psalm, the heavens and the world (as we translate it) are distiuguished in the 5. ver. God made the heavens: in the 10. ver. he established the world, or earth. We need not then to have recourse to a Synecdoche in the three original Tongues.  
But you tell us, 
Psal. 90.2.  That David (you would have said Moses) seems to make a difference between the earth and the world, when he saith, Before thou hadst form the earth and the world: he doth but seem to make a difference, but indeed he makes none; for the copulative [and] is put exepeticè, for the disjunctive [or] here, and elsewhere in Scripture: as in Exodus, He that smiteth his Father; in the Hebrew it is Abiu ve Immo, his father and his mother: and in the 17. ver. of the same Chapter, He that curseth his father and his mother, which the Evangelist St. Matthew rendereth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, father or mother: so among profane Authors the same kind of speech is used: as, Natus annos 60. & senex. Here then God made the earth and the world, that is, he made the earth, or the habitable world. 2. We may explain Moses his words here thus: God made the earth the first day, and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, earth; but it was not made habitable till the third day, and then it became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a habitable world; and so in this respect there is some difference between the earth and the world, that is, between the earth mingled with the water, and separated from it.  
Because Solomon saith, That God hath founded the earth, 
Prov. 3.19.  and established the heavens, you infer, That the places of Scripture can no more prove an immebility in the earth, then in the heavens. But here also your speak at random; for the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conen here, which Arias Montanus and the old Latin translate, stabilivit, doth properly signify, to dispose, or order; and so we translate the word Conenu, Ps. 37.23. a good man's steps are ordered by the Lord. This word also signifieth to prepare: 
2. Chro. 1.4.  as, David prepared a place for the Ark. Therefore the LXX. Interpreters explain this word here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath prepared the heavens; and junius, with Tremelius, by [statuit] he hath appointed, [or disposed] the heavens. But what though we should yield that the word may signify to establish, will it therefore follow that the heavens are immovable, because established? No: for there is the stability of nature, and natural qualites, which is opposite to mutability, and so the heavens are established; and there is the stability of rest, and so it is opposite to mobility: thus the earth is established. But, you will say, seeing the same word [establish] is spoken of both the heaven, and of the earth, how shall you know that it implieth immobility in the earth, and not in the heaven? I answer, well enough; because the Scripture, speaking of the earth, saith, It is established that it cannot be moved: but the Scripture never speaks so of the heavens, but only that they are established; not a word to show any rest or immobility in them.  
Now you urge us with those places that speak of establishing of the Moon, Ps. 89.37. of the stars, Psa. 8.3. of the heavens, Pro. 8.27. Why (say you) should these be counted sufficient expressions to take away motion from the earth? I answer, we do not count this word [establish] of itself a sufficient expression; for the original word is ambiguous, and diversely interpreted, both by the Greek and Latin; and movable things may be established; the moving Tabernacle, as well as the immovable Temple. But if I should tell you, that though the Tabernacle be fastened or established, yet it is movable, and the Temple is so established that it cannot be moved: You cannot but say, that my expression is sufficient to show the difference of stability in the one, 
Ps. 119.90.  in and the other. So speaks the Scripture in plain terms of the Earth's stability, 
Ps. 104.5.  Thou hast founded, [or established] the earth, and it shall stand: Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, that it shall not be moved for ever; so it is in the Hebrew. When a thing than is said to be so established, as that it standeth fast on a sure foundation, and cannot be moved, we must needs acknowledge, that this is a full expression of its immobility; which phrases are never spoken of the heaven, or any star; we read that the Sun stood once, but that was by miracle: of any other standing in Scripture we never read. So we read of the moving of the earth by earthquakes, but not else, Isa. 13.13. and of removing of Islands, Rev. 6.14. but never of a circular motion of the earth: for in that respect he hath made the earth that it shall not be moved. And to tell us, as you do, that the earth is established so only that it shall not be removed, is both to mince the Scripture, and the power of God; for as it is more easy to move an heavy body then to remove it, so is the power of God so much the greater, in that he hath made a body of such solidity, weight, and bigness, that it cannot be so much as moved, far less removed: and if the Scripture be so careful and punctual in setting forth God's greatness and power on so small a matter, as is the moving of a little part of the earth by earthquakes; doubtless it would not have been silent in a matter of such admiration and power, as is the moving of the whole body of the earth, if ever he had moved it, either by himself, or by his Angels, or by Nature his handmaid.  
Whereas you say, That fundavit cannot be taken properly, as if the earth, like other artificial buildings, did need any bottoms to uphold it. I answer, that fundare terram is not to settle the earth upon a foundation or bottom, but to make it the foundation of all heavy bodies; and therefore it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fundum, the bottom, and fundus, the foundation; so that nothing hath any foundation but on and by the earth. Ships floating on the water, have not any foundation, till they be tied by anchors to the earth; which the Poet knew, when he said, Anchora fundabat naves: therefore not metaphorically, but properly, doth the Scripture speak, in saying, God hath founded the earth; but whereas the heavens are said to have foundations, 2 Sam. 22.8. by heavens there are understood the mountains, and so the vulgar Latin reads it: and so in Psal. 18.8 the text hath mountains, and not heavens. Mountains are called heavens metonymically, because they are in that part of heaven which we call the air; therefore by the Poets they are called, Aërel montes; and so all the space from the superficies of the earth upward, is called heaven both in sacred and profane writings; even this upper part of the earth wherein we live is called heaven by the Poet: Sed falsa ad Coelum mittunt insomnia Manes; and the Inhabitants of the earth are called Superi by the same Poet, Quae quis apud Superos surto laetat us inani. And as hills are called heaven, so heaven is called hills by David, when he saith, I will look unto the bills, from whence cometh my salvation. By the foundation of the heavens then, is meant nothing else but the foundation of the hills. Now why you should call the earth an artificial building, I know not: it was neither built by an artificer, nor by the rules and tools of Art; your earth in the Moon may rather be called artificial, as being the work, not of God, nor Nature, but of Copernicus the master carpenter, and his workmen, of which number you are one; but you should do better, if with that wise master builder St. Paul, you would build upon the corner stone, and the foundation Christ Jesus, according to the grace of God which is given to you.  
You say well, That the pillars of heaven mentioned by Job will not prove them to be immovable; for we know that heavenly pillars are movable as the heavens are: so were these two pillars that conducted Israel through the desert, and those night meteors, called fiery pillars. 2. By heaven may be meant the Church called oftentimes heaven in Scripture, and by pillars the eminent Doctors of it: So Peter, and Paul, were called pillars, and every good man shall be made a pillar in God's Temple. 3. By the pillars of heaven may be understood the Angels, called also the powers of heaven, in the Gospel. 4. High hills may be called pillars of heaven, not because they uphold heaven, as the Poets write of Atlas, but because they are high in the air, which is called heaven, — caput inter nubila coxdunt. 5. The only true pillar by which both heaven and earth is sustained, is the power of God; which power cannot be shaken in itself, but in its effects. 6. Which way soever you take the pillars of heaven they are movable; but now it will not follow that the pillars of earth are movable also: though the pillars of the Tabernacle were movable, the pillars of the Temple were not so. Such as the earth is, such be its pillars; its self is immovable, and so are its pillars; except when that great Samson shakes them being grieved for the many wrongs that he suffers by our sins; then hills, rocks, houses, and cities tumble down, and multitudes are buried before they be dead. If then we should prove the immobility of the earth, from the stability of its pillars, we should have reason for it; but to infer that the heavens were immovable, because they have pillars, were ridiculous.  
We read (say you) of ends, sides, and corners of the earth, and yet these will not prove it to be of a long or square form. Answ. Yes it will: for the Scripture doth not describe the earth to us as a smooth and uniform globe, but as a great body consisting of divers unequal parts; as hills and valleys, and as a body broken by the irruption of many seas, as the Mediterran, etc. Consisting also of lakes and rivers, not to speak of Isles and Isthmus: hath not then the earth in this respect many ends, corners, and sides? If you did sail along the coasts of the earth, you should find it so. 2. The earth of itself is not round, for without the water it doth not make a globe. 3. Though it were perfectly round, yet it must have its longitude and latitude. 4. By the earth the Scripture oftentimes means the land of Judea, with the neighbouring countries: as, his dominion shall be from the river to the ends of the earth; which words were spoken of Solomon literally. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of God; 
Psal. 98.3.  which was not seen by the Americans in David's days. So all the world was taxed under Augustus, that is, the Roman world. 5. 
Luke 2.  Whatsoever is finite hath bounds and ends, but such is the earth; ergo, it hath ends. Therefore as the Scripture by the ends, sides, and corners of the earth, doth show that it is not round; so doth it also by the stable foundations thereof, show, that it doth not move.  
Isaiah speaketh of the planting of the heavens, which you say, 
51.6.  May as well prove them to be immovable, as that which follows in that Verse concerning the foundation of the earth. Answ. I perceive your case is desperate, for like a man that is sinking in the water, you catch hold of every thing that is next you, though it be weeds and such as cannot help you. For 1. by heavens here may be meant the Church, which is that Vine, that God hath planted with his own right hand. 2. Though this word heaven were taken in its proper signification, yet the planting of heaven is a metaphor, out of which you can conclude nothing, but must spoil your Syllogism with quatuor termini. 3. Nothing is properly planted but what hath motion in it, as trees, herbs, and such like vegetables. This word than may intimate, that there is motion in the heavens, as the word (foundation) showeth, that there is no motion in the earth; for it is very improper and dangerous for a foundation to move.  
When the Scripture saith, The earth is established: by this word you answer) is means only the keeping of it up in the air, without falling to any other place. Answ. If the earth be established only so, that it may not fall or be removed to any other place; what singular thing hath the earth, that is not in other bodies? for so are the heavens established, and every star, that they shall not be removed out of that place or station which is appointed for them; so is the sea confined within its bounds, which it cannot pass. But there is something else in the earth whereby it differs from other bodies, and wherein God's power is the more admired; to wit, That it is so established, that it cannot be removed: Nay, more than so, it cannot be stirred or wagged at all. Thus as God's glory is admired in the perpetual motion of other bodies, so is it in the perpetual immobility of this. 2. The earth (you say) is kept up from falling. I pray you whither would the earth fall, being in its own place, and sowest of all the Elements? if it fall any where, it must fall upward, and that is as proper a phrase, as if I should tell you, the heaven must mount downward: therefore, Mute have de poctore euram; never fear the falling of the earth. The Gentiles were afraid that the heavens might fall being held up by the shoulders of Hercules; therefore Artemon it seems was afraid of this, who never durst venture abroad, but under a brazen target, carried over his head. And one Phaenaces in Plutarch was sore afraid, that the moon would fall down, and therefore pitied the Ethiopians and others that were under the moon; but if he had known what you know, That there is a world in the moon, his fear had been just. It may be the great shower of stones that fell heretofore in agro Piceno, were the stones of some buildings that had fallen down in the moon. We need not fear the falling of our earth, which God hath so established, that it cannot be moved.  

job. 9.6.  You see no reason, but that we may prove the natural motion of the earth from that place in job, Who moveth or shaketh the earth out of her place; that is to say, We may prove a natural motion out of a violent, or one contrary out of another; we may prove the fire to be cold, because it is hot; or that the earth may move naturally, becanse it moves violently. The motion that job speaks of, is an earthquake extraordinary, which is a violent and temporary motion, and of some part only; and a concussion rather than a motion; the motion that you would infer from thence, is a natural, perpetual, total, regular, and a circular motion. Will you infer that because the mill-wheele is turned about violently, that therefore the whole mill is turned about naturally. I have seen a Church-tower shake when the bells have been rung; but if I should infer that the whole Church therefore may move circularly, I should fear, Nè manus auriculas imitetur mobilis albas: lest I should be thought a creature of Arcadia. And I hope you are not so simple as to think that God did ever shake the whole earth out of its place, or if he had, that therefore it may move naturally and circularly.   

CHAP. VI  

1. The earth is in the middle and centre of the world, and why.  
2. Hell is in the centre or middle of the earth.  
3. The earth lowest and basest, how.  
4. Every thing is made questionable by some.  
5. Aristotle defended.  
6. The earth is in the centre, because in the midst of the equinoctial Horizon, etc.  
7. The imagination must be conformable to the things, not these to it; the vanity of imagining circles.  
8. Astronomers reproved, and their vanity showed, chiefly about the bigness of the stars.  
9 The earth is the least circle: therefore the centre, how understood.   
HEre you will not upon any terms admit, that the earth is the centre of the Universe, because our arguments (you say) are insufficient. Answ. Our arguments may be insufficient to you, who hath an overweening conceit of yourself, and a prejudicial opinion of other men. But our arguments have been hitherto accounted sufficient, by moderate, wise, and learned men; but to your sublimated understanding they give no satisfaction; there are some men that are never content, and nothing to them is sufficient, no not God's own word: but what though our arguments were insufficient? will you therefore reject them? You may by this means reject all humane learning, for it hath not that sufficiency which perhaps you require. We know here but in part, the sufficiency of knowledge is reserved for a better life.— Si quid tamen aptius exit: But if you have more sufficient arguments for your opinion, impart them to us, and we will embrace them; if you have not, his utere mecum; content yourself with these till you know better. But you promise that you will clearly manifest the insufficiency of our arguments in this Chapter. Let us see if you will be as good as your word, which we have not yet found in you; only, large promises without performance.  Larga quidena semper Drance tibi copia fandi. 
1. We say that the earth is the centre, not the sun; because the earth is lowermost, and under the sun. To this you answer, That since the sun is so remote from the centre of our earth, it may be properly affirmed that we are under it, though that be in the centre of the world. Answ. That the sun cannot be the centre of the world, and that the earth must needs be the centre; 
c. 1. sec. 2.  we have proved against Lansbergius, for neither could there be Eclipses of the Moon, nor could we discern the medietie of heaven, nor of the Zodiac, if the earth were not the centre. And whereas the centre is the middle of the globe equally distant from all the parts of the circumference; the wise God placed the earth in the midst of this great system of the world, not only for man's sake, who being the Lord of this universe, and the most honourable of all the creatures, deserved to have the most honourable place, which is the middle: but chiefly that man with all other animal and vegetable creatures, might by an equal distance from all parts of heaven have an equal comfort and influence. For imagine there were two earths, this which is in the centre, and another out of the centre; the influence and powers of heaven must needs more equally concur and be united in this, then in that: and if the place be it which conserveses the creatures, what place more fit for conservation, then that which is in the midst of the world? Having an equal relation to all parts of heaven, and all the powers of the universe uniting themselves together in the earth, as in a small epitome. Therefore nature which is the handmaid and imitator of God, lays up the seed in the middle of the fruits, as being not only the safest part, but also because in the middle as in the centre, all the powers of the plant meet together in the forming of the seed, wherein it doth perpetuate itself. How unconvenient and unhealthy were man's habitation, if it were nearer the heaven than it is? for the air would be too pure and unproportionable to our gross bodies, for they that travel overhigh hills find their bodies much distempered. Acosta witnesseth, that they who travel over the high hills of Peru, fall into vomiting, & become desperately sick, and many lose their lives, by reason of the subtlety & pureness of the air. But your words would be a little corrected; For since the sun (you say) is so remote from the centre of the earth, we are under it. Indeed we are under it, in that it is above us; but not for that it is remote from us or from the earth. Under and above are relative terms, so are nearness & remoteness.  
