Ovr adversaries doe much insult in the strength of those Arguments which they conceive; do unanswerably conclude, the Earth to bee 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 cleerly manifested in this following Chapter.
The Arguments which they urge in the proofe of this, are of three sorts; Either such as are taken,
1 From expressions of Scripture.
2 From principles of naturall Philosophy.1
3 From common appearances in Astronomy.
Those of the first kinde are chiefly two: The first is grounded on that common Scripture phrase, which speakes of the Sunne, as being above us. So Solomon often mentioning humane affaires, calls them,2 the works which are done under the Sunne. From whence it appeares that the Earth is below it; and therefore, neerer to the centre of the Vniverse, than the Sunne.
I answer: Though the Sun in comparison to the absolute frame of the World, be in the midst; yet this do’s not hinder, but that in respect to our Earth, he may be truly said to bee above it, because wee usually measure the height or lownesse of every thing, by it’s being further off, or neerer unto this centre of our Earth. From which, since the Sunne is so remote, it may properly bee affirmed, that wee are under it; though notwithstanding that bee in the centre of the World.
A second Argument of the same kinde, is urged by Fromundus.
‘Tis requisite,3 that Hell (which is in the centre of the Earth) should be most remotely scituated from the seat of the Blessed. But now this Heaven, which is the seat of the Blessed, is concentricall to the starry Sphaere. And therefore it will follow, that our Earth must bee in the midst of this Sphaere; and so consequently, in the centre of the World.
I answer: This Argument is grounded upon these uncertainties;
1 That Hell must needs bee scituated in the centre of our Earth.
2 That the heaven of the Blessed, must needs bee concentricall to that of the Starres.
3 That places must bee as farre distant in scituation as in use:
Which because they are taken for granted, without any proofe, and are in themselves but weake and doubtfull: therefore the conclusion (which alwaies followes the worser part) cannot bee strong, and so will not need any other answer.
The second sort of Arguments taken from naturall Philosophy, are principally these three:
1 First,4 from the vilenesse of our Earth, because it consists of a more for did and base matter than any other part of the World; and therefore, must bee scituated in the centre, which is the worst place, and at the greatest distance from those purer incortuptible bodies, the Heavens.
I answer: This Argument do’s suppose such propositions for grounds, which are not yet prooved; and therfore not to be granted. As,
1 That bodies must bee as farre distant in place, as in Nobilitie.
2 That the Earth is a more ignoble substance than any of the other Planets, consisting of a more base and vile matter.
3 That the centre is the worst place.
All which, are (if not evidently false) yet very uncettaine.
2 From the nature of the centre;5 which is the place of rest, and such as in all circular motions, is it’s selfe immooveable. And theresore will be the fittest scituation for rhe Earth; which by reason of it’s heavinesse, is naturally unfit for motion.
I answer: This Argument likewise is grounded upon these two foolish foundations; As,
1 That the whole Frame of Nature do’s moove round, excepting onely the Earth.
2 That the whole Earth, considered in it’s whole, and in it’s proper place, is heavy; or more unfit for a naturall motion, than any of the other Planets.
Which are so farre from being such generall grounds, from which contro. versies should be discussed, That they are the very thing in question betwixt us and our adversaries.
3 From the nature of all heavy bodies,6 which is to fall towards the lowest place. From whence they conclude, that our Earth must be in the centre.