This will prove the earth to 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 any 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 moon *.

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. Perrerius + (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.

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 Ethera, ab as Serv, 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 y is derived from y 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 truc and

*Vid. Revel. xxi. 23. item xxii. 5.
Gen, c. 1. 1. 2. quæst. C.

2 Pet. iii. 10, 12.

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.

PROP. IX.

That it is more probable the earth does move, than the sun

A

or heavens.

MONGST those many arguments that may be urged for the confirmation of this truth, I shall set down 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 †, who tells us that the pulse of a

* Vid. Mesl. Epit. Astr. 1. 1. in fine.
De Prop. l. 5. prop. 58.

well-tempered man does beat 4000 times in an hour, one of these stars in that space, whilst the pulse beats once, must pass 1132 German miles (saith Alphraganus:) or according to Tycho, 732 German miles. But these numbers seem to be somewhat of the least, and therefore many others do much enlarge them, affirming that every star in the equator, in one beating of the pulse, must move 2528 of these miles.

It is the assertion of Clavius *, that though the distance of the orbs, and so consequently their swiftness, seem to be altogether incredible; yet it is rather far greater in itself than astronomers usually suppose it; and yet saith he, according to the common grounds, every star in. the equator must move 42398437 miles in an hour. And though a man should constantly travel forty miles a day, yet he would not be able to go so far as a star does in one hour, under 2904 years or if we will suppose an arrow to be of the same swiftness, then must it compass this great globe of earth and water 1884 times in an hour. And a bird that could but fly as fast, might go round the world seven times in that space, whilst one could say, Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.

Which though it be a pretty round pace, yet you must conceive that all this is spoken only of the eighth sphere; and so being compared to the swiftness of the primum mobile, is but a slow and heavy motion.

For (saith the same author) the thickness of each orb is equal to the distance of its concave superficies from the centre of the earth. Thus the orb of the moon does contain as much space in its thickness, as there is betwixt the nearest parts of that and the centre. Thus also the cighth sphere is as thick as that whole space betwixt the centre of the earth and its own concave superficies. So likewise must it be in those three other orbs, which he supposes to be above the starry heaven. Now if we proportion their swiftness according to this difference in their

* Comment. in prim. cap. Sphæra,

bigness, you may then conceive (if you can) what a kind of celerity that must be, by which the primum mobile will be whirled about.

Tycho makes the distance of the stars to be much less, and their motion slower; and yet he is fain to confess, that it is omni cogitatione celerior.

Clavius likewise speaking concerning the swiftness of the starry orb, does acknowledge, Quod velocitas ejus captum humani ingenii excedit. What then could he think of the primum mobile?

Dr. Gilbert being it seems astonished at the consideration of this strange swiftness, says of it, that it is motus supra omnes cogitationes, somnia, fabulas & licentias poeticas insuperabilis, ineffabilis, incomprehensibilis. A man may more easily conceive the possibility of any fable or fiction, how beasts and trees might talk together, than how any material body should be moved with such a swiftness.

Not but that it is possible for God to turn them about with a far greater velocity. Nay it is possible for art to contrive a motion, which shall be equally slow in that proportion as this is swift. But however, the question here is not what can be done, but what is most likely to be done according to the usual course of nature. It is the part of a philosopher, in the revolution of natural events, not to fly unto the absolute power of God, and tell us what he can do, but what according to the usual way of providence is most likely to be done, to find out such causes of things, as may seem most easy and probable to our reason.

If you ask what repugnancy there is in the heavens, unto so great a swiftness: we answer, their being such vast material condensed substances, with which this inconceivable motion cannot agree.

Since motion and magnitude are two such geometrical things, as bear a mutual proportion to one another; therefore it may seem convenient, that slowness should be more agreeable to a great body, and swiftness to a lesser and so it should be more consonant to the principles of nature, that * De magnete, l. 6. e. 3.