2. You slight the constant and perpetual doctrine of the Church from the beginning, concerning the site of hell, which is in the centre or bowels of the earth; and you call it an uncertainty; but so you may call any doctrine in Scripture, for where will you have hell to be, but either in heaven or in the earth? These are the two integral parts of this universe; in heaven I hope you will not place it, except you will have it to be in the moon. But if there be any hell there, it is for the wicked of that world: as for the wicked of this world, they are not said to ascend to hell in the moon, but to descend to hell in the earth, as Core and his fellows. Therefore it is called a lake, burning with fire and brimstone; Abyssus, 
Apol. c. 47.  a deep gulf; Gehenna, the valley of Hinnon. By Tertullian, Thesaurus subterraneus ignis arcant, The treasure of hid fire under ground. 
Philip. 2.  The Apostle speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that bow to Christ under the earth. Horrende voragines, fearful gulfs they are, 
L. 7. Inslie. c. 7.  saith Lactantius. And that which you call uncertainty, is called certa fides, a sure faith, an undeniable truth by Prudentius: Certa fides rabidos sub terra nocte caminos, etc. And as this hath been the constant opinion of the Church, 
De hamartigenia.  as may be seen both in the Greek and Latin Fathers, so hath it been believed by the Gentiles, as I could instance out of Greek and Latin Poets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tartarus, Phlegerbon, Cocytus, Styx, Acheron: which they show to be in the centre or bowels of the earth; therefore I hope you are none of those that juvenal speaks of, who would not believe there was any hell under ground: 
Esse aliquos manes, & subterranea regna, etc. 
satire. 2.   
Nec pueri credunt.—  For whosoever denied hell to be below, denied that there was any such place at all: as, Pythagoras, Epicurus, Lucretius, Tully, Seneca, Lucian, Pliny, and some others; to whom I may add the Gnostickes, who held there was no other hell, but this world, whom Irenaeus resutes. 
Irenaeus l. 5. c. 31.  2. As hell must needs be in the earth below, so must heaven the place of the blessed, be above all these visible heavens; which is called, The third heaven, and the heaven of heavens. Therefore, it is no uncertainty (as you say) that it is concentrical to the stars: for if it be not, tell us where you will have it? in the moon, or in the Elysian fields, or in Mahomet's paradise? I wish you would think the dictates of God's word to be more certain than your groundless fancies, and that the Scripture is a more stable foundation to build upon, than the Moon. 3. It is not an uncertainty that places must be as far distant in situation as in use: Therefore Abraham saith, That there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great gulf, or gap between Lazarus and Dives. So David distinguished between the height of heaven, 
Psal. 139.  and the deep of hell; so doth Amos, and Esay: 
Amos 9  and it's fitting that heaven and hell, 
Esay. 14,13, 14,15.  the saints and the wicked, the joys of the one, and torments of the other, be as remote as may be; which the Poet knew: 
— Tartarus ipse,  
Bis patet in praeceps tantum, tenditque sub umbras, 
An. 6.   
Quantus ad aethereum coeli suspectus Olympum.   
3. These things also you will have to be uncertain. 1. That bodies must be as far distant in place as in nobility. 2. That the earth is of a base matter than other Planets. 3. That the centre is the worst place. Answ. These are not uncertainties to men that have sense and reason; for sense tells us, that the grosser simple bodies are, the lower place have they in this Universe: the heaven being a quintessence and of the purest matter, is uppermost; next is the fire, than the air, than the water, and lowest of all, the earth, as being the grossest; and reason tells us, that God is the God of order; and what a disordered world should we have, if gross and heavy bodies were uppermost, the light and purest bodies beneath? We see in our own bodies, that the grosser the spirits are, the lower they are: the animal having their residence in the head, the vital in the heart, the natural in the liver. 2. Nor is it uncertain that the earth is of a base matter than the Planets; the obscurity and dulness of the one; the beauty, light, and swiftness of the other, do show what odds there is in the matter. How are all Divines deceived who put men in mind of the base materials of their body; and teach that God made men of the basest element to humble him? Animalium superbissimi origo vilissima; 
Pliny.  and I think you are Planetstruck, or have a planeticall head, who think the earth to be a Planet. 3. That the centre is the worst place, is not held by us; for though we say the earth to be the ignoblest and basest element, in respect of its matter, and therefore the lowest; yet as it is the centre and habitation of the noblest creature, it is placed in the middle, as being the noblest place.  
4. Our second argument is grounded (you say) upon two foolish foundations. 1. That the whole frame of nature moves round, excepting only the earth. 2. That the whole earth is heavy, and more unfit for motion then the Planets: These you reject, because they are (you say) the thing in question. Answ. You are doubtless that third Cato that fell from heaven; or octavus Sapientum. Our foundations of the earth's stability, and gravity, are foolishness with you; so was the Gospel's foolishness to the Gentiles; but you do well to observe Solomon's rule: 
Prov. 26. 4.  Answer not a fool according to his folly; which is the reason that you answer not at all to these foolish foundations of ours; but only with this; they are the thing in question. But if you question the stability and gravity of the earth, is not your question as foolish as our foundation? but seeing you may question every thing, every thing may be a foolish answer, or position to you. And what do you think of the Scripture when it saith; The earth standeth fast, and the stars move? doth the Scripture in this speak foolishly? Surely we are content to prefer the foolishness of Scripture to the wisdom of your scribbling; because such conceited wisdom is but foolishness with God. What foundation either in Divinity or Philosophy, what Article of the Creed hath not been questioned? shall they be counted foolish foundations, or unfit to discuss controversies, because they have been questioned by pernicious Heretics? If you were as wise a man as you pretend yourself to be, you should have with solid arguments refeled our foundations, which are so fully demonstrated by so many Philosophers, and then you should have shot your fool's bolt. The truth of these foundations I have showed already, to which you answer nothing, 
Contra Lansberg.  therefore here I will not actum agere.  
5. Our third Argument is, That our earth, must be in the centre, because it is in the lowest place, or midst of the world; this Aristotle proves by the descending of all heavy to the centre, and the ascending of light bodies from it: But you reject Aristotle as being a master of Syllogisms, and being deceived whilst be supposeth that, which he pretends to prove. But indeed you are much deceived yourself, whilst you reject this master of Syllogisms, who doth not suppose what he pretends to prove, but substantially proves, what you think he supposeth. He saith the earth is the centre, and thus syllogistically out of him it is proved; To what place heavy bodies descend, that place is the centre; But to the earth, heavy bodies descend; ergo, the earth is the centre. You see now that this master of Syllogisms doth not suppose that which he brings unto the conclusion, but proves the earth to be the centre by a medium, which you cannot answer: so that being put to your shifts, you know not how to elude the force of this and other arguments; but by falling to your art of multiplying centres and circumferences, which is not difficult to you, that can multiply worlds. And because cause you cannot be so impudent as to deny the ascending of light bodies; you say, That they ascend to some circumference which we cannot reasonably affirm to be concentrical with that of the world. But I would know of you, how you can reasonably affirm that circle to be eccentrical, which we sensibly perceive to be concentrical to the world? If neither you nor we can perceive that circumference to which light bodies ascend eccentrical to the world, what reason have you to affirm it? or how do you prove what you affirm? May you not as well tell us, that there are more suns than this one which we see? For you will say that we cannot reasonably affirm there is but one sun. But you say, We cannot prove the descent of heavy bodies to the centre, nor the ascent of light bodies to the circumference of the world; because all our experience in this kind, extends but to things that are on earth, or in the air above it. I pray you good Sir, how far doth your experience reach beyond ours, that you should deny this our assertion? Have you been in the moon, and observed that which we cannot find here below? We see quantum acie possunt oculi servare, as far as our eyes will give us leave; to wit, light bodies mounting from the centre towards the circumference; do you see otherwise? I know you do not, and cannot though you had as many eyes as Argus: therefore keep your wild opinions to yourself, for so long as you can neither by sense nor reason persuade us, your bare word will be too weak an argument to work upon our belief. You conclude, That it were a senseless thing, from our experience of so little a part, to pronounce any thing infallibly concerning the situation of the whole. I grant our experience to be little, but yours is less, or none at all: a little is better than none, and we may more boldly infer, that there is but one centre, and one circumference; (because all light things ascend to one circumference, and all heavy things descend to one centre) than you can infer two centres, and two circumferences; whereas you never knew any light thing ascend, or heavy thing descend to any other circumference and centre, then to these which we maintain: are not you therefore much more senseless than we? for we follow the direction both of our sense and reason; so do not you.  
6. Our Astonomicall reasons you refel as wisely as you have done the rest: for you grant us, That the earth is in the midst of the equinoctial, horizon, and other circles; but you deny that from hence can be concluded that it is in the centre of the world. It seems then that the equinoctial, etc. are not concentrical to the world, and that the earth may be in the midst of the horizon and equator, though never so much distant from the centre; and what is this but to make another world? consisting of another heaven and earth? For if this earth be under any other equinoctial besides that of the primum mobile, or any other horizon, it cannot have the heaven equally on all sides of it, and so cannot be in the lowest place which is the centre, though it be the heaviest body; and so against its nature must be higher than that body which is in the centre. This is to take away that order which God hath placed in the creatures, to multiply worlds, and to bring in a strange confusion. And what a wise reason do you give us why the earth would remain in the midst of these circles, that is, the equinoctial, etc. though distant from the centre; because it is the eye that imagines them to be described about it? So then the earth doth not go out of the midst of these circles, because the eye imagines them, etc. You have a strange fascinating eye, that can keep the earth within its circles; if you should wink; or if you lose your eyes with your great patron ` Democritus, would not the earth give you the slip and fall out of your circles into the centre of the world? Besides, I had thought that the action of the eye had been to see, not to imagine. As you have made a confused Chaos in the great world, so you do in the little world too, confounding the inward and outward senses, the sight and the imagination: I think you were begot of Chaos and caligo. Again, what a reaching eye have you, that can describe circles about the earth? If you had spoken of an artificial Globe, you had said something; but if your eye were as big as that of Polyphemus, Argolici clypei, aut Phoebaeae lampadis instar, yet you could not describe with your eye a circle about the earth: your imagination may describe it, but not your eye: your imagination cannot be the cause why the earth remains within its circles; your imagination must be conformable to the reality of things, and not they to your imagination: for though you imagine that there is a world in the moon, that the earth moves, etc. yet there is no such thing, because the earth is in the centre: we imagine it to be so, and believe it also; but our imagination or belief do not make it to be so; therefore, our collection is not weak when we infer that the earth is in the centre, because it is in the midst of these circles which are concentrical to the world; or because the parts and degrees of the earth do answer in proportion to the parts and degrees of heaven, which they could not well do if the earth were eccentrical.  
7. Now I think you go about to conjure us with your figures, circles, and characters, and to him us in with a circle made by your pen, as Popilius the Roman Legate did enclose King Antiochius within a circle made with his rod: you remove the earth from one centre to another, with more facility, than Archimedes could have done with his engine: you transfer the stars from one circle to another at your pleasure; you can do I think as she in the Poet, Sistere aquam fluviis & vertere sidera ritro; and all this stir is to inform us, that though the earth be never so far distant from the centre of the world; yet the parts and degrees of your imaginary sphere about it will be always proportionable to the parts and degrees of the earth. And what of all this? You may imagine what spheres you will, and in your imagination place the earth as you will, yet the earth standeth fast for ever in this great fabric of the world as the centre, though in your head it move to and fro. You may place the earth upon the top of the primum mobile, and imagine a sphere about it, with proportionable degrees, and parts to those of the earth; we may retort these words upon the sun your centre, that though it be never so far distant from the centre of the world, yet the parts of an imaginary sphere about it will be proportionable to the parts of the sun: but though in your imaginary circle there be a proportion of parts and degrees to the earth removed from the centre, I would know if the earth therefore is removed from the centre: Or if you should remove the earth ten or twenty degrees nearer the pole Arctic, or to the Zenith of the Meridian from the centre; is there, or can there be any proportion between the two hemispheres? Will not the one be so much the less, by how much the other is enlarged? Or can the true sphere of heaven be divided equally into twelve parts, or signs, so that six be always above the earth, and six below? Or can the stars in both hemispheres appear of the same bigness? Doubtless though you make a proportion in your imaginary sphere, to your imaginary earth, in your imaginary centre; yet there can be no proportion between the real sphere of heaven, and the real earth, which is the real centre of the world: if it should be removed from its place where it is, your imaginations then are but the images, fancies, and toys of your head, without ground or solidity; therefore they are neither so strong, nor we so weak, as that they should make any impression upon our belief, as the mother's imagination doth upon the tender Embryo in her womb.  
When you are pressed with the manifest absurdities and inconveniences which arise from removing of the earth from the centre of the universe, you have no other way to escape, but like a hedgehog, to shrink back into your imaginary globe or circle: for you grant that the earth must needs be placed both in the axis and aequator, but that must be in the centre of the sphere which you imagine about it, and not in the midst of this universe. But why must the earth be removed from being the centre of the universe, which by sense, reason, daily experience, and continual observation of Astronomers, is known to be the centre? Why I say must it be removed from its own real circle, to your imaginary circle? What inconvenience will follow in the world, if it remain the centre of the universe? Or wherein shall the world be bettered, if it be removed to your supposed circle? Nay, what absurdities will not follow upon this removal, which you will never be able to avoid for all your starting hole? for whereas you say, That though the earth were as far distant from the centre, as we conceive the sun to be, yet it may be still situated in the very concourse of the axis and aequator. Truly, though we should conceive it to be so far distant, yet it would not be still in the concourse of these two lines; for if either the sun or the earth were there still, there would be a perpetual equinox through the world, neither would there ever be any increase or decrease of days and nights.  
