I answer: This may proove it to be a centre of gravitie, 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, do’s apparantly 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 doe all of them tend unto the centre of the World.

I answer: Though Aristotle were a Master in the art of Syllogismes, and he from whom we received the rules of disputation; yet in this particular, ‘tis very plain that hee was deceived with a fallacie, whilst his Argument do’s suppose that which it do’s pretend to proove.

That light bodies doe ascend unto some circumference which is higher and above the Earth, is plaine and undeniable. But that this circumference is the same with that of the World, or concentricall unto it, cannot be reasonably affirmed, unlesse he suppose the earth to bee in the centre of the Vniverse, which is the thing to be prooved.

I would fain know from what grounds our adversaries can proove, 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 kinde, do’s but extend to those things that are upon our Earth, or in the aire above it. And alas, what is this unto the vaste frame of the whole Vniverse? but punctulum, such an insensible point, which do’s not beare so great a proportion to the whole, as a small sand do’s unto the Earth. Wherefore it were a sencelesse thing, from our experience of so little a part, to pronounce any thing infallibly concerning the scituation of the whole. The Arguments from Astronomy, are chiefly these foure; each of which, are boasted of to be unanswerable.

1 The Horizon do’s everie where divide all the great circles of a Sphaere into two equall parts:⁷ So there is always halfe the Equinoctiall above it, and half below. Thus likewise, there will constantly be six signs of the Zodiacke 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 Germane miles on the Earth, are every where agreeable to one degree in the Heavens; and one houre in the Earth, is correspondent to fifteen degrees in the Equator. From whence it may bee inferred, that the Earth must necessarily bee scituated in the midst of these circles; and so consequently, in the centre of the World.

I answer: This Argument do’s rightly proove 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 remaine in the midst of those circles, because it is the eye that imagines them to be described about it. Wherefore it were a weake 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 degrees in Heaven. Whereas, it follows rather on the contrary, That these circles are equally distant and proportionall 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 farre greater part of the world did appeare at one time than at another; yet in respect of those circles which our eye describes about the Earth, all that wee could see at once, would seem to be but a perfect Haemisphere: As may bee manifested by this following Figure.

Where if wee suppose A. to bee our Earth, B. C. D. E. one of the great circles which we fancy about it, F. G. H. I. the orbe of fixed Starres, R. the centre of them. Now though the Arke, G. F. I. bee bigger than the other, G. H. I. yet yet notwithstanding, to the eye on the Earth, A. one will appeare a semicircle, as well as the other; because the imagination do’s transferre all those Starres into the lesser circle, B. C. D. E. which it do’s 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 Iupiter, as suppose at Q. yet then also would there bee the same appearance. For though the Arke, K. F. L. in the starry heaven, were twice as big as the other, K. H. L. yet notwithstanding at the Earth, Q. they would both appeare but as equall Hemispheres, being transferred into that other circle, M. N. O. P. which is part of the Sphaere that the eye describes to it selfe above the Earth.

From whence wee may plainely discern, That though the Earth be never so farre distant from the centre of the World; yet the parts and degrees of that imaginarie Sphaere about it, will always be proportionall to the parts and degrees of the Earth.

2 Another demonstration like unto this former,⁸ frequently urged to the same purpose, is this: If the Earth be out of the centre of the World, then must it be scituated in these three positions: either in the Equator,⁹ but out of the Axis; or secondly, in the Axis, but out of the Equator; or thirdly, besides both of them. But it is not placed according to any of these scituations; therefore must it needs be in the centre.

1 ‘Tis not in the Equator, and beside the Axis. For then, first, there will bee no Equinox at all in some places, when the days and nights shall be of an equall length: secondly, the afternoones and forenoones will not bee of the same length; because, then our Meridian Line must divide the Hemisphaere into unequall parts.

2 ‘Tis not in the Axis, but out of the Equator; for then, first, the Equinox would not happen when the Sunne was in the middle line betwixt the two Solstices, but in some other paralell, which might bee neerer to one of them, according as the earth did approach to one Tropicke more than another. Secondly, there would not bee such a proportion between the increase & decrease of days and nights, as now there is.

3 ‘Tis not besides both of them: For then, all these inconveniences, and sundry others must with the same necessity of consequence be inferred. From whence it will follow, That the Earth must be scituated there, where the Axis and Equator meet, which is in the centre of the World.

