PROP. VI.

That there is not any argument from the words of scripture, principles of nature, or observations in astronomy, which can sufficiently evidence the earth to be in the centre of the universe.

OUR

UR adversaries do much insult in the strength of those arguments which they conceive do unanswerably conclude the earth to be in the centre of the world. Whereas, if they were but impartially considered, they would be found altogether insufficient for any such conclusion, as shall be clearly manifested in this following chapter.

The arguments which they urge in the proof of this, are of three sorts; either such as are taken,

1. From expressions of scripture.

2. From principles of natural philosophy.

3. From common appearances in astronomy.

Those of the first kind are chiefly two: the first is grounded on that common scripture-phrase, which speaks of the sun, as being above us. So Solomon often mentioning human affairs, calls them, the works which are done under the sun *. From whence it appears, that the earth is below it, and therefore nearer to the centre of the universe, than the sun.

I answer: Though the sun in comparison to the absolute frame of the world, be in the midst; yet this does not hinder, but that in respect to our earth, he may be truly said to be above it; because we usually measure the height or lowness of every thing, by its being further off, or nearer unto this centre of our earth. From which, since the sun is so remote, it may properly be affirmed that we are under it, though notwithstanding that be in the centre of the world.

Eccles i. 14, &c.

A second argument of the same kind, is urged by Fromondus.

It is requisite, that hell (which is in the centre of the earth *) should be most remotely situated from the seat of the blessed. But now this heaven, which is the seat of the blessed, is concentrical to the starry sphere: and therefore it will follow, that our earth must be in the midst of this sphere; and so consequently in the centre of the world.

I answer: this argument is grounded upon these uncertainties;

1. That hell must needs be situated in the centre of our earth.

2. That the heaven of the blessed must needs be concentrical to that of the stars.

3. That places must be as far distant in situation as in

use.

Which because they are taken for granted, without any proof, and are in themselves but weak and doubtful, therefore the conclusion (which always follows the worser part) cannot be strong, and so will not need any other

answer.

The second sort of arguments taken from natural philosophy, are principally these three.

1. First, from the vileness of our earth, because it consists of a more sordid and base matter than any other part of the world; and therefore must be situated in the centre, which is the worst place, and at the greatest distance from those purer incorruptible bodies, the heavens.

I answer: this argument does suppose such propositions for grounds, which are not yet proved, and therefore not to be granted. As,

1. That bodies must be as far distant in places, as in nobility.

2. That the earth is of a more ignoble substance than any of the other planets, consisting of a more base and vile matter.

* Antar, c. 12. item Vesta. tract. 5. c. 2.

3. That the centre is the worst place.

All which are (if not evidently false) yet very uncertain. 2. From the nature of the centre, which is the place of rest, and such as in all circular motions is itself immoveable, and therefore will be the fittest situation for the earth; which by reason of its heaviness, is naturally unfit for motion.

I answer: this argument likewise is grounded upon these two false foundations; as,

1. That the whole frame of nature does move round, excepting only the earth.

2. That the whole earth, considered as whole, and in its proper place, is heavy, or more unfit for a natural motion, than any of the other planets.

Which are so far from being such general grounds from which controversies should be discussed, that they are the very thing in question betwixt us and our adversaries.

3. From the nature of all heavy bodies, which is to fall towards the lowest place. From whence they conclude, that our earth must be in the centre.

I answer: this may prove it to be a centre of gravity,, but not of distance, or that it is in the midst of the world. Yea, (but say our adversaries) Aristotle for this urges a demonstration, which must needs be infallible. Thus the motion of light bodies does apparently tend upward towards the circumference of the world: but now the motion of heavy bodies is directly contrary to the ascent of the other; wherefore it will necessarily follow, that these do all of them tend unto the centre of the world.

I answer: though Aristotle were a master in the art of syllogisms, and he from whom we received the rules of disputation; yet in this particular, it is very plain that he was deceived with a fallacy, whilst his argument does suppose that which it does pretend to prove.

That light bodies do ascend unto some circumference which is higher and above the earth, is plain and undeniable. But that this circumference is the same with that of the world, or concentrical unto it, cannot be reasonably

affirmed, unless he suppose the earth to be in the centre of the universe, which is the thing to be proved.

I would fain know from what grounds our adversaries can prove, that the descent of heavy bodies is to the centre; or the ascent of light bodies, to the circumference of the world. The utmost experience we can have in this kind, does but extend to those things that are upon our earth, or in the air above it. And alas! what is this unto the vast frame of the whole universe, but punctulum, such an insensible point, which does not bear so great a proportion to the whole, as a small sand does unto the earth. Wherefore it were a senseless thing, from our experience of so little a part, to pronounce any thing infallibly concerning the situation of the whole. The arguments from astronomy, are chiefly these four; each of which are boasted of to be unanswerable.

1. The horizon does every where divide all the great circles of a sphere into two equal parts; so there is always half the equinoctial above it, and half below. Thus likewise, there will constantly be six signs of the zodiac above the horizon, and other six below it. And besides, the circles of the heaven and earth, are each way proportionable to one another; as fifteen German miles on the earth, are every where agreeable to one degree in the heavens; and one hour in the earth, is correspondent to fifteen degrees in the equator. From whence it may be inferred, that the earth must necessarily be situated in the midst of these circles; and so consequently, in the centre of the world.

I answer: this argument does rightly prove the earth to be in the midst of these circles; but we cannot hence conclude, that it is in the centre of the world: from which, though it were never so much distant, yet would it still remain in the midst of those circles, because it is the eye that imagines them to be described about it. Wherefore it were a weak and preposterous collection, to argue thus, that the earth is in the centre of the world, because in the midst of those circles; or because the parts and degrees of the earth are answerable in proportion to the parts and de

grees in heaven. Whereas, it follows rather on the contra ry, that these circles are equally distant and proportional in their parts, in respect of the earth, because it is our eye that describes them about the centre of it.

So that though a far greater part of the world did appear at one time than at another, yet in respect of those circles which our eye describes about the earth, all that we could see at once, would seem to be but a perfect hemisphere; as may be manifested by this following figure.

Where if we suppose A to be our earth, B C D E one of the great circles which we fancy about it, F G H I the orb of fixed stars, R the centre of them: now though the ark GFI be bigger than the other G H I, yet notwithstanding, to the eye on the earth A, one will appear a semicircle as well as the other; because the imagination does transfer all those stars into the lesser circle BCDE, which it does fancy to be described above that centre. Nay, though there were a habitable earth at a far greater distance from the centre of the world, even in the place of Jupiter, as suppose at Q; yet then also would there be the same appear. ance. For though the ark KFL in the starry heaven, were twice as big as the other K HL, yet notwithstanding at the earth Q they would both appear but as equal hemi

VOL. I.