Now you present unto us a Scenography or platform of your imaginary world, in which, like another Joshua, you make the sun to stand still, so that here is a perpetual solstice; if that American (who would not acknowledge the sun for a god, because it never rested) had seen your sun, or had known of him what you know, he would have recanted his opinion. What fools were the Poets to bestow so rich a chariot, and four prancing horses on the sun, who could make no use of them? they should have bestowed this gift upon the earth, for she it is that undertakes all the toil, and rejoiceth as a Giant to run her course. Ovid's second book of Metamorphosis must be mended, and Phaeton must prefer his petition to the Earth his mother, and not to the Sun his father; except perhaps in those days the Sun did travel about the Earth, but now being weary to go about so often, and to take such pains for her thankless inhabitants, hath given over this toil, and hath left the earth to shift for herself and children. The reason why you present this figure to us, is to let us see, That though the sun be in the centre, and the earth in the sun's orb, yet that there can be no Eclipse, but when the sun and moon are diametrically opposite. But here your opinion is diametrically opposite to the truth, for the line from the centre to the circumference, is but a semidiameter; and indeed the sun is distant from the moon in your figure, nothing near a semidiameter, and yet your moon is eclipsed. But what a misshapen world have you made us? in which you have placed the sun lowermost, and the earth above the sun, and hath made such a vast circuit for the earth, and such a little circle for the moon. You told us afore, that the earth draws about the moon, but in your figure it cannot be so; for you have made the earth to compass the sun round; but the moon to fetch a compass of her own aside off from the sun: so that whereas you have placed the earth in Aries, she is between the sun and the moon, but when she comes about to Libra the opposite sign, than the sun will be between the moon and her. This is indeed a strange world, and doubtless none of Gods making; I wish I were out of it, for I am weary and sorry to spend time in refuting of such toys.  
You do well to confess the uncertainty of finding out the exact distance of the firmament, which is but conjectural according to men's fancies, and so indeed are the motions, and magnitudes, and number, and order of the spheres, and stars; about which Astronomers have so many digladiations and oppositions, which were tedious but to name. From their conjectures and uncertainties have proceeded such a number of conjuring words: as, Trepidations, Retrogradations, Excentricities, concentricities, Epicyles, Accessions, Recessions, and I cannot tell what; so that as Cato said of soothsayers, I may say of Astronomers, It is a wonder that they do not laugh at one another. The best of them all are but Cuckoe va in terris animae, & coelestium inanes: They gaze and stare on the stars, and dispute, and assever with great boldness, that each star is of such and such a bigness and altitude, and that they move thus and thus; and that there be so many of each magnitude: and so expert they are, and quicksighted in these things that are so remote, and yet cannot perceive the things that be hard at hand: therefore Anaximines gazing on the stars, fell in the ditch, and was checked by his maid for his curiosity in things beyond his reach, and neglecting that which most concerned him. Saint Ambrose complained of the Astronomers of his time, that they were busy in measuring of the heaven, in numbering of the stars, but careless of their salvation; that was indeed, Relinquers causans salutis, error is quaerere. Even like the Pharisees whom Christ reproves, That they could discern the face of the sky, and of the earth, but could not discern the time. 
Luke 12.56  Saint Austin prefers that man who is conscious of his own infirmities, to him that is curious in the speculation and serutiny of the stars: Laudabilior est animus cui nota est infirmitas sua, etc. Even in the opinion of Socrates, 
L. 4. De trin. In Prooem. in Xenoph.  it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be mad, to inquire curiously into these celestial things, which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be found outby us; Furiosi dementesque sunt judicandi, they are furious and mad men, etc. saith Lactantius. 
L. 3. c.c. De fals. sapiens.  I will not condemn the good uses that may be made of Astronomy in calculation of times, observation of seasons, prediction of eclipses, and such things as have their immediate dependence from the opposition and conjunction of stars; and the uses that may be made of it in physic, and in the camp: but that which I reprove, is the vain curiosity of men, who cannot be content to know with sobriety things revealed, must needs with Phaeton and Icarns meddle with these heavenly bodies, in vain and curious speculations; the knowledge whereof in this life is denied us, as being a part of Adam's punishment for his affected knowledge, and being a means for us to have recourse to Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, for their needless pains, and presumptuous curiosity, God doth punish them with multitudes of contradictory opinions. Who can sufficiently laugh to hear their jars and dissensions, 
Serns, 1. De side.  saith Theodoret? for their difference is not about the measuring of an acre of ground, but of the whole world. Now (saith the same Father) who can measure the whole earth! 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself asketh job, 
job 38.5.  Who is it that hath laid the measures of the earth, and who hath stretched the line upon it? and he asketh him, whether he hath perceived the breadth of the earth, Ver. 18. intimating hereby, the impossibility thereof, and showing what difference there is between God's knowledge and man's: saith Saint chrysostom on that place; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For God (saith the same Father) will let job see how much man is inferior to him, in that not only he cannot do the works that God hath done, but also that he hath not the knowledge of them. As it was Gods proper work to make the earth, so it is proper to him alone to know the measure of it: if then we know not the earth's measure which is but a point in comparison of heaven, what madness is it to measure the heavens, or to define the motions, situations, altitude, density, or other accidents of them unknown to us? This is, coelum ipsum petere stulritia. Knowest thou the ordinances, (or as some translations have it) the conversions of heaven? 
Verse 22.  saith God to job. The Psalmist tells us, that it is only he that numbereth the stars, and calleth them all by their names. He bids Abraham tell the stars if he could, showing that indeed he could not.  
8. From hence appears the vanity of your side, who think, That the stars would seem no bigger to us than they now are, though our earth were nearer to them by 2000000. German miles, which is granted to be the diameter of that or be wherein the earth is supposed to move. I pray how come you to know this? by relation, or revelation, or reason, or experience? or have you dreamt it? Qui amant ipsi sibi somnia singunt. Or do you know it by the help of a perspective? You tell us, that the better the perspective is, the lesser it makes the stars to appear; if my spectacles were of that quality, I could fling them away, and trust to my own eyes: I wish you could tell us, how many German miles would suffice to find out the true bigness of the stars; or in how many years will the bodies of the Saints be in ascending to heaven; you must pardon us if we believe not what you say, such an infinite disproportion do you make both between the bigness and distance of our earth and the fixed stars. And though we will not think elephants and whales to be fictions and chimaeras, because they are bigger than mice; yet if you should tell us of a whale that were as big as the I'll of Saint Laurence, or of great Britain; and of an elephant that were able to overturn the Alps with his trunk; or of a Camel that had a bunch on his back as high as the cape or top of Tenarisf, we would laugh sooner than believe such monstrous absurdities. And yet the disproportion of these supposed creatures to mice is nothing, to that of the earth and fixed stars. And the like credit do we give to that incredible celerity of the eighth sphere, of which Astronomers write, and to the rest of their conceits concerning the reaching of the sun's orb to the pole star; and that the circle of the pole star is above four times bigger than the orb of the sun; and that the semidiameter of the earth, makes little or no difference in the appearance of the sun; as if the observations from the centre and surface, were of the same exactness. Whereas, never any man hath been in the centre to know this, neither do the Astronomers agree amongst themselves about the compass and diameter of the Earth; Aristotle, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Alphragan, Fernelius, and the later Professors of that faculty, being all of different opinions; so that many Astronomical principles are grounded upon mere uncertainties.  
2. We do not ground our argument (as you say) upon this supposition, That every body must necessarily be of an equal extension to that distance from whence there doth not appear any sensible difference in its quantity, as you instance in a Bird, and a Tree: as that the Tree should be accounted by us forty paces thick because we approaching nearer to it by forty paces, do not find any sensible difference. This is a crotchet hammered in your own head, but never supposed by us.  
3. We grant with you, That it is presumption to conclude that to be superfluous, whose use we understand not; but yet we must needs say, That what is not useful at all, is superfluous; as that immense and stupendious bigness, and incredible distance of some stars, seeing they were made for the use of man only; (for to what other end should they be made?) whereas if they had been nearer and lesser, they might have been more effectual: Therefore we cannot believe you that they are of that bigness and distance you speak of. And as for other inhabitants, beside those that are upon this earth, by whom (as you say) these lesser stars may be discerned, I have nothing now to say to them; I think you mean your men in the Moon, of whom perhaps I will speak hereafter: and as for these small stars, which you say are lately discovered; I grant that they were made for man's use, though they be scarce discernible; for their influence may be great though their light be small: and we have by them occasion to see how one star differeth from another star in glory, and we may admire God's greatness in the least, aswell as in the biggest; therefore he hath made Flies aswell as Eagles, and Mice aswell as Elephants.  
9 You chase as if you had been slung with nettles at an argument of mine against Lansbergius, who held, as you do, that the Sun was the centre: my argument is this; That which is least in a circle ought to be the centre of it; but the earth is far less than the Sun, and the terrestrial Equinoctial (secundum te) according to your own words, is the least of all the circles, etc. This (you say) is so simple, that every fresh man would laugh at it, and it would make one suspect, that he who should urge such an argument, did scarce understand any thing in Astronomy. Answ. 1. For any great skill that either you or I have in Astronomy, we may shake hands: Astronomy is not my profession, yet so much I have as is convenient for a Divine, and enough to discover your vain and ridiculous conceits; and I have not the less because of your suspicion: I understand so much as that I dare say there be many absurd and foolish fancies taught by Astronomers, though the science itself be useful in many things. 2. If you, or your fresh men laugh at this argument, you will show that you have little salt in you, especially that salt whereof the Apostle speaks. 3. You showed more malice than knowledge, more ill-will than skill, in repeating my argument; for you left out (secundum te) that is, according to your own words; which showeth that these were the words of Lansbergius, not mine; to wit, The terrestrial Equinoctial is the least of all circles: So that you cunningly would derive the ignorance and simplicity of your Champion upon me, whereas I spoke in his own terms. 4. I did not speak of the earth, as it had relation to the Moon, or Mercury, but in reference to the Sun; for I say that the earth is lesser than the Sun, and therefore fitter to be the centre than the Sun, as Lansbergius would have it. 5. There is no certainty amongst Astronomers, whether the Earth, Moon, or Mercury, be the least sphere. 6. I said, minimum in circulo, not circuli; that which is least within the circle, not that which is the least part of the circle. The Moon, and the rest of the Planets, are the thicker parts of the spheres, so is not the Earth, it is no part at all of any sphere, but it is within the spheres; therefore the Earth, not the Moon, is fittest to be the centre. Thus you have made me say more now, than I did before. You had no reason then to put so much vinegar in your ink; but you are a nameless Moon-man wrapped in a cloud: Cernere ne quis te, ne quis contingere possit. But be not so high conceited of yourself; though your habitation be in the Moon, yet learn humility; Tecum habita, & noris quam 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 Stars have not their fight because the Sun is in the centre, nor hath the Sun less light being out of it.  
2. Why the Earth is in the centre.  
3. The Sun is not the centre, because the Planets move about him.  
4. The centre is not the most excellent place, neither are the best things next it or in it.  
5. There is an harmony amongst the Stars, though the Sun be not in the centre.   
IN this Proposition you say, That the Sun may be the centre; and you tell us of deformities, wheels, and screws, as if Nature in framing of the world had been put to such hard shifts by ptolemy's and Tycho's Hypothesis: But indeed the wheels, and screws 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 stars, is contracted in the centre, which can only be by placing the Sun there: so than it seems by you, that if the Sun were not in the centre, the light of the stars could not be so eminently contained and contracted in the Sun: either you must mean that the stars could not receive so much light as they do from the Sun, or else that the Sun could not have in himself so much light as he hath, if he were not in the centre: But both these are frivolous whimsies; for neither hath any star its light, because the Sun is in the centre, (as you would have) nor would the Sun lose any of his light, if he were out of the centre, no more than a candle can lose its light, though it be not placed in the midst of the room. Now, whether the light of the stars be all one with that of the Sun, or any parcel of it, is not yet fully resolved. In your next Edition tell us more plainly what you mean by the light in the stars contracted in the centre, and we 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 he 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 centre. I answer, that it will rather prove the Earth to be in the centre 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 centre 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 do 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 Saturn is cold; and the Sun's heat comes by reflection, which cannot be in the stars.  
3. You say, That the Planets move about the centre of the world, and that I grant you; but Saturn, 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 Syllogisms, you had not framed such a lame Syllogism as this; for thus it runs in briefer terms; some Planets move about the centre of the world, some Planets move about the Sun; ergo, the Sun is the centre of the world. Besides, that it consists all of particulars, the conclusion is falsely inferred against the laws of the third figure; for it should be form in the first figure thus: What moves about the Sun, moves about the centre of the world: the Planets move about the Sun, ergo, they move about the centre of the world; and all this I grant you, that the Planets move about the earth which is the centre: now than I hope you will not say that the Sun is the centre of the world, because the Planets move about him; no more than jericho was the centre 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 allege a cause fit to be laughed at; for is the vicinity of one star to another, the cause of its revolution about that star? because the mill-wheele is not far distant from the miller, doth it therefore go about the miller?  
5. The reason which you allege from Pythagoras is also weak, for though the sun in respect of his light were the most excellent body, and the centre 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 centre or in it, but farthest from it: as man is placed in the superficies or circumference of the earth, and not in the centre of it the heart is not in the midst of the body; if the middle or centre were always the sittest place for a luminous body, God would have commanded Moses to set the candlestick with the lamps in the midst of the tabernacle, and not in the side of it: our eyes had been placed in our navels, not in our heads. And albeit Plato say, that the soul of the world resides in the innermost place of it, yet I hope you do not by this understand the sun; and you did well to allege Macrobius against yourself, in comparing the sun in the world, to the heart in a living creature; for as the heart is not in the centre of the body, neither is the sun in the centre of the world. But you give us a profound reason why in living creatures the chiefest part is not always placed in the midst, because they are not of an orbicular form as the world is; than it seems that the outward figure is the cause why the best part is not placed in the midst. What think you of a Hedge hog when he wraps himself up in his prickles as round as a bowl, is the best part than more in the middle of his body than it was before? Or hath the earth which is of a round form better things in the centre then in the superficies? What difference is there between the middle and outside of a round stone? Again, you say, the centre 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 centre 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 than 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 sun to be in the centre (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 do not obtrude your conceits on us as oracles, but will keep them to yourself; if you continue to divulge them, we will conceit that your conceits are but idle fancies, if you cannot set them forth with better proofs then as yet you have done. We are confident the earth is in the centre, and do conceive that there is an excellent harmony in the Planets, though the sun be not in the centre; and therefore to say that the harmony would be disturbed if the sun were amongst the planets, you wrong both Pythagoras your master, whose conceit of the musical harmony in heaven was grounded on the motion of the Planets; and injurious to Apollo himself the author of musical harmony, and the continual 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 sun.  