To this we grant, that the Earth must needs be placed both in the Axis and Equator; and so consequently, in the centre of that sphaere which we imagine about it: But yet this will not prove, that it is in the midst of the Vniverse. For let our adversaries suppose it to bee as far distant from that, as they conceive the Sun to be; yet may it still be scituated in the very concourse of these two Lines: because the Axis of the World is nothing else but that imaginary Line which passes through the Poles of our Earth, to the Poles of the World. And so likewise the Equator, is nothing else but a great circle in the midst of the Earth, betwixt both the Poles, which by imagination is continued even to the fixed Starres. Thus also, we may affirme the Earth to be in the plane of the Zodiacke, if by it’s annuall motion it did describe that imaginarie circle: and in the plane of the Equator, if by it’s diurnall motion about it’s own Axis, it did make severall paralels, the midst of which should be the Equator. From whence it appeares, that these two former Arguments proceed from one and the same mistake, whilest our adversaries suppose the circumference and centre of the Sphaere, to be the same with that of the World.

Another demonstration of the same kinde,¹⁰ is taken from the Eclipses of the Sunne and Moone; which would not alwaies happen when these two Luminaries are diametrically opposed, but somtimes times when they are lesse distant than a semicircle, if it were so, that the Earth were not in the centre.

I answer: This Argument, if well considered, will be found most directly to inferre this conclusion, That in all Eclipses, the Earth is in such a strait Line (betwixt the two Luminaries,) whose extremities doe point unto opposite parts of the Zodiacke. Now though our adversaries should suppose (as Copernicus do’s) the Earth to be scituated in that which they would have to bee the Sunnes Orbe; yet would there not bee any Eclipse, but when the Sunne and Moone were diametrically opposite, and our Earth betwixt them: As may cleerely bee manifested by this Figure, where you see the two Luminaries in opposite Signes: and according as any part of our Earth is scituated by it’s diurnall revolution, so will every Eclipse be either visible, or not visible unto it.

The last and chiefe Argument, is taken from the appearance af the Starres; which in every Horizon,¹¹ at each houre of the night,¹² and at all times of the yere, seeme of an equall bignesse. Now this could not bee, if our Earth were sometimes neerer unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, which is granted to bee the diameter of that Orbe, wherein the Earth is supposed to move.

I answer: this consequence will not hold, if we affirme the Earth’s Orbe not to be big enough for the making of any sensible difference in the appearance of the fixed Stars.¹³

Yea, but (you wil say) tis beyond conceit, and without all reason, to think the fixed Starres of so vast a distance from us, that our approaching neerer unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, cannot make any difference in the seeming quantitie of their bodies.

I reply: There is no certaine way to find out the exact distance of the starry Firmament: but we are fain to conclude of it by conjectures, according as severall reasons and observations seem most likely unto the fancies of divers men. Now that this opinion of Copernicus do’s not make it too big, may be discerned from these following considerations.

The Worlds great & little, are relative tearmes, and do import a comparison to somthing else: So that where the Firmament (as it is according to Copernicus) is said to be too big; ‘tis likely, that this word is to be understood in reference to some other thing of the same kinde, the least of which, is the Moones Orbe: but now if it’s being so much bigger than this may bee a sufficient reason, why it should be thought too great, then it seemes that every thing which exceeds another of the same kind, in such a proportion, may be concluded to be of too big a quantitie: and so consequently, we may affirme, that there is no such thing in the World. And hence it will follow, that Whales and Elephants are meere Chimaera’s, and poeticall fictions, because they doe so much exceed many other living creatures. If all this eighth sphaere (saith Gallilaeus) as great as it is, were a light body, and placed so farre from us that it appeared but as one of the lesser Starres, wee should then esteeme it but little; and therefore, we have no reason now to thrust it out from being amongst the works of nature, by reason of it’s too great immensitie. ‘Tis a frequent speech of our adversaries, Tycho, Fromundus, and others, in excuse of that incredible swiftnesse which they imagine in their primum mobile, That ‘twas requisite the motion of the Heavens should have a kind of infinitie in it, the better to manifest the infinitenesse of the Creator. And why may not wee as well affirme this concerning the bignes of the Heavens? Difficilius est accidens praeter modulum subjecti intendere, quàm subjectum sine accidente augere (saith Keplar.) His meaning is, that ‘tis lesse absurd to imagine the eighth Sphaere of so vast a bignesse, as long as it is without motion, or at least, ha’s but a very slow one: than to attribute unto it such an incredible celeritie, as is altogether disproportionable to it’s bignesse.

2 ‘Tis the acknowledgement of Clavius,¹⁴ and might easily be demonstrated, That if the centre were fastened upon the Pole of the World, the Orbe wherein he supposes the Sunne to move, would not be able to reach so farre in the eighth Sphaere (being considered according to Ptolomies Hypothesis) as to touch the Pole-starre: which notwithstanding (saith he) is so neere the Pole it selfe, that wee can scarse discerne it to move: Nay, that circle which the Polestarre makes about the Pole, is aboue foure times bigger than the Orbe of the Sunne. So that according to the opinion of our adversaries, though our Earth were at that distance from the centre, as they suppose the Sunne to be, yet would not this eccentricitie make it neerer to any one part of the Firmament, than the Pole-starre is to the Pole, which according to his confession, is scarse sensible. And therefore according to their opinion, it would cause very little difference in the appearance of those Stars, the biggest of which do’s not seeme to bee of above five cubites in it’s diameter.

