« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
4. It would have been in vain for nature to have endowd the heavens with all conditions requisite for motion, if hey had been to stand still. As first, they have a round gure. Secondly, they have neither gravity nor levity. Chirdly, they are incorruptible. Fourthly, they have no ontrary.
5. All similary parts are of the same nature with the vhole: but each part of the earth does rest in its place; herefore also doth the whole.
6. The sun in the world is as the heart in a man's body; out the motion of the heart ceasing, none of the members do stir: therefore also if the sun should stand still, the other parts of the world would be without motion.
7. The sun and heavens do work upon these inferior bodies by their light and motion. So the moon does operate upon the sea.
8. The earth is the foundation of buildings, and therefore must be firm and stable.
9. It is the constant opinion of divines, that the lieavens shall rest after the day of judgment; which they prove from Isa. vi. 20. Thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself. So likewise, Rev. x. 6. The angel swears that there shall be time no longer; and therefore the heavens must rest, since by their motion it is that time is measured. And St. Paul says, Rom. viii. 20. ' That all the creatures are subject to vanity. Now this can be no other in the heavens, than the vanity of inotion, which the wise man speaks of, Eccles. i. 4. The sun riseth, and the sun goeth down, &c.
To these it may be answered:
In the first you may note a manifest contradiction, when he will have the earth to be hotter than the water, by reason of this motion; when as notwithstanding, he acknowledges the water to move along with it: and therefore too in the next line, he infers that the water, because of that heat and rarefaction which it receives from this motion with the earth, must be incapable of so much cold, as to be congealed into ice.
But unto that which may be conceived to be his meaning in this and the next argument; I answer: if he had fully understood this opinion which he opposes, he would easily have apprehended that it could not be prejudiced by either of these consequences. For we suppose that not only this globe of earth and water, but also all the vaporous air which environs it, are carried along by the same motion. And therefore, though what he says concerning the heat; which would be produced by such a motion, were true, yet it would not be pertinent, since our earth and water, and the air next unto them, are not by this means severed from one another, and so do not come within the compass of this argument.
If any reply, that this will notwithstanding hold true concerning the upper part of the air, where there is such a separation of one body from another; and so consequently, an answerable heat. I answer,
1. It is not generally granted, that motion in all kind of bodies does produce heat; some restrain it only to solid bodies, affirming, that in those which are fluid, it is rather the cause of coldness. This is the reason, say they, why running waters are ever to our sense the coolest; and why, amongst those winds which proceed from the same coasts of heaven, about the same time of the year, the strongest always is the coldest? If you object, that running waters are not so soon frozen as others, they answer; this is not because they are thereby heated, but because unto congelation it is requisite that a body should settle and rest, as well as be cold.
2. If we should grant a moderate heat in those parts of the air, we have not any experiment to the contrary, nor would it prejudice the present opinion, or common principles.
As the sound of this motion is not more heard than the harmony of the heavens; so neither is there any reason why this motion should cause a sound, more than the supposed motion of the heavens, which is likewise thought to be continued unto the air hard by us.
This will prove the earth.lo move as well as the heavens: for that has, first, a round figure, as is generally granted. Secondly, being considered as whole, and in its proper place, it is not heavy, as was proved before. And as for the two other conditions, neither are they true of the heavens, nor if they were, would they at all conduce to their motion.
1. This argument would prove that the sea did not ebb and flow, because there is not the same kind of motion in every drop of water; or that the whole earth is not spherical, because every little piece of it is not of the same form.
This is rather an illustration than a proof; or if it do prove any thing, it may serve as well for that purpose unto which it is afterward applied, where the motion of every planet is supposed to depend upon the revolution of the sun.
That the sun and planets do work upon the earth by their own real daily motion, is the thing in question; and therefore must not be taken for a common ground.
We grant that the earth is firm and stable from all such motions whereby it is joggled or uncertainly shaken.
1. For the authority of those divines, which he urges for the interpretation of these scriptures; this will be but a weak argument against that opinion which is already granted to be a paradox.
2. The scriptures themselves, in their right meaning, will not at all conduce to the present purpose.
As for that in Isaiah, if we consult the coherence, we shall find that the scope of the prophet is to set forth the glory of the church triumphant. Wherein he says there shall not be
need of the sun or moon, but God's presence shall supply them both: for the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory, ver. 19. and as for this sun and moon, it shall not go down, or withdraw itself, but he shall be an everlasting light without intermission. So that it is evident he speaks of
that light which shall hereafter be instead of the sun and inoon *.
As for that in the Revelations, we yield that time shall cease; but to say that this depends upon the cessation of the heavens, is to beg the question, and to suppose that which is to be proved; viz. that time is measured by the motion of the heavens, and not of the earth. Perreriust (from whom this last argument was borrowed without acknowledgment) might have told him in the very same place, that time does not absolutely and universally depend upon the motion of the heavens, sed in motu et successione, cujuslibet durationis, but in any such succession, by which duration may be measured.
As for that in the Romans, we say, that there are other vanities to which the heavenly bodies are subject: as first, unto many changes and alterations; witness those comets which at several times have been discerned amongst them; and then likewise to that general corruption, in which all the creatures shall be involved at the last day. When they shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat I.
Thus you see, there is not any such invincible strength in these arguments, as might cause the author of them to triumph before-hand with any great noise of victory.
Another objection like unto these is taken from the etymology of several words. Thus the heavens are called Æthera, ab Ke 98lv, because they are always in motion, and the earth Vesta, qui vi stat, because of its immobility.
To which I answer: it were no difficult matter to find such proofs for this opinion, as well as against it.
Thus we may say that the Hebrew word yn is derived from 397 quia currit; and terra, non quod, terratur, sed quod perenni cursu omnia terat, saith Calcagnius. However, though we suppose the etymology to be never so true and
* Vid. Revel. xxi. 23. item xxii. 5.
Gen, c. 1. 1. 2. quæst. 6.
1 2 Pet, iii, 10, 13.
genuine, yet it can at the best but shew what the more common opinion was of those times when such names were first imposed. But
suppose all this were so, that the earth had such a diurnal revolution; yet how is it conceivable that it should at the same time have two distinct motions?
I answer: this may easily be apprehended, if you consider how both these motions do tend the same way from west to east. Thus a bowl being turned out of the hand, has two motions in the air; one, whereby it is carried round; the other, whereby it is cast forward.
From what hath been delivered in this chapter, the indifferent reader may gather some satisfaction for those arguments which are usually urged against this diurnal motion of the earth.
That it is more probable the earth does move, than the sun
MONGST those many arguments that may be urged
only these five.
1. If we suppose the earth to be the cause of this motion, then will those vast and glorious bodies of the heavens be freed from that inconceivable, unnatural swiftness, which must otherwise be attributed unto them.
For if the diurnal revolution be in the heavens, then it will follow according to the common hypothesis *, that each star in the equator must in every hour move at the least 4529538 German miles. So that according to the observation of Cardan t, who tells us that the pulse of a
* Vid. Mesl. Epit. Astr. I. 1. in fine.