4. How the eye can be deceived in the motion of a lucid body.  
5. The natural motion of the foundation cannot keep buildings from falling.  
6. The heaven's sitter for motion then the earth.  
7. Rugged bodies not fittest for motion.  
8. The sight hindered by the motion of the subject, medium, and object.  
9 One simple body hath but one natural motion, proved.  
10. Essential properties more chiefly in the whole then in the parts, the earth is heavy in its own place how, bigness how a hindrance to motion, of the earth's ineptitude to a swift motion.  
11. The magnetical 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 sun, censured.  
15. That the earth turns about the moon is ridiculous.  
16. Some observations to prove that the earth turns 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 descended. 

1. That the earth's motion would make it hot.  
2. The air purer.  
3. A sound.  
4. Heaven hath all things sit for motion.  
5. Of similar parts and the whole.  
6. The sun is the heart of the world.  
7. It works by motion.  
8. The earth is the firm foundation.  
9 The authority of Divines; the heaven called AEther; the earth hath not two distinct motions.     
THe chief business of this Chapter (you say) is to descend the earth's diurnal motion. Indeed you are too busy; Non amo nimium diligentes: neither is this business of yours anything else then idleness, otiosi negotium. And because you cannot answer our objections, you are as busy here as you can be to illude them, and to delude the world with your great brags & Rhodomontadoes; but let us see with what dexterity you dissipate the strength of our arguments; you do as Cacus did to Hercules, Cacus being too weak to resist that invincible champion, laboured to escape his hands by darkening the cave, and Hercules his eyes with smoke and ashes which he belched out against him: the like stratagem you use with intricate words and smoky 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 terms 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 itself to rest immovable, 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 appear less than they are; or in respect of the agitation of the object, so a square thing seems round being swiftly turned about. 2. In respect of the indisposition of the medium, and so the Planets rising and falling seem biggest, the air being thickened. 3. In respect of the organ, when the eye, optic nerves, or visive spirits are disturbed, vitiated, indisposed, or agitated, and so things that rest seem 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 swiftness? 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 men's 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 do perceive the sun to move? What? will you make God so defective in his work of man's body, as to give him such eyes which shall continually delude him; neither shall they ever apprehend their object, though never so near; 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 near us? This is the curse of the Sodomites, who could not see Lot's door 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 feel the true motion of the ship, as well as we see, or rather seem to see the apparent motion of the shore. When I have been in a ship, I have observed by looking on the mast how swiftly it is moved from the shore; but being on the shore, and looking upon trees, I see no other motion in them then what is caused by the wind. When I am in a ship, I perceive the motion of the other ship that saileth by me, though the motion of both be equal and uniform: 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 seem to move which doth not move, yet it doth not make the thing seem 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 itself moved apparently; therefore, though I should yield that the earth did move, yet that motion could not make me think that the sun did not move really, no more than the motion of the ship can hinder me from discerning the true motion of a horse or wheel 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, than 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. Again, it would be considered, whether the natural 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 seem to move, therefore the moving of the earth makes the sun seem to move.  
2. Your words seem 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 itself to rest immovable. 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 natural secrets, you should have said, That it is no judge of natural secrets; for the visible works of nature are no secrets; nature's 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 appear so to us, yet this consequence will not hold, the earth doth move, because it appears to move: for an object that is immovable may seem to move, because the eye is moved; but when we see a great body near us, (to stand still, we justly infer 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 seem to move: as for the apparent bigness of the sun and moon, I have already told you a reason, but you have not, nor can you tell me a reason for the apparent rest of the earth.  

L. 1. sec. 1. c. 1.  2. I objected, That if the motions of the heavens be only apparent, that then the motion of the clouds would be so too: your answer is, That I might as well infer, 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 kind: the eye is mistaken in the bigness of one star, and so it is in the bigness 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; 
L. 1. sec. 1. c. 1.  Name 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 we 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 speak of Anaxagoras his opinion concerning the blackness of the snow, is fit for yourself: for to hold the snow to be black, and the earth to move, are both alike absurd and ridiculous; but this opinion is more dangerous than that. As for your conceit of the common sense, conceiving the eye to be immovable, I have said already that it is false, and indeed the opinion of one that seems to want common sense; and as boldly without proof do you affirm, that the clouds, though they seem not to move, are carried about with our earth by a swift revolution; for so you make the inferior bodies against that order that God hath placed in the world, to move the superior: as if you should say, The foot originally moves the head, and not the head the foot. But this is no hindrance (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 wind, and so I judge aright of the motion of the sun; but when I see the sun and a cloud moving from East to West, and you should tell me that the sun 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 tell 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 similes of a man walking in the ship, and of the moving of the oars, they will not hold: for it is true, that though the banks seem to move, yet it will not follow that my friend doth but seem to walk, or the oars seem to move, when as they move truly; the reason is, because the motion of the ship is no hindrance to the sight of that motion of my friend, or of the oars, being so near to my eye; although that same motion of the ship is a hindrance both to the sight of the earth's 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 seem to me a bush moving with the trees and banks; even so the motion of the earth may as well delude my eye in the moving of the clouds, as of the sun.  
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 deceit 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 sun as you take it, is no ways 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 itself, objectum quo, or the cause that bodies are discernible by the eye: now what probability is there, that the eyes which were made to look upon these lucid bodies, should be still deluded, or can be, seeing their motion is rather the object of the eye, than 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 means 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 natural, and therefore regular, and tending to conservation. Answ. Earthquakes are natural motions, which neither are regular, nor tend to conservation: the motion of winds, hail, rain, thunder, etc. are natural, and yet do much hurt; therefore, the naturality of the earth's motion cannot preserve our buildings from falling. But you say, If a glass of beer may stand firmly in a ship, moving swiftly, much less will the natural and equal motion of the earth cause any danger in our buildings. Answ. There is no proportion between a glass 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 plain superficies of the water, being carried by the wind or tide: the earth moves circularly and with an incredible celerity, as your side say. You should compare the earth's motion, to the motion of a wheel or great globe, and then set your glass of beer upon it whilst it is whirling about: but you need not fear the fall of your high buildings though the heaven whirl about, except you mean to build castles in the air, or to raise your house as high as the tower of Babel; I think your buildings in the moon 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, etc. I doubt me you are troubled with a hypochondriacke melancholy, or with the spirit of blind 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 natural to it, yet it was not natural to towns and buildings, for these are artificial: To this you answer not but by your interjection of laughter, which is a very easy way to solve arguments, and so fools will prove the best disputants. I hope you do not think that towns and buildings are natural bodies, or that the motion of the earth is natural to them; and if you think that artificial things are privileged from falling, by the natural motion of a natural foundation, you speak against reason and experience; for a ship is not privileged from sinking, because the foundation on which it is carried moves naturally; and high buildings must needs be weakened by motion, let it be never so equal and regular; he that thinks otherwise deserves to be laughed at. I have read of moving Islands, but without buildings, you were best go build there.  
6. I said, that the air could never be quiet about us, but that there would be a continual 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 air is carried along with the same motion of the earth: But this will not help you, for the carrying of the air about with the earth, cannot hinder the forcible motion of it, nor can we be so senseless as not to feel it. Doth not the whirling about of a great wheel move the air about it? and if you stood by, you should feel 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, etc. much more may our earth which is a rugged body be able to turn the air next to it. You should rather say, If the earth which is but a small, dull, low, and heavy body, can carry the air about with it, much more may the heavens do this, which are vast, agile, active, and high bodies: for we find that the superior bodies are more apt to work upon, and to move the inferior, then to be moved by the inferior: as the inferior parts of the little world of man's body are moved by the head, so it is in the great world. Again, the heavens in respect of their agility, activity, subtlety, come nearer to the nature of spirits, than the earth, which is a dull, heavy, lumpish body, not apt to be moved, much less to move. Is it the earth that moves the air, or the air that moves the earth in earthquakes? Is it the earthy and heavy part of man's body that moves these aereal substances in the nerves, which we call animal spirits? Or are not these rather the movers of our gross bodies? Your argument is just such another as this; if the wind or air be able to move about the weathercock, 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 smother the bowl is, the swifter it runneth; why did David choose five smooth stones to sling, if rugged ones were apt 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 apt for motion; she will presently entertain this new Philosophy with your interjection, ha ha he: so when you say that a rugged body carrieth more air with it then a smooth; you meant perhaps the bodies of Satyrs, or of the wild Irish in their rugs. But now distrusting your rugged conceit, you fly to the earth's magnetical virtue, whereby it can make all things near unto it, to observe the same revolution: this is a far fetched shift, and a strange property of the magnes; did you ever know a loadstone move any thing except iron or steel, or to move itself circularly, and to make all things near to it, to observe the same revolution; that these conceits are, Non sani hominis, non sanus juret Orestes.  
7. I said, 
L. 1. Sec. 1. c. 5  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 several motions, but when the subject, medium, and object, are all carried with the same equal motion, there is no impediment in the act of sieing. But this is a mere shift of yours; for though the motion be equal in all, yet the sight will be hindered. Sat down in a turning chair, or on a turning table, take a book in your hand, and spectacles on your nose, and let me turn you about, the motion shall be equal in all three, but I doubt me you will read illfavouredly your instance of reading in a ship is nothing; for the ship moves sometimes so slowly that it is scarce discernible: but let a ship or coach move swiftly, and you shall not read distinctly. If a ship should move four miles in a minute as you say the earth doth, you should scarce see the book in which you read, much less the letters.  
8. I said out of Aristotle, That one simple body had but one natural motion, as the earth to descend, the air to ascend, and therefore could not have a circular motion. You answer, That these right motions belong only to parts of the elements, and that too when they are out of their proper places. Indeed you show yourself a weak Philosopher, for from whence have the parts of the earth their motion of descent, but from the whole? Do you not know that old and trivial maxim: 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, only when they are out of their own places; if you mean of the act of ascending and descending, you say true; but if you mean of the power or natural possibility, you are deceived: for though they be in their proper places, yet this natural power of these motions is not taken from them. 3. When you say that a loadstone, in respect of its matter and condensity naturally tends downward; you do again 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 loadstone which is a heavy body, and naturally tends downward, may naturally move upward, you show yourself more and more absurd; for besides that it is repugnant to the Maxim above said, for a simple body to have two contrary motions, so it overturns the natural 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 natural motions. 5. That desire of union and coition which one loadstone hath with another, by which it breaks the laws of Nature, is but your conceit: if one loadstone draw another, or if it draw iron upward, that ascent is no natural motion, but in some sort is a violent attraction: therefore Aristotle's Maxim remains firm, that one simple body hath but one natural 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 heaviness can only be applied to those bodies which are out of their proper places, or to such parts as are severed from the whole. To this we have partly answered already, that the essential 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 essential qualities by being in their places. Is a millstone less heavy when it is on or in the ground, then when it is raised from the ground? Put to your hand, and try if you can with more ease wag 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 own 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 heaviness would not suffer it to rest in any other place but in its own, 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 natural aptitude to motion in the Planets, and in the earth, that motion must be violent or preternatural. 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 natural Philosophy; for it is the matter that gives the aptitude, as the form gives the act. 6. You say, That Nature may endow the earth with a motive faculty, proportionable to its greatness, as she bestows spirits upon other creatures (for instance, an Eagle and a Fly,) proportionable to their several bodies. Sic parvis componere magna selebas: There is indeed so me proportion between an Eagle and a Fly; 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, you had spoke within compass: If one should say that a little wheel, and a great millstone 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 far greater proportion between a millstone 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 joined with the heaviness 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 than 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 swiftness of the earth's course, which exceeds not (you say) the celerity of clouds driven by a tempestuous wind; of a cannon bullet which in a minute flies four miles, etc. These (I say) are the fancies of a crazy brain in a dream: you are the only darling and favourite of Nature, who both knows the Earth's motion, and how much it can run in a minute. It seems this incredible swiftness 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 hour, and your pen whilst it is forming almost every letter four miles in a minute, your brains fly as fast as the bullet out of the cannon: If this be true, I do 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 Earth's magnetical property is grounded (as indeed all your Book) upon ridiculous suppositions; and on such grounds do you raise the structure of your Babel or babbles. 1. You suppose that the lower parts of the Earth do not consist of such a soft fructifying soil 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 soil, and that there be people there, aswell as in your Moon? 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 hardeneth the earth; therefore they that dig deep into to the bowels of the earth, find it still softer and softer the deeper they go: And we know that many fruits and heavy bodies are hard and stony without, but soft within; the earth than is not like a cheese that by pressing groweth hard. 3. You suppose that this rocky substance is a loadstone. 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 hardness. 4. It's probable (you say) that this rocky substance is a loadstone, because the earth and loadstone agree in so many properties. What if I should say that they disagree in many more properties, and that therefore this cannot be the loadstone? But what an Argument is this? the earth and loadstone agree in many properties, therefore the lower part of the earth consists of loadstones: 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 loadstone, must needs be of that nature; but because you are not well read in the Master of syllogisms you infer that the inward parts of the earth consist of a magnetical 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 loadstone, which we deny. Now let us hear how you prove it; The difference (you say) of declination and variation in the mariners needle cannot proceed from itself, 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 several parts of heaven, which at several times happen to be over it; therefore it proceeds from the earth, which being endowed with magnetical affections, diversely disposeth the motions of the needle. I answer, the Earth may have a disponent virtue to alter the needle, and yet not be a loadstone; so the heavens are the causes of generation, corruption, alterations, etc. in the world, and yet they are not capable of these qualities: the Moon causeth the sea to ebb and flow, doth she therefore partake of the like affections? or hath she the properties of the sea? The loadstone disposeth the motions of the iron, will you therefore infer that the loadstone hath the properties of iron? 2. If the variation, as you say, of the needle be divers, according to the several parts of heaven passing over it; it must follow, that the needle must vary every minute and scruple of an hour, 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 fly to similitudes for want of proofs, to strengthen your weak and absurd assertions; for similitudes may illustrate, they cannot prove. 2. Because you cannot show 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 than you will seem to say nothing. You fly beyond the Moon, Saturn and jupiter 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 less the same motions, then if they were united to the whole: whereas Jupiter, Saturn, etc. do constantly and regularly move on in their courses, hanging in the etherial air. But first tell us if jupiter and the rest are separated from the whole; if they be, what is it that moves them with contrary motions? If they be not, than your simile hath never a foot. Again, doth this follow: jupiter, Saturn, etc. have such and such motions; therefore bullets and parts of the earth being separated, observe the motion of the whole? You had been better to have brought your simile from the sea, which is nearer to the earth in place and nature then the heavens are; thus: The sea ebbs and flows, therefore parts of the earth being separated, may observe the motion of the whole. Doth not this hang well together like a rope of sand? If you had told us that parts of the sea being separated, observe the motion of the whole in ebbing and flowing; therefore parts of the earth separated, observe also the motion of the whole, you had said something; but you know the contrary of the Antecedent to be true; for you tell us that a bucket of sea water doth not ebb and flow, though this motion be (as you said) natural to the sea: But here you are deceived; for if this motion were a natural property flowing from the essence of the sea, the whole sea, and every part of it should ebb and flow; but it is not so, for the Adriatic sea hath this motion; the Tyrrhene, Baltic, and some other seas have it not; so some parts of the sea ebb and flow more and longer than others; but essential properties are not capable of more and less; some think that this is no pure motion, but an alteration rather in the sea: but be it what it will be, it proceedeth not from the nature of the sea, but from external causes; partly from the force and motion of the stars, chiefly of the moon; and partly from vapours and exhalations in the sea.  