3 ‘Tis considerable, That the sphaeres of Saturne, Iupiter, Mars, are according to the generall opinion, of very great extension; and yet each of them is appointed onely to carry about it’s particular Planet, which are but very little in comparison of the fixed Starres. Now if for the scituation of these fixed Starres, there should be allotted a proportionable part of the World, ‘tis certaine, that their Orbe must be farre bigger than it is commonly supposed, and very neer to this opinion of Copernicus.

4 Wee usually judge the bignesse of the higher Orbs, by their different motions. As because Saturne finishes his course in thirty yeares, and Iupiter in twelve, therfore we attribute unto those Orbes such a different proportion in their bignesse. Now if by this rule wee would finde out the quantitie of the eighth Sphaere, wee shall discerne it to be farre neerer unto that bignesse, which Copernicus supposeth it to have, than that which Ptolomy, Tycho, and others, ordinarily ascribe unto it. For the starry Heaven (say they) do’s not finish his course under 26000 yeares; whereas Saturne, which is next unto it, do’s compasse his Orbe in thirty yeares. From whence it will probably follow, that there is a very great distance betwixt these in place, because they have such different termes of their revolutions.

But against this answer: unto the last Argument, our adversaries thus reply:

1 If the fixed Starres be so far distant from us,¹⁵ that our approaching neerer unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, doe not make any sensible difference in their appearance, then Gallilaeus his perspective could not make them seeme of a bigger Forme, than they doe to the bare eye, which yet is contrary to common experience.

2 From hence it may bee inferred, (Ibid) That the least fixed Star is bigger than all this Orbe wherein wee suppose the Earth to move; because there is none of them but are of a sensible bignesse in respect of the Firmament, whereas, this it seemes is not.

3 Since God did at first create the Starres for the use of all nations that are under the wholeheavens, Deut. 4. 19. (Ibid) it might have argued some improvidence in him, if he had made them of such vast magnitudes: whereas they might as well bestow their light and influences, and so consequently be as serviceable to that end for which they were appointed, if they had been made with lesse bodies, and placed neerer unto us. And ‘tis a common maxime, that nature in all her operations, do’s avoid superfluities, and use the most compendious way.

I answer:

1 To the first, whether the perspective do make the fixed Starres appeare bigger than they do to the bare eye, cannot certainly be concluded, unlesse wee had such an exact glasse, by which wee might trie the experiment. But if in this kinde we will trust the authoritie of others,¹⁶ Keplar tells us from the experience of skilfull men, that the better the perspective is, by so much the lesse will the fixed Starres appeare through it, being but as meer points from which the beames of light doe disperse themselves like haires. And ‘tis commonly affirmed by others, that the Dog-starre; which seemes to bee the biggest Starre amongst those of the first magnitude, do’s yet appeare through this glasse but as a little point no bigger than the fiftieth part of Iupiter. Hence it is, that though the common opinion hold the Starres of the first magnitude to be two minutes in their diameter, and Tycho three, yet¹⁷ Gallilaeus, who hath bin most versed in the experiments of his owne perspective, concludes them to bee but five seconds.

2 To the second: First wee affirme, the fixed Starres to be of a vaste magnitude. But however, this Argument do’s not induce any necessitie that we should conceive them so big as the earth’s Orb. For it might easily bee prooved, that though a Starre of the sixth magnitude were but equall in diameter unto the Sunne (which is farre enough from the greatnesse of the Earth’s Orbe) yet the starry heav’n would be at such a distance from us, that the Earth’s annuall motion could not cause any difference in it’s appearance.

Suppose the diameter of the Sunne to be about half a degree,¹⁸ as our adversaries grant; whereas a Starre of the sixth magnitude is fifty thirds, which is comprehended in that of the Sun 2160 times. Now if the Sunne were removed so far from us, that it’s diameter would seeme but as one of that number whereof it now containes 2160, then must his distance from us, bee 2160 times greater than now it is: which is all one, as if wee should say, that a Starre of the sixth magnitude is severed from us by so many semidiameters of the Earth’s Orb. But now according to common consent, the distance of the Earth from the Sun, do’s containe 128 semidiameters of the Earth, and (as was said before) this supposed distance of the fixed Starres, do’s comprehend 2160 semidiameters of the Earth’s Orbe. From whence it is manifest, that the semidiameter of the Earth, in comparison to it’s distance from the Sunne, will bee almost doubly bigger than the semidiameter of the Earth’s Orbe, in comparison to this distance of the Starres. But now the semidiameter of the Earth, do’s make very little difference in the appearance of the Sunne, because we see common observations upon the surface of it, are as exactly true to the sence, as if they were made from the centre of it. Wherefore, that difference which would bee made in these fixed Stars, by the annuall course of the earth, must needs be much more unobservable, or rather altogether insensible.