12. You say, The whole earth may moveround, though the several parts thereof have no such revolution particular of their stone; for there be many things agreeing to the whole frame, which are not discernible in the divers parts of it, which you instance in the sea water, and in the blood and humours of our body, which ascend in the body, but descend, being separated from it. Answ. There is nothing proper and essential to the whole, but is also proper and essential to the parts separated or not separated; thus if circular motions were natural to the whole earth as you say, the parts of it would retain their nature still though separated: therefore every part of the earth descends, because the whole doth, but no part thereof moves circularly, because the whole doth not. As for the parts of the sea water in a bucket, there is not ebbing and flowing as in the whole; because that motion is not natural to it, nor doth it proceed from the active form, but from its passive, whereby it is apt to receive such a motion from external agents: that motion which is essential and natural to it, is not lost in the parts, being separated; for every bucket, yea, every drop of sea water descends, because that motion is natural, therefore not separable. As for the blood and humours in our body, which you say ascend naturally to the head, I say, they ascend not naturally, for naturally they descend, because heavy; but they are carried upward by the spirits in them, and drawn up by the attractive faculty, for each part draws its aliment: now this blood and humours being separated from the body, lose their heat and spirits, and so descend. Your instances then will not evert our maxim, to wit, that if the whole earth move circularly, the separated parts would retain the same motion: but you say that this motion is not discernible in the parts; I grant it, neither is it discernible in the whole; and seeing it is neither discernible by the sense, nor demonstrable by reason, how come you to know it? if you can perceive in the swift violent course of a bullet, the magnetical revolution of the whole earth, you are more quicksighted than Lynx.  
You have certain phrases like riddles, which stand in need of some Oedipus to explain them. 1. You call the earth a great magnet; What's that? A great loadstone? If there be great store of iron in your moon world, this great magnet in time may draw down the moon upon us. 2. You say, That parts of the earth may according to their matter be severed from the whole: perhaps you mean they may be severed in respect of place, not of matter; for if they have not the same matter with the whole, they cannot be parts, nor can they be the subject of these common magnetical qualities you speak of. 3. You say, That jupiter and Saturn hang in the etherial air: you love to confound what our wise forefathers have distinguished, because you have an etherial earth in the moon, you would fain have an etherial air to: God hath separated the heaven or etherial region from this aereal, so must we. I have read once of aura aetherea in Virgil, but there the Poet divinely means our breath which we have originally from heaven; I know no other etherial air but this. 4. You say, That the flesh, bones, etc. tend downward as being of a condensate matter: but gravity is the proper cause of descent, and not density; for the fire and air may be condensate, and yet tend upward. 5. You say, That Saturn, jupiter, and the Sun, are magnetical bodies: If you mean that these stars have the essential properties of the magnes to draw iron, than you will make the earth and Planets to be of the same kind and species: if Mahomeis' iron chest were hanged between the sun and the earth, it's a question whether it should be drawn more forcibly upward or downward. 6. You ask a reason, Why the earth should not move about its centre as the Planets do: I may rather ask you why it should, seeing it was made for rest, and they for motion; neither is there any thing wherein they agree, but that they are corporeal substances, in all things else they differ: why then should we infer the earth's motion from their motion? 7. You that prove nothing, but boldly says any thing, as if men were bound to receive your dictates though never so unreasonable and ridiculous, as if they were oracles; you I say tell us, Of spots about the sun, thought to be clouds or evaporations from his body: If your eagle eyes can see spots about the sun, than the heavens are not pure in your sight; but who hath spotted them which God hath made clear and pure without spot or wrinkle? are not the spots in your glass, or in your eye rather? I have heard of one who with his spectacles, reading in a book, beat the book three or four times, thinking he had seen a fly on the paper, when it was a spot in his glass. If you had read the absurd opinion of the Manichees, who held with as great confidence as you do your conceits, That the sun was a great ship sailing about the world: perhaps you would have told us, that these spots are great whales playing about the sides of the ship; and we should as soon believe you in this as in the other: but now you cannot certainly tell us, Whether these spots may not be clouds or evaporations from the body of the sun. But I would know what use is there for clouds there; except it be to shadow now and then, and to refresh with rain your world in the moon: and if there be any such watery meteors about the sun, they must needs be extracted out of the sea, lakes, and rivers, that are in your upper world. And seeing these vapours cannot be condensate into clouds without cold, it confirms my opinion, that the sun is not hot formally; and that the heaven was nicknamed when it was called aether, ab ardore: but I much muse what these evaporations should be from the body of the sun? What, doth the sun pant and sweat with his daily labour? Evaporations are hot and moist exhalations, is there any moisture in the sun? Do not these clouds and evaporations proceed rather from his horses nostrils? But the prince of Poets tells us that they blow light out of their nostrils; 
AEn. 11. — Lucem que elatis naribus efflaus. thus you afford us matter of sport.  
But you go on in your absurdities; for having once plunged yourself in this mire, the more you strive and struggle to get out, the faster you stick, and the deeper you sink in. You tell us, That the moon is turned about by our earth: why do you not tell us also that the sun is turned about by the moon, and the firmament by the sun, and the primum mobile by the firmament, and the first mover by the primum mobile? and so the world shall be turned topsie turvie. For is not any of these turnings as probable as the moon to be turned about by the earth? persuade me this, and then you shall easily assure me that the cart draws the horse, the crab courses the hare, and the ship turns about the wind? You would make the commonwealth of heaven like many disordered commonwealths here on earth, where the inferior and meaner sort of people will take upon them to rule and guide their superiors, Princes and Magistrates, and then all comes to confusion; the horses run away with the coach and coachman: 
— Frustra retinacula tendens,  
Fortur equis auriga, neque audit currus habenas.  Is it not reasonable that the inferior bodies should receive their motion from the superior, as they have from them their beauty, perfection, and conservation?  
But you give the moon many turners; The earth by her magnetical motion; jupiter (who turns the four lesser Planets) by his body; the Sun by his revolution. So here be three several ways of turning; motion, body, and revolution: but is not revolution, motion? And when jupiter turns by his body, is there no revolution? Or when the Sun turns by his revolution, doth he not turn by his body? It seems that he that turneth by his body, toucheth, and so jupiter toucheth the lesser Planets. He touched indeed Venus in the Poet when he kissed her: 
AEn. 1.  Oscula libavit natae:— But how he toucheth and turneth these Planets by his body, you do not instruct us; but your drift in all this, is to show that if the Sun carry about his spots or clouds; the earth carry about the Moon, etc. much more may the earth carry about an arrow or bullet: as if you would say, If the water carry about the mill-wheel, and the wheel carry about the millstones, much more may the mill carry about the miller and his horse.  
Concerning other men's observations of the flame of a candle carried equally in a ship; of an equal force, casting an heavy body but at an equal distance with & against the motion of the ship; of a heavy body in a ship falling down in a strait line; of a man leaping up in a ship, and abiding in the air, one second scruple of an hour, and yet the ship not withdraw itself fifteen foot: Of these I will say but little, because I have already said something of them elsewhere; 
De teros motu L. 1. c. 3. 4, 5, etc.  yet I must tell you, that though the smoke and flame of a candle within the ship are carried with the ship, it will not follow that the clouds which are without the earth are turned about by the earth. If you could thrust the clouds within the bowels of the earth, they should be carried about with the earth if it did move; but take the same candle which you talk, and place it in a calm night on the top of the mast, when the ship is carried with the tide, than you shall see that though the candle is carried along with the ship, yet the smoke being separated from the candle doth not follow the ship, but remains mounting upward in the air. If the ship than carry not along with it the smoke of the candle which is in it, how shall we think that the earth can carry about the clouds which are so far above it? Now to salve this, you tell us, That the air is as well limited in bounds, as that which is included in a room. But then I answer, that it is one thing to be included, and another thing to be limited; every thing that is included in a room is limited, but not every thing limited is included; what is included must needs partake of the motion of that which includes it: the air within the ship is moved by and with the ship, because it is included; but the air without the ship though it be limited, yet moves not by or with the ship because it is not included.  
You ask where the bounds of the air are terminated, and you answer yourself by the sphere of vaporous air; or which is all one, by the orb of magnetical vigour; so you distinguish between the air, and vaporous air: but you tell us not how far this sphere of vaporous air, or this orb of magnetical vigour reacheth; so that we are not satisfied with your answer, except you mean that it reacheth to the moon; for you told us before that the moon is turned about by the earth, but than you contradict yourself, for you say here, that these bounds are not terminated by the concavity of the moon's orb; so where to find you, and the bounds of your sphere of vaporous air, I cannot tell; neither do I understand how vaporous air being a substance, can be all one with magnetical vigour which is an accident: and how this accident can have its orb, this is a new piece of Philosophy which would be illustrated, and so do the words following; That all earthly bodies are contained within these limits, as things are in a close room, and as parts in that whole to which they belong.  
Though a heavy by equal force be cast at an equal distance, whether it move with or against the motion of the ship, yet will it not follow that a bullet being shot towards East or West shall pass the same distance; for though you cast your bullet against the motion of the ship, it is not hindered nor furthered by its motion: so if the earth did move, that motion were no more to the bullets motion then if it stood still; but it is the motion of the air that furthers or hinders the bullet's motion, whether in the ship, or out of it. The earth then turning about the air with great violence from East to West, must hinder the motion of the bullet or arrow flying to the East, and further that which cometh from the East; but it is not so in a ship, for the ship doth not carry the air before it, but divides the air whilst it moves, so that the air gives place, as the water also doth to the ship, that there may not be penetration of dimensions. How then can the bullets motion be hindered or furthered by the motion of the ship, seeing the air in which it moveth, is neither with it, nor against it? Of the wind here I do not speak.  
You grant that in a ship under sail, a stone being let fall from the mast will not descend to the same point, as if the ship stood still; but you say, the motion of a ship is accidental, and it is otherwise in these motions that are supposed to be natural. I have showed against Lansbergius, that there is no natural motion in the earth, but though there were, what's that to the furtherance or hindrance of the stones motion to the same point; suppose that not nature but an Angel turned about the earth, the motion notwithstanding is circular, be the mover what it will be, external or internal, Nature or Angel: therefore, it is true still, that as the stone falling from the mast will not descend to the same point when the ship saileth, as if it stood still; so likewise a stone falling from an high tower, will not descend perpendicularly to the same point, the earth moving, as it would do, if it stood still. Now, how far the ship will withdraw itself in its greatest swiftness, from him that leaps up and stays in the air a second scruple of an hour: and how far the earth in that space will go from him in that certain, neither is it material; it is sufficient that it will remove a certain space, and that he shall not fall upon the same place from which he leapt up.  
What you granted but now you recall, and tell us of Galilaus, That the stone would still descend unto the very same place, whether the ship moved or not. So far I yield, that if a heavy stone be let fall from a short mast whilst the ship moveth slowly, it is scarce discernible that the stone hath fallen or varied any thing from the perpendicular line: but if a small stone be let fall from a high mast whilst the ship moveth swiftly, than it is plain to any man that hath sense, that the stone doth not fall upon the same point on which it would have fallen, if the ship had stood still. Now to say that the motion of the ship is impressed in the stone, is a toy; for how can one body impress a motion in the other whilst they are separated, as the stone and ship are before it fall? of magnetical bodies I speak not.  
Being weary a shipboard you come on shore, and so having taken horse, you put spurs to his sides, and in your full career, you let a bullet drop out of your hand, which you say, Hath a transverse motion, besides the motion of the descent. But how should it have the transverse motion of the horse, seeing the hand doth but unfold itself to let it fall; the arm indeed is carried by the swiftness of the horse, and so is the bullet whilst it is in the hand, but being let fall, how can it have a transverse motion, seeing the hand did not express any such motion in it? for to let fall is not to give a transverse motion: and though you would make it all one to cast a thing from us, and to let drop a thing when we are on horseback, yet the contrary of this is so clear, that any man may see it without the help of spectacles. And sure if there were any transverse motion in the descent of the bullet, it is rather to be ascribed to the motion of the air, then to the opening of the hand; therefore this is but a crotchet, as likewise your conceit of a bullet shot out of a cannon set on end; you spend your powder, and bullets, and paper too, to no purpose; for you shall never persuade me (for all your two printed canons) that the bullet shot out and being in the air can partake of the earth's circular motion, till first you prove that the earth doth move, and then bring me better reasons then as yet you have done, for the circular motion of the bullet in the air; it is not the picture (which is the expression of your conceit and idea only) that can evince my understanding, when sense and reason are on my fide; for what may not men set forth in pictures; Chimaeras, Centaurs, Gorgon's, &c. and what not? Pictoribus atque Poetis,— you know what follows.  
Now you go a birding; for what is a gentleman but his pleasure? and you discharge your piece with that dexterity that you hit the poor bird flying, as surely as if he were sitting upon a tree: and what follows upon this? Namely, That the motion of the piece as in aiming it is made to follow the bird in its flight, is communicated to the bullet in the air. But I see that though you have killed the bird, yet you are no good birder; for at the instant whilst the piece is discharged, it is held steady, so there is no motion of the piece imparted to the bullet in the air; but though the piece did move, will it follow therefore that the earth turns about bullets in the air? if your powder and shot be not better than your arguments, you'll never kill birds.  
But what a monstrous absurdity do you tell us, That if a violent wind be able to drive ships, throw down towers, turn up trees, much more may the diurnal motion of the air (which doth so far exceed in swiftness the most tempestuous wind) be able to carry with it the bodies of birds? If the diurnal motion of the air exceed the winds in impetuosity, how comes it, that it doth not the same effects that the wind doth? why do we not feel its force? surely, if the air did move with that violence from East to West, that a tempestuous wind doth, we should never have any ships come from the West Eastward; nor ships bound Westward should stay for a wind, seeing the motion of the air at all times would carry them with a witness. If we should have occasion to sail to New England, we should be there quickly, but no hopes ever to return thence; how should we be able to walk or sit on horseback, travelling against the motion of the air, if it did move with that violence you speak of? much less could birds in their flight resist such a force; not the great bird Ruck (that I may fit you with a bird somewhat proportionable to your conceits) whose wings are twelve paces long, and snatches up elephants (as if they were but mice) in his talons a great way in the air: sometimes you play the Painter, as in your circles and other figures; and sometimes the Poet, as here: Admiranda sanis, sed non credenda.—  
As for your distinction of the motion of heavy and light bodies, to wit, That they being considered according to the space wherein they move, their motions are not simple but mixed of a direct and circular; but according to the medium wherein they move, they have properly right motions. This I say is such a riddle, that Oedipus could scarce have solved it; for why should not the motion be mixed as well in the medium as in the space? Is the air or medium a hindrance to circular motions, so that these bodies can only move there in a strait line? if so, you contradict yourself, for you tell us still that bodies are moved round by the air, and this by the earth. And how shall we understand that a stone falling downward hath a mixed motion of a direct and circular according to the space wherein it moves, but a simple strait motion according to the air wherein it moves? What mean you by this word (space?) you cannot mean the ubi of these bodies moving, for that is their rest in the place to which they move: ultima perfectio corpor is mobilis. You do not understand I think the interval of the ancients which Aristotle hath refuted, as being neither a substance nor an accident; not a substance, because there would be penetration; not an accident, for so an accident should be better than the substance; for Locus est prior & nobilior locato. And if by space you understand the air, then how will your distinction stand, the air or medium, and the space being all one? the place it cannot signify, for the stone descendeth not in its place, but to it; therefore what your space is, and how distinguished from the medium, I think you do not know. If we should ask you with what motion Christ's body ascended into heaven, you will answer that according to the space wherein it moved, it ascended by a mixed motion of a direct and circular, but according to the medium, it ascended by a simple strait motion; and so we shall depart from you as wise as we came, like those that consulted with Sibylla; Inconsultì ab●unt—  
You say, That Aristotle would not deny but that fire may ascend, and yet participate of a circular motion, so likewise must it be for the descent of any thing. Aristotle is beholding to you, for if you will believe him that heavy bodies must have a double motion, because he would not deny but that the fire may have a double motion; then if he would not deny but that the heavens may move round, and that the earth may stand still, you will believe him; much more I hope you will credit him when by irrefragable reasons he proves the motion of the one, and immobility of the other: but how ever, it is bad reasoning from the possibility of one thing to the necessity of another; great odds between may be, and must be; between fire and earth; because Croesus may be poor, must therefore Irus be rich? Because Aristotle saith the fire may descend, must the earth therefore ascend? there is no consequence à posse ad esse; much less à posse ad necesse.  
I will suppose with you, That whilst the ship is in her swistest motion, a ball of wax being let fall into a vessel full of water, may be slow in sinking, and that the motion of the ship will not be discernible in it. But that the wax should seem to the eye to descend in a strait line I will not suppose, because I have found it otherwise; the wax will seem to have a transverse motion in the water though it descend in a strait line: so an oar seems to be broken in the water, which element is not a true medium for the sight; now the reason why the motion of the ship in the way is not discernible, is because the great disproportion between the bigness of the ship, and smallness of the wax: and because that motion is not the waxes own, but the ships: these two reasons concurring, make this motion in the wax indiscernible; but suppose what you say were true in preternatural motions, it will not therefore follow, that is also true in motions natural.  
If the air did move round with the earth, it is most certain that the comets would seem always to stand still, being carried about by the revolution of this air; but experience showeth that they rise and set; to this you answer, That most comets are above the sphere of the air which is turned round with our earth. Answ. You told us before that the earth turneth about the moon, therefore it must follow that the comets are above the moon, if they be above that air which is turned about with our earth. 2. We have already showed that the air sometimes moveth the earth, but that the earth moveth the air is false and preposterous. 3. You tell us, That those comets which are within the orb of our air seem to stand still, you instance that comet mentioned by Josephus, 
De bello judaico. 7. c. 12  which hung over jerusalem. Answ. That was no ordinary comet or the work of nature, but a miracle or work of supernatural power, as the rest of those prodigies which happened about the same time; to wit, the sudden light which appeared half an hour about the altar; the Cow that brought forth a Lamb in the Temple; the flying open of the brazen gate of its own accord; the chariots and armed men that were seen in theaire, etc. Now when you say, That this comet being within the orb of our air, seemed to stand still; you are deceived, for it was Gods work that it stood still over that place: and it did not seem, but did truly stand still, by which it is plain that the earth moveth not; for if it did move, than the comets which are nearest to it would move swiftest; but the contrary of this is true, for the higher the comet is, the swister it moveth, the lower, the slower; yea scarce at all; because it is the heaven that moveth the comets, and not the earth: so you falsify 
Natural. quaest. 1.7 c. 6  Seneca, for he doth not say that these low comets seem to move, but the clean contrary, that they are altogether immovable, undique immota.  
You say, 
L. 1. sec. 1. c. 6.  That you might justly pass over my nine arguments which I urged in one Chapter, against your opinion; but because I proceed (say you) with such scorn and triumph, you will examine my boastings. You do wisely, like the Romans, who that their Generals might not be puffed up with the glory of their triumphs, caused some to walk along by their chariots, using upbraiding words; the like do you, calling my arguments cavils not worth the naming; yet you are pleased to name them, to show doubtless their weakness, and your wit.  
My first cavil (as you call it) is this; If the earth move, it will be hotter than the water, because motion is the cause of heat: but that the earth should be hotter than water, is repugnant to that principal in natural Philosophy which affirms 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 pick (as you think) a contradiction out of it, which is this; The earth by motion is hotter than the water, and yet the water moves along with it, which water is made warm also by motion, that it is not capable of congelation. Answ. Is this a contradiction think you: the earth is hotter than the water, and yet the water is hot too; the fire is hotter than the air, and yet the air is hot too? who ever heard that the degrees of comparison make a contradiction? I should not contradict myself, 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 than the water without any contradiction; for of two bodies moving together, one may be hotter than the other, especially, if they be of different natures; who knows not that dry and solid bodies (such as the earth is) are more capable intensively of heat, then thin and moist bodies, such as the water is? 3. Though the earth, water, and air next to it, be not severed one from another, yet they are made hot by such a violent motion: when you run, your clothes, skin, flesh, blood, etc. 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 coldness (as you say some do think) than it would follow, that the more you move, your blood should be the colder. Scaliger shows, that they who water their horses being hot, use to stir the water violently, that it may be brought to a warm temper, that the horses may drink 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 air: so shall you in a cold day (if you rise to walk) be colder for a while, then when you sit still; not because you walk (for that in time will warm you) but because you meet with fresh air, which you did not whilst you sat; neither is there yet so much heat in you as to abate the sense of the cold air, till your motion have caused it. 6. I deny that the strongest winds 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 wound hath brought snow, and the next February a strong East wind hath brought rain. 7. If rest be the cause that in cold weather water doth freeze, than all waters that rest would freeze, and no running waters would freeze; but this is false, for some waters resting do not freeze, and sometimes running waters do freeze, when the motion is not so strong as to stir up the heat; therefore, it remains that the heat caused by the motion, and not the motion itself, is the hindrance of the waters freezing. 8. If this motion were true that the earth runs four miles in a minute, the heat of the air would be more than moderate; even in winter you could not endure the heat of it; we should need no fire to warm us; wood would be cheap enough.  
2. My second argument was this: If the earth did move the air, than the air which is next to the earth would be purer, as being more rarified; but the contrary is true, for the higher the air is, the purer it is. You answer never a word to this argument, which shows you assent; Qui tacet consentire videiur.  
3. My third argument: If the earth did move the air, it would cause a sound, but this is no more audible than the Pythagorical harmony of heaven. You answer, That there is no reason why this motion should cause a sound, more than the supposed motion of the heavens. But I say, there is a great deal 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 air with that violence cause a hideous noise, which would make us all deaf? now, there is no reason why the motion of the heavens should make any sound, for neither are they solid bodies themselves, nor do they move or encounter any solid body, nor is there any air in heaven; which things are required to make a sound.  
4. I argued, that nature had in vain 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 mountains and valleys, and some hills higher, some lower: is a globe or bowl that hath knobs and dents in it so fit for motion as that which is smooth, and equally round? 2. I have showed 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 lose their essential properties being in their own places, whereas it is the place that preserveth the propertiese and essenc of things. Have the fire and air lost their levity because they are in their own places? and is it not absurd to say (as I have already showed) that there should be weight in a part of any thing, and not in the whole? as if a piece of an iron bullet were heavy, 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 have the same matter; so that as there is a transmutation of the elements into each other, even so the heavens may be changed into the elements, and these into them: heaven may become earth, and earth heaven; this is your admirable learning which passeth all understanding. 4. Heaven (it seems by you) hath a contrary, but you tell us not what that is; they are not contrary to one another, as fire and water; nor are they contrary to sublunary things, for they cherish and preserve them; neither have they the same common matter. 5. Any sensible man may easily conceive, that contrariety and corruption are hindrances to a perpetual circular motion; and because (as is said) the heaven is not capable of them, but the earth is, it will follow that I argued upon good grounds, that the heavens only are endowed with all things requisite for motion, and not the earth: and therefore God will have nothing idle, as he made nothing in vain: he hath made the heavens, and the three superior elements to be exercised with motion, and the lowest element with generation and corruption; but it were strange if the earth should be subject to all three, and the heavens to none, but should stand still, and be perpetually idle; this is not suitable to the wisdom of the Maker.  
5. I reasoned that all similary parts are of the same nature with the whole, but each part of the earth doth rest in its place, therefore doth the whole also. You say this Argument would prove, That the sea doth not ebb and flow, because every drop of water hath not this motion; or that the whole earth is not spherical, because each part hath not the same form. Answ. I have showed already that the ebbing and flowing of the sea are not essential to the sea, for in many places the sea doth not ebb and flow; therefore it is no wonder, that parts of the sea, being severed from the whole, lose that motion, seeing many parts being joined with the whole have it not. This motion than is caused by external agents; but those qualities which are essential to the whole, are not lost in the parts: Every drop of water is heavy, and moves downward, because the whole doth; every drop of sea water is salt, because the whole is. 2. I have said already that the earth is not exactly sphearicall, and though it were, your conceit is nothing: for roundness belongs not to the earth, quà talis, as it is earth, sed quà tota, as it is whole. When a thing ceaseth to be whole, it loseth the figure of the whole, neither are external figures or outward qualities essential to things, but common accidents only: Now, the quality of resting in the lowest place is essential to the whole earth, therefore to the parts also.  
6. I said that the Sun in the world is as the heart in man's body, but the motion of the heart ceasing,, none of the members stir; so neither would there be motion in the world if the Sun stood still: This (you say) is rather an illusturation, than a proof. I grant it; for I used it as an illustration to discover with its light the weakness, and to dispel the darkness of your opinion. And were it not an absurd thing to think that the arteries move, but the heart standeth still? So no less absurd is it to say, that the Earth moveth, but the Sun standeth still. 2. Illustrations oftentimes are forcible proofs, and used they are both by Divines and Philosophers.  
7. I said that the Sun and heavens work upon these inferior bodies by their light and motion. You say, That the Sun and Planets working upon the earth by their own real, daily motion, is the thing in question, therefore must not be taken for a common ground. Answ. If nothing shall be taken for a common ground which is or hath been in question, than there are no common grounds in Divinity and Philosophy; for I know no fundamental doctrine in the one, or principal in the other, which hath not been questioned by wanton and unsettled spirits. 2. I said that the heavens work by motion; you infer, as if I had said, of a real daily motion: I spoke neither of daily nor annual motion; if he doth not work by his daily, doth he work by his annual revolution? 3. Tell me if you can, from whence proceed the many motions and mutations that are in sublunary things? from themselves they cannot; from a superior cause then they must, and what is that but the heavens? and what other media or means are in heaven by which they work, but light and motion? If you can tell us any other besides these, we will be beholding to you.  
8. I proved that the earth must be firm and stable, because it is the foundation of buildings. You say, That it is firm from all jogging, and uncertain motions. Answ. This is a jogging conceit of yours, and an uncertain answer, as I have showed already; for motion, as it is motion, is an enemy to buildings, be it never so uniform; and a moving foundation can be no settled foundation: If a foundation be stable, how can it move? if it move, how can it be stable?  
9 My ninth Argument was taken from the authority of Divines, grounded on Scripture; 
Isa. 60.20.  Thy Sun shall no more go down, etc. In the Revelations the Angel swears 
Rev. 10.6.  there shall be no more time; therefore the heavens must rest, whose motion is the measurer of time; so S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 8.  The creature is subject to vanity; this is the vanity of motion of which Solomon speaks: The Sun riseth, and the Sun goeth down, etc. This (you say) is but a weak Argument; for it is granted that this opinion is a Paradox. Answ. As it deviates from the opinion of other men, it is a Paradox, but as it is repugnant to Scripture, it is a Cacodoxe. 2. When you say that Isaiah speaketh of that light which shall be in stead of the Sun and Moon, do you answer any thing at all to his testimony? Thy Sun shall no more go down, etc. for he distinguisheth between that light which God shall give to his Saints, and the light of the Sun which shall no more go down; so that he doth not confound these two lights which are in God and in the Sun, as you would have it. A part of the Church's happiness shall be, that she shall both enjoy the light of the Sun without intermission, and also that new inaccessible light of divine vision. If then the Sun shall go down no more, it argues that the Sun useth to go down: Now, if you will have these words understood mystically, yet the thing to which they do allude must be understood properly; to wit, the going down of the Sun. 3. You will have time to be measured by the motion of the earth, not of the heaven; and this you prove out of Pererius, who saith, That time depends upon the motion and succession of any duration: But Pererius explains himself in another place: that that is only time properly and principally, which is measured by the motion of the primum mobile: because the motion of the heaven is the first, and the cause of all other motions; and because it is the least, as being the swiftest; and it is most certain, and uniform, universal, and known to all: so that if the earth did move (which as yet you have not proved) yet these conditions cannot agree with the earth's motion: time which is measured by other motions, is not properly and formally, but materially and improperly so called,; so it is false that the earth's motion is the cause of time, which Pererius never affirmed or dreamt of. 4. You will have the heaven's subject to other vanities besides that of motion; as first unto many changes, witness the comets seen amongst them; and then to that general corruption in the last day, when they shall pass away with a noise, etc. Answ. If changes be vanity, to how much vanity is your world in the Moon subject, which so often changeth? 2. Though the heavenly bodies were subject to other vanities, as you say, yet these will not exempt them from the vanity of motion. 3. How comets, which are Gods extraordinary works, and denouncers of his judgements, are vanities, I understand not. 4. That the Apostle speaks of comets in that place, is your part to prove either by reason or authority. 5. That comets which are seen only by us in the air, are discerned by you amongst the heavenly bodies, is no wonder, seeing you can discern a world in the Moon. 6. St. Ambrose on that place showeth, that the vanity to which the heaven is subject, is the continual toil of their motion, and that it expects rest, that it may be delivered from servile work. 7. If the heavens be subject to the vanity of corruption, as you say, tell us whether you speak properly and philosophically, or metaphorically? If philosophically, you are absurd; for every freshman can tell you that heaven is not capable of generation and corruption; if metaphorically, you speak impertinently; for by the passing away of heaven, is meant only the abolition of imperfect qualities, and a perfecting of it to a more glorious estate. 8. The heavens (you say) are subject to that general corruption in which all creatures shall be involved in the last day. But you cannot tell us what that corruption shall be, and so you speak at random: you do not mean (I hope) that the heavens shall be involved in the same corruption with snakes, rats, toads, and other such kind of creatures.  