2 The consequence of this Argument is grounded upon this false supposition, That every body must necessarily be of an equall extension, to that distance from whence there do’s not appeare any sensible difference in it’s quantitie. So that when I see a Bird flying such a height in the aire, that my being neerer unto it, or farther from it, by tenne or twenty foot, do’s not make it seem unto my eyes either bigger or lesse; then I may conclude that the bird must needs be either ten or twenty foot thicke: or when I see the body of a Tree that may be halfe a mile from me, and perceive that my approaching neerer to it by thirty or forty paces, do’s not sensibly make any different appearance, I may then inferre, that the Tree is forty paces thicke; with many the like absurd consequences, that would follow from that foundation upon which this Argument is bottomed.

To the third I answer: ‘Tis too much presumption, to conclude that to bee superfluous, the usefulnesse of which we doe not understand. There be many secret ends in these great works of Providence, which humane wisedome cannot reach unto, and as Solomon speakes of those things that are under the Sunne, so may we also of those things that are above it, That no man can find out the works of God, (Eccles. 8. 17) for though a man labour to seek it out. Yea further: Though a wise man thinke to know it, yet shall he not be able to finde it. He that hath most insight into the works of nature, is not able to give a satisfying reason, why the Planets or Stars should be placed just at this particular distance from the Earth, and no neerer or farther. And besides, this Argument might as well be urged against the Hypothesis of Ptolomy or Tycho, since the Starres, for ought we know, might have been as serviceable to us, if they had been placed farre neerer, than either of those Authors suppose them. Againe, were there any force in such a consequence, it would as well conclude a great improvidence of nature, in making such a multitude of those lesser Stars, which have lately discovered by the perspective. For to what purpose should so many Lights be created for the use of man, since his eyes were not able to discerne them? So that our disabilitie to comprehend all those ends which might be aimed at in the works of nature, can bee no sufficient Argument to proove their superfluitie. Though Scripture doe tell us that these things were made for our use, yet it do’s not tell us, that this is their only end. ‘Tis not impossible, but that there may be elsewhere some other inhabitants, by whom these lesser Stars may be more plainly discerned. And (as was said before) why may not we affirm that of the bignesse, which our adversaries doe concerning the motion of the Heavens? That God, to shew his owne immensitie, did put a kinde of infinitie in the creature.

There is yet another Argument to this purpose, urged by¹⁹ Al. Ross. which was not referred to any of the former kinde, because I could scarsely beleeve I did rightly understand it: since he puts it in the front of his other Arguments, as being of strength and subtilty enough to be a leader unto all the rest; and yet in the most likely sence of it, ‘tis so extremely simple to be pressed in a controversie that every fresh man would laugh at it. The words of it are these: Quod minimum est in circulo debet esse centrum illius, at terra longè minor est Sole, & Aequinoctialis terrestris est omnium in Coelo circulus minimus, ergo, &c.

By the same reason, it would rather follow, that the Moon or Mercury were in the centre, since both these are lesse than the Earth. And then, whereas he sayes that the Aequinoctiall of the Earth is the least circle in the Heavens, ‘tis neither true nor pertinent, and would make one suspect, that hee who should urge such an Argument, did searse understand any thing in Astronomy.

There are many other objections like unto this, not worth the citing: The chiefe of all have bin already answered; by which you may discerne, that there is not any such great necessitie, as our adversaries pretend, why the Earth should bee scituated in the midst of the Vniverse.

---

← Book 2, Proposition 5. That the Scripture in it’s proper construction, do’s not · Contents · Book 2, Proposition 7. ‘Tis probable that the Sunne is in the centre of the →

Footnotes

1. LIB. 2. Cap. 6. ↩

2. Eccles. 1. 14, &c. ↩

3. Antar. c. 12. item Vesta. tract 5. c. 2. ↩

4. Arg. 1. ↩

5. Arg. 2. ↩

6. Arg. 3. ↩

7. Arg. 1. ↩

8. Arg. 2. ↩

9. Vid. Carp. Geog. l. 1. c. 5. ↩

10. Arg. 3. ↩

11. Arg. 4. ↩

12. Arist. de coe. lo. li. 2. c. 14. ↩

13. Copern. li. 1. cap. 5, 6. ↩

14. Comment. in Sphaer. cap. 1. ↩

15. Fromond. Vesta. tract. 5. cap. 1. ↩

16. Astron. Copern. lib. 4. par. 1. ↩

17. System. mundi, Call. 3. ↩

18. Vide Galil. ibid. ↩

19. Lib. 1. sect. 2. cap. 1. ↩