You say that there is not such invincible strength in my arguments, as might cause me triumph before hand. But I say there is so much vincible weakness in your answers, that makes me think that the refutation of them deserves neither triumph nor ovation; so that my strife with you is but — pugna nullos habitura triumphos: neither did I purpose to make you any reply, had not some friends solicited me to vindicate the truth and my own credit, which seemed to be somewhat eclipsed by the unwholesome fogs, and misty discourses of your Book.  
I said that the heaven was called AEthera, ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from its continual motion; and the earth Vesta, quòd vi suâ stat, from its immobility. You say they were so called because it was then the common opinion, that the heaven moved, and the earth stood. But now because you are of another opinion, it's fit that the names be changed aswell as the nature; let the heaven now be called Vesta, and the earth AEtherae; or let heaven be called Terra, quòd perenni cursu omnia terat, and the earth should be called coelum, à caelando; so let all things and arts be confounded: Grammar, aswell as your Logic, Philosophy, and Astronomy. 2. If heaven and earth have their Etymology from what they seem to be, not from what they are; then the like may be said of other things. Fire is called focus, à fovendo, from cherishing; the sea is called mare, quasi amarum, because it is salt or bitter; not that these things are so, but because they seem to be so: the like may be said of other Etymologies. 3. For your conceit of the Hebrew word Erets from Ruts, because it runs, is but a running motion of your head. The Hebrews who were better skilled in their own language, than you are, derive Erets from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it continually desires to bear fruit, as Munster showeth in Genes. c. 1.  
You object to yourself, How are two distinct motions conceivable in the earth at the same time? and you answer you self, that it is easily apprehended, considering how both these motions tend from West to East, as you instance in a bowl. Answ. How the earth should have two distinct circular motions, is not conceivable by us, nor demostrable by you. Your simile of the bowl is a poor demonstrastration, and indeed, false; for it running on the superficies of the ground, hath not two circular motions, as you should have showed, but only one such motion or rolling; the other as it moves from your hand to the mark, is the motion of projection; or rather the bowls motion, is indeed but one, being a mixed or compounded motion; neither doth it move with two distinct circular motions in the same place the same time, as you will have the earth to do: but it runs from one place to another; neither is it natural, but violent: and though it were true that the bowl had two distinct circular motions in the same place at the same time, yet it will not prove that the earth is either capable, or we conceivable of these two motions, considering the disproportion that is between the vast and heavy earth, and a small light bowl.  
You conclude this Chapter, singing the triumph before the victory; for you say that we may gather some satisfaction out of it, but indeed we can gather none: neither are we a whit the wiser for it, but leave it with as great discontents, and as little satisfaction, as they did Sibylla's cave, who came to consult with her intricate Oracles;. Inconsulti abeunt, sedemque odêre Sibyllae.   

Chap. IX.  

1. The earth cannot be the cause of its own motion.  
2. The vasinesse and thickness of the heavin no hindrance to its motion.  
3. The matter of the heavens and their smoothness no hindrance to their motion.  
4. Bigness helps motion.  
5. The heaven's swiftness illustrated by other motions.  
6. The earth neither the final nor efficient cause of its motion, the heaven fitter for motion, because greater, and more constant; nature worketh not still the most compendious way, some idle similitudes refuted.  
7. Bodies having the same properties have not always the same motion; motion belongs to the noblest creatures.  
8. The smoothness, subtlety, and purity of bodies no hindrance to their motion; the air moves the water, the circular motion of the fire natural how.  
9 Of Intelligences how and why they move the heavens.  
10. Magnetic virtue an idle conceit.   
IN this Chapter, ampullas loqueris & sesquipedalia verba; you talk not like a man of this world, but like one who hath dwelled long in the Moon; 
jovis arcanis Minos admissus.  or as if you were jupiters' secretary with Minos, and had the honour with AEolus.— Epulis accumbere diuûm. You dispute of the magnitudes and distances of the orbs, and of the swiftness of their motion with that exactness, 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 whirls you about four miles every minute of an hour. I should think that your head was giddy when you wrote this, and that indeed you can no more dispute of these things, than a blind man can do of colours; neither can we give you any credit until first you go thither, and bring us a certificate signed with the hands of these Angels which turn about the orbs; otherwise you will but lose 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 we 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 itself; 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 swiftness: 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 sun 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 swiftness of heaven be never so great, we cannot suppose the earth to move. For that they may be swifter than our thoughts, is not impossible, if either we look on God's power, or on the aptitude in these bodies for such a motion: But you will not have us fly to God's power what he can do: I pray you then whither shall we fly? If we go up into heaven he is there, if we go down to hell he is there also. etc. Whatsoever is done in heaven, and in the earth, etc. he doth it himself, saith David. He 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 movable. But if you will have us look unto the usual way of providence what is most likely to be done, than 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, material, condensate substances, are not capable of such a motion: I hear 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 weak as that he cannot turn about that vast body. 
L. 2. sec. 1. c. 1.  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 Geometrical thing (but you are in this decived) depends not from quantity, lesser bodies move oftentimes flower then the greater; a snail then an elephant, a pebble stone then a great cloud: it is not then beyond the fancy of a Poet, or madman, (as you madly speak) 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 gravity, you answer us with your recocted coleworts, or idle evasion of yours so often repeated, That the whole earth in its own place is not heavy: which shift we have divers times already refuted: but when you say, That the heavens being of a material substance, it's impossible but that there should be in them some ineptitude to motion: you speak like one who is a stranger to Philosophy, for if it were not for the matter, there would be no motion in the world. As the form 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 conceivable how the upper sphere should move the lower, unless their superficies were full of rugged parts, or else they must lean one upon the other. Answ. What rugged parts are there in the superficies of winds and clouds, when the winds move the clouds? or what ruggedness is there in smooth waters, when in rivers the foremost waters are moved forward by the hindermost? Or in the smoke when it carrieth upward a piece of paper? But when you say, That the farther any sphere is distant from the primum mobile, the less it is hindered by it, in its proper course: It is true, and yet not repugnant to Ptolemy's opinion, who saith, That in heaven there is no reluctancy; for his meaning is, that there is no inferior sphere that hindereth the swiftness of the primum mobile, and that is the reason why it is so swift: because it hath no resistance either from the form, or from the matters; or thickness of the medium.  
Now, In nova fert animus,— you would fain play the Poet, and build castles in the air, but indeed you have already played the Poet too much; for your whole book is nothing else but a heap of fictions; your world in the Moon, your moving earth, your standing heavens, your figures and characters, what are they else but pleasant dreams, and idle fancies, fit enough to be inserted into Ovid's Metamorphosis, if you could digest them into good verses? And you do not only 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 know. But you wonder much why Poets have not feigned a castle to be made of the same materials with the solid orbs. Answ. I think the reason is, because they did not know that there were people in the Moon; if they had known this, doubtless they would have fitted them with enchanted castles, and other buildings; now what they have omitted, do you, that posterity when you are dead may say; 
— Nunc non cinis ille Poetae  
Faelix? now levior cippus nunc imprimit ossa?  But I will not now spend time in viewing the parts and materials of your Poetical castle, till you have brought it to perfection; and then I will take a survey of every particular.  
4. I had said that a bigger body, as a millstone, will naturally descent swifter than a less, as a pebble stone; the cause of this, You will not have to be ascribed to the body's bigness, but to the strength of natural desire which that big body hath to such a motion. Answ. You make a show as if you did answer our argument, but in effect you answer nothing: for if I should ask you why a millstone falls faster than a pebble, you will answer, because it hath a stronger desire to fall; but if I ask again why it hath a stronger desire, you answer, because the bigger a thing is, the stronger is its desire, etc. and is not your opinion now all one with mine in effect? that it is the bigness that is the cause of this swiftness? now the same reason is appliable to bodies moving circularly: for though they were in their proper situations, yet there is in them as great a desire to move about the centre, as there is in elementary bodies to move to and from the centre; therefore, the greater the body is, the greater desire it hath to move according to your opinion. Again, I said that the wind will sooner move a great ship then a little stone, you answer, This is not because a ship is more easily movable than 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 movable than the stone; because by reason of its bigness it's more liable to the violent cause of its motion. And when you say, That I cannot throw a ship as far as a stone; I grant it, but this will only 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 piece will fly farther and swifter than a lesser.  
5. I brought some instances to illustrate the possibility of the heaven's swiftness, as the sound of a cannon twenty miles off; of the sight of a star in a moment, of the light passing suddenly from East to West; of the swiftness of a bullet carried by the powder; to these you answer, That the passage of a sound is but slow, compared to the heaven's motion; that the species of sound or sight are accidents, and so is the light; that the disproportion is great betwixt the heaven's motion and the swiftness 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 swiftness in the motion of these, what need we doubt of the swiftness 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 bullet's motion and the heaven's swiftness, yet the motion of the one serves to illustrate the swiftness of the other. And yet I take not upon me as you do, 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 near to the nature of a body: neither did Aristotle prove the light to be no body, because of its swiftness, as if no body were capable of that swiftness, for than he should contradict himself as you use to do; but he means that no sublunary body had so swift a motion. It had been folly to illustrate the swiftness of the bullets motion by the motion of the hand in the watch; for there by many other motions far swifter than this to express the bullets motion: but of sublunary motions there be none swifter than those I alleged to illustrate the motion of heaven.  
6. You would have the earth to be both the efficient and final 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 than itself: and God made the heavens not for the earth, but for man; so the diurnal and annual motions have man for their final 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 work the easiest, but the most convenient way; but I deny that the earth's motion is either more easy or more convenient than 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 firm and stable, then movable, as I said. I could tell you how laborious and tedious nature is in the perfecting of man's 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 undergo so great and constant a work which might be saved by the circumvolution of the earth's body. How tender hearted are you? are you afraid that the heavens will grow weary? and I pray you, is not heaven sitter to undergo a great and constant work then the earth, so small, so dull, so heavy, so subject to change? a great work 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 earth's 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 Similes of a mother warming her child, of a Cook roasting his meat, of a man on a tower, of a Watch maker, are all frivolous. For a mother turneth her child, and a Cook his meat to the fire, because the fire cannot turn itself to them; the motion is in them, not in the fire: so he that is on a tower, turns himself round to see the country, because the country cannot turn itself about him. If you had proved to us that the heaven cannot move, but that it is the earth that moveth, than we should yield that the earth did foolishly to expect the celestial fire to turn about her; but this you have not as yet proved, neither will you be ever able to prove. The earth indeed is a mother, but as senseless and stupid as Niobe, who would suffer her children to starve with cold, if that heavenly fire did not move about her. As for your instance of a Watchmaker, I will use it in your own words, but to our purpose: If a wise Watchmaker will not put any superfluous motion in his instrument, shall we not think that nature is as provident as any ordinary mechanic? Therefore doubtless it had been superfluous for the earth to move. And whereas you say, That the motion of the stars is full of confusion and uncertainties: That is true in respect of your ignorance; there is an heavenly order, and harmony amongst them, the confusion is in your head, and the uncertainty in your knowledge.  
7. You say, That motion is most agreeable to that which in kind and properties is nearest to the bodies that are moved. But this I say is false, for an immovable body is not made capable of motion, because it is near in some properties to the body that is moved. A rock and a millstone which perhaps was taken out of the same rock, agree in kind and properties, will it therefore follow, that because the millstone moves round, the rock also moves round? The sea-water and well-water agree in kind and properties, doth the well-water therefore ebb and flow? But your drift is to show, That the earth moveth with the six Planets, because both Earth and Planets have a borrowed light, whereas the Sun and fixed Stars have it of their own. Answ. A goodly reason, the earth must move as well as the six Planets, because it hath a borrowed light as well as they; as if you would say, Saturn and the Moon have a borrowed light, therefore they have the same motion and bigness: or thus, the Planets have a borrowed light as well as the earth, therefore, they rest, or be as heavy as the earth; but what if I should say, the Planets have some light of their own, as may be seen by the Moon, which the earth hath not; and therefore they agree not in this property of light, and consequently the earth moveth not as they do. But when you say the fixed stars have light of their own, you speak at random, for you can show no reason of this conceit, why the fixed stars should have light of their own, and not the Planets; or why the Planets borrow light, and not the fixed stars. Again, you think, That the Sun and Stars should rest, because they are of a more excellent nature: As if motion did belong to the ignoblest creatures; we know the contrary, Man is a more noble creature than a rock, yet man moveth, and the rock is immovable. The heart in our bodies is more noble than the guts, yet that moveth, they move not. Is the body of man less excellent when it is moved by the soul, then when it is at rest putrifying in the grave. When water rests from its motion it loseth its excellency, and stinketh, therefore, motion in many things is more noble than rest: as for the rest which you say is ascribed to God, that is not to our purpose, for it is transcendent and hyperphysical; and as God is said to rest, so he is said to move, therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But why you should think the fixed Stars of a more excellent nature than the Planets, I know not, neither can you give any reason for it.  
8. Aristotle you say tells us, 
De Coelo. l. 2. c. 10.  that the time of the revolution of each orb should be proportionable to its bigness, which can only be you think, By making the earth a Planet. I answer, that of two evils the lesse is to be chosen, and better it is that there should be some disproportion between the bigness of the orbs, and the time of their motion, then that the earth should move. 2. You cannot exactly tell what disproportion there is in their motions, till first you find out the true knowledge of their magnitudes.  
That the Comets which move in the air are not moved by the heavens, but by the earth, you prove; Because the concave superficies of the Moon is thought to be smooth, so that the mere touch of it cannot turn about the fire with a motion not natural to it; nor can the subtle fire move the thicker air, nor this the waters. Answ. How the upper spheres move the lower, is neither known to you nor me but by conjectures. 2. I have already showed that one smooth body by its touch may move another, as the wind moves the clouds; so in the Northern seas, one mountain of ice which is smooth, moves the other forward. 3. The subtlety and purity of the fire is no hindrance to its moving of the thicker air, for do not our animal spirits which are pure and subtle, and yet material, move our gross bodies? Doth not the wind move gross substances? 4. That the air doth not move the water, is repugnant to experience, for within the Tropickes, the sea is continually moved from East to West by the air; and this by the heaven as I have showed elsewhere. 5. That the circular motion of the fire is not natural, is false; for though this motion proceed not from an inward principle, as the strait motion doth, yet it is natural, because the nature of the fire is preserved by it; for the fire never gives off moving upward, till it begin to move circularly, and then is it in its chief perfection when it hath attained this motion.  
Lansbergius you say concludes that the earth is easily movable, from the words of Archimedes, who said, that he could move the earth, if he knew where to stand and fasten his instrument; it is a foolish conclusion, for so he might as well conclude, that armed men may arise out of the ground, because Pompey said, that if he did but stamp with his foot, the ground would yield him armed men. So because Medea said: Ego inter auras aliti curru vebar; That she would fly in the air in a chariot drawn by dragons, that therefore she could do as she said; this is to play the Poet.  
9 The opinion of Intelligences, by which the heavens are moved (you say) hath its original from Aristotle's mistake, who held the heavens to be eternal. I answer, that Aristotle was mistaken in holding the heavens to be eternal à priori; but I deny that there is any error in holding them to be eternal à posteriori, in respect of their substance. 2. Aristotle might have held the opinion of Intelligences, without holding the heavens to be eternal; for the eternity of the mover doth not necessarily infer the eternity of the thing moved: God is eternal, so is not the world, our souls are eternal, so are not our bodies. 3. You prove, That Intelligences are superfluous, because a natural power intrinsecall to these bodies will serve the turn as well: So you might infer that our souls are superfluous, because a natural power resulting from the matter of our bodies, and intrinsecall to them will serve the turn as well. But indeed such excellent bodies as the heavens did require a more excellent form then sublunary bodies do; for these are content with an informing form, but the heavens stood in need of an assisting form: and how can we conceive that out of such pure and simple materials as the heavens are, there should result a natural power to move them circularly, orderly, constantly, perpetually? If our gross and decaying bodies are moved with reasonable souls, which though they be internal forms, result not from the power of the matter; much more should the heavens be regulated by Intelligent spirits, and not by any natural power. 4. This natural power of moving must be either the form brought out of the matter, which is done by generation, but in heaven there is no generation, because there is no privation of an other form, or any appetite in the matter to it; or else this power must be a form brought into the matter: but no form is introduced into the matter, except the reasonable soul; therefore, there is no informing form in heaven, and consequently there can be no other movers but Angels. This Argument I urged against Carpenter, but you winked at it and said nothing. 5. You say, That Intelligences being immaterials cannot immediately work upon a body. What is this to the purpose? If they work upon bodies, it's no matter how they work; we know that our souls work upon our gross bodies, and so do the Intelligences upon the heavens: we know that spirits work upon muteriall substances immediately, or else there would be no working at all; and it is ridiculous in you to disable the Angels from working or moving, because they have no instruments or hands to take hold of the heavens. What hands hath your soul when it works on your body? What hands hath the wind when it moves the clouds? 6. You have no reason to insult so over the Schoolmen, who affirm, that the faculty whereby the Angels move their orbs, is their will; for what faculty else can you imagine in them? Doth not your soul work upon your body by the will? so, that albeit there be many instruments by which the soul moveth the body, yet the prime faculty by which it moveth is the will: so that if you suspend your act of willing a motion, you must needs stand still; and on the contrary, your only willing to move the hand or foot is sufficient as the chief medium or faculty to move them. And so it is with the heavens, saving only that there are no subordinate organs by which the Angelical will doth move the heavens: but when you say that there was no need of Angels, since this might be as well done by the will of God: You speak idly, for so you may say that there is no need of our souls to move our bodies, since this might be as well done by the will of God: Angelical and humane wills are subordinate and serviceable to the will of God, but not excluded by it; For in him we live and move, and yet we live and move by our souls too. And as impertinent is your other question, How the orbs are capable of perceiving this will in the Intelligences, or what motive faculty have they of themselves to enable them to obey? Answ. The orbs are as capable to perceive the will of the Angels, as your body is to perceive your will, or as those bodies were which the Angels of old assumed, and by them conversed with the Patriarches: and as those bodies had a motive faculty to obey the Angels will, so have the heavens much more.  
Keplar's opinion that the Planets are moved round by the Sun, and that this is done by sending forth a magnetic virtue, and that the Sunbeams are like the teeth of a wheel, taking hold of the Planets, are senseless crotchets, fitter for a wheeler or miller, than a Philosopher: This magnetic virtue is a salve for all sores, a pin to stop every hole, for still when you are reduced to a nonplus, magnetic virtue is your only subterfuge, like AEneas his target, Unum omniae contra tela Latinorum: If you had told us that the North star had a magnetic virtue, because the needle touched with the magnes looketh towards it, some silly people perhaps would have believed you, and yet the magnetic virtue is in the needle, not in the star; but that in the Sun there should be a magnetic virtue, it hath no show of probability. This virtue (you say) may hold out to as great a distance as light or heat: But if this comparison hold, it will follow, that there is no such virtue in the Sun, for that light which is in the air is not in the Sun, neither is that heat which we feel caused by the Sun, in the Sun: but your following words are admirable; That if the Moon may move the sea, why may not the Sun move the earth? As if you would say, If the Northwind shake the woods, why may not the south-wind shake the mountains? Or (according to your doctrine) if the earth can move the Moon, why may not Venus or Mercury move the Sun? or why may not the Sun move the Firmament?  
You conclude well, That your Quares are but conjectures, and that no man can find out the works of God from the beginning to the end: and yet you have found out that which God never made, to wit, a rolling Earth, a standing Heaven, a world in the Moon; which indeed are not the works of God, but of your own head: for his works are incomprehensible, his ways past finding out. Trouble not then yourself too much in these things, which in this life you cannot understand; learn to know yourself that we may know you too, and by the knowledge of yourself, strive to know God, the knowledge of whom is life eternal. I will give you good counsel in the words of 
Lib. 1. de Anima.  Hugo: Nosce teipsum; melior es si te ipsum cognoscas, quaem si te neglecto cursus siderum, vires herbarum, etc. Coelestium omnium & terrestrium scientiam haberes; multi multa sciunt, seipsos nesciunt, quum summa Philosophia sit cognitio sui.   

CHAP. X.  

1. The idle and uncertain concetes of Astronomers concerning the celestial bodies.  
2. The appearances of the Sun, and other Planets cannot be so well discerned by the earth if it did move.  
3. The excellency of Divinity above Astronomy, and an exhortation to the study of it.   
THis proposition is full of suppositions, fraughted with figures and characters, which more affect the eye then satisfy the mind; neither do they demonstrate the motions of the earth, but the motions of your head. The pictures in Ovid's Metamorphosis add not the more credit to his fictions, neither do these figures to you fancies: we will believe no more than you can demostrate by sense or reason; demonstrations are of things true and real, not of dreams and imaginations: therefore, neither your pictures, nor bare words, shall persuade us, that days, months, years, hours, weeks, etc. are or can be caused by the earth's 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 Moon, and of the earth too; so that you have not mended but marred the matter, rejecting Ptolemy because of Eccentrickes and Epicycles, and yet you admit Copernicus with his new devised Moon Eccentricks, and Earth Eccentrickes, so that you think by these fictions to solve the divers illuminations, bigness, eclipses, etc. of the Moon. A fantastical Astronomer might devise other ways besides these of Ptolemy and Copernicus, to show the different appearances of the Planets; for of things that are uncertain and beyond our reach, divers men will have divers conceits and conjectures: many have held, and do at this day yet maintain, that the stars have souls 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 Moon? What if I should hold that the eight sphere is a solid substance, therefore called firmamentum, full of holes, some great and some small; so that these lights which we call stars are but beams of that bright and clear heaven above, called Empyreum, shining through these holes? Or if I should say, that every star had its Angel moving it about the earth, as we use in dark nights to carry lanterns: divers Nations of Asia, Africa, and America, have divers opinions of the stars, and few or none true, all which do argue our ignorance and foolishness; we are but Curvae in terris animae, & coelestium inanes. But any of these conjectures mentioned, is as probable as yours of the earth's motion; therefore, I was not without sense and reason when I concluded my Book with this Argument, That if the Sun stood still, there could be no variation of the shadow in the Sun Dial: you will say that may be altered by the earth's motion, but I say to you as I said to Mr. Carpenter, prove that, and what I proffered to him, I also proffer 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 Ass to fly, if I should admit that he hath wings; but I will not admit that upon a false maxim of your devising, you shall infer what you please. What if I should admit an absurd conceit of yours, that the Earth draweth the Moon about? can you prove me, that when the Moon shineth there is any variation of shadows, when both the luminous and opace body are moved with the same motion?  
2. The difference (you say) between Summer and Winter, between the number and length of days, and of the Sun's motion from Sign to Sign, and all other appearances of the Sun concerning the annual motion, may be seen by your Figures; and easily solved by supposing the earth to move in an Eccentrical orb about the Sun. Answ. Not the Sun's appearances but your fantasies are to be seen by your figures; the earth doth not move because your figure represents it: it is also an easy matter to suppose things that never were, nor can be; you suppose the earth to move about the Sun, and not the Sun 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 seen as well as if the candle did move about the house: and why may we not suppose the house to move sometimes nearer to, and sometimes farther from the candle, the nearer it moveth, the more it is illuminate, etc. But what Cato is so grave as to refrain from laughter at such absurd and foolish suppositions?  
You spend much paper to show how the Planets will appear direct, stationary, retrograde, and yet still move regularly about their own centres. This is, Magno conatu magnas nugas dicere; and who but judaeus apella will believe, that one motion of the earth should cause so many different appearances in the several Planets? howsoever you talk of ptolemy's Wheele-worke, I prefer his Wheel to your Whirligig. It is more easy for many Planets to wheel about, then for one rock or piece of earth to whirl about: but you are as exact in placing the Planets, as if you had been upon the top of Jacob's ladder. You place Mercury next to the Sun, hiding himself under his rays; you say well, for thiefs do use to hide themselves; but for one to hide himself in the open light is not usual: darkness (one would think) were more proper than that; But how Mercury hath a more lively vigorous light then any of the other, I understand not: I should rather think that there were a more lively vigorous light in the Sun, Moon, and Venus. And whereas you say that Venus in her conjunction with the Sun doth not appear horned, is true; but if her husband Vulcan had been as near the Sun, his horns doubtless had been seen; do not you know how much ashamed Venus was, when the Sun looked upon her, being in bed with Mars? Now, that the orb 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 orb of the Moon comprehends the earth in it, because she is sometimes in opposition to the Sun, 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 orbs. Other Planets have their oppositions, is therefore the earth within the orb of either of them? Or why is the earth more within the orb of the Moon then of the Sun, seeing the Moon is no more in opposition to the Sun, than the Sun is to the Moon?  
3. You conclude your Book with a large digression upon the commendations of Astronomy, which hath for its object the whole world you say, And therefore far exceeds the barren speculation of universale, and materia prima. Answ. It seems you have left nothing for the objects of other sciences, if Astronomy must engross 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 fruitful, as of the other; but surely your Vniversum or world in the Moon is as barren a notion, as that of Vniversale. 3. The knowledge of Philosophy and Logic, is but cobweb learning in your conceit; but we think that these cobwebs are strong enough to catch such flies as you; and indeed there is more substance in these cobwebs then in your Astronomical dreams and fancies. 4. What you say of other knowledge, That is depends upon conjectures and uncertainty; is most true of your Astronomical Book, wherein I have found nothing but suppositions, may-be's, conjectures, and uncertainties. 5. Whereas you say, That man had os sublime, a face to look upward, that he might be an Astronomer: You are deceived, it was that he might be a Divine; for the stars were made, not that he should dote upon them in idle speculations and niceties full of uncertainty, but that by their light and motion he might be brought to the knowledge of Divinity, which yourself in your subsequent discourse is forced to acknowledge. But take heed you play not the Anatomist upon these celestial bodies, (whose inward parts are hid from you) in the curious and needless search of them; you may well lose yourself, but this way you shall never find God. 6. Whereas you say, That Astronomy serves to confirm the truth of the holy Scripture: you are very preposterous, for you will have the truth of Scripture confirmed by Astronomy, but you will not have the truth of Astronomy confirmed by Scripture: sure one would think that Astronomical truths had more need of the Scripture confirmation, than the Scripture of them. And indeed, all Learning beside the Scripture, is but 
Serm. 1. De F. de.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theodoret saith; that is, mere contention and strife of words not to be reconciled. Let us not then spend that time in vain and needless speculations, which we should employ in knowing God, and in working out our salvation with fear and trembling; For it is life eternal to know God in Christ: in respect of which excellent knowledge, the Apostle accounted all things but dross and loss. Moses was a great Astronomer, yet he reckoned the knowledge of this, and of all the Egyptian wisdom, but 
L. 1. De Officus.  detrimentum & stultitiam, but loss and foolishness in respect of the knowledge of holy Scripture, saith Saint Ambrose. Astronomers with Martha, are busy about many things, but the Divine with Mary, hath chosen the better part which shall never betaken from him. How small was the store of gold and silver which the Hebrews brought out of Egypt, in comparison of that wealth which under Solomon they had in Jerusalem? so small and mean is all humane knowledge compared to the Scripture: for whatsoever learning is nought it is condemned here, whatsoever is profitable it is to be found here; and more abundantly in the wonderful height and depth of Scripture, 
De Doctrina Christian. L. 2.6.41.  than any where else, saith Saint Austin. Let it then be our delight, Nocturna versare manu, versare diurna: still to be meditating in this holy Law of God; that like trees planted by the river side, we may fructify in due season. And as Alexander did carry about him Homer's Iliads in the rich cabinet of Darius, even so let the holy Scripture be still our Vade mecum, and in the cabinet of our heart let us lay it up, as Mary did the words that were spoken of Christ. I may say of Scripture as the Apostle said of Christ, Whither shall we go from thee? thou hast the words of eternal life. Thus briefly and by snatches (being withdrawn and distracted with many other businesses) have I answered your Book, which I undertook partly out of the confidence I have of the truth of our side; partly to vindicate my own credit; partly to satisfy my friends; and lastly, to excite others whose abilities exceed mine to maintain and defend the truth of our opinion, and to explode the contrary as false, which in time may prove dangerous and pernicious to Divinity.   
FINIS.