1
may be aſligned to the Univerſe, we ſhall rather find the Sun
placed in it, as by the ſequel you ſhall underſtand.
may be aſligned to the Univerſe, we ſhall rather find the Sun
placed in it, as by the ſequel you ſhall underſtand.
Now, like as from the conſentaneous conſpiration of all the
parts of the Earth to form its whole, doth follow, that they with
equal inclination concurr thither from all parts; and to unite
themſelves as much as is poſſible together, they there ſphelically
adapt themſelves; why may we not believe that the Sun, Moon,
and other mundane Bodies, be alſo of a round figure, not by
ther than a concordant inſtinct, and natural concourſe of all the
parts compoſing them? Of which, if any, at any time, by any
violence were ſeparated from the whole, is it not reaſonable to
think, that they would ſpontaneouſly and by natural inſtinct
turn? and in this manner to infer, that the right motion agreeth
with all mundane bodies alike.
parts of the Earth to form its whole, doth follow, that they with
equal inclination concurr thither from all parts; and to unite
themſelves as much as is poſſible together, they there ſphelically
adapt themſelves; why may we not believe that the Sun, Moon,
and other mundane Bodies, be alſo of a round figure, not by
ther than a concordant inſtinct, and natural concourſe of all the
parts compoſing them? Of which, if any, at any time, by any
violence were ſeparated from the whole, is it not reaſonable to
think, that they would ſpontaneouſly and by natural inſtinct
turn? and in this manner to infer, that the right motion agreeth
with all mundane bodies alike.
SIMPL. Certainly, if you in this manner deny not onely the
Principles of Sciences, but manifeſt Experience, and the Senſes
themſelves, you can never be convinced or removed from any
pinion which you once conceit, therefore I will chooſe rather to
be ſilent (for, contra negantes principia non eſt diſputandum)
than contend with you. And inſiſting on the things alledged by
you even now (ſince you queſtion ſo much as whether grave
ables have a right motion or no) how can you ever rationally
ny, that the parts of the Earth; or, if you will, that ponderous
matters deſcend towards the Centre, with a right motion;
as, if from a very high Tower, whoſe walls are vcry upright and
perpendicular, you let them fall, they ſhall deſcend gliding and
ſliding by the Tower to the Earth, exactly in that very place
where a plummet would fall, being hanged by a line faſtned above,
juſt there, whence the ſaid weights were let fall? is not this a
more than evident argument of the motions being right, and
wards the Centre? In the ſecond place you call in doubt,
ther the parts of the Earth are moved, as Ariſtotle affirms,
wards the Centre of the World; as if he had not rationally
monſtrated it by contrary motions, whilſt he thus argueth; The
motion of heavie bodies is contrary to that of the light: but the
motion of the light is manifeſt to be directly upwards, namely,
towards the circumference of the World, therefore the motion of
the heavie is directly towards the Centre of the World: and it
happens per accidens, that it be towards the centre of the Earth,
for that this ſtriveth to be united to that. The ſeeking in the
next place, what a part of the Globe of the Sun or Moon would
do, were it ſeparated from its whole, is vanity; becauſe that
by that is ſought, which would be the conſequence of an
bility; in regard that, as Ariſtotle alſo demonſtrates, the cœleſtial
bodies are impaſſible, impenetrable, and infrangible; ſo that ſuch
Principles of Sciences, but manifeſt Experience, and the Senſes
themſelves, you can never be convinced or removed from any
pinion which you once conceit, therefore I will chooſe rather to
be ſilent (for, contra negantes principia non eſt diſputandum)
than contend with you. And inſiſting on the things alledged by
you even now (ſince you queſtion ſo much as whether grave
ables have a right motion or no) how can you ever rationally
ny, that the parts of the Earth; or, if you will, that ponderous
matters deſcend towards the Centre, with a right motion;
as, if from a very high Tower, whoſe walls are vcry upright and
perpendicular, you let them fall, they ſhall deſcend gliding and
ſliding by the Tower to the Earth, exactly in that very place
where a plummet would fall, being hanged by a line faſtned above,
juſt there, whence the ſaid weights were let fall? is not this a
more than evident argument of the motions being right, and
wards the Centre? In the ſecond place you call in doubt,
ther the parts of the Earth are moved, as Ariſtotle affirms,
wards the Centre of the World; as if he had not rationally
monſtrated it by contrary motions, whilſt he thus argueth; The
motion of heavie bodies is contrary to that of the light: but the
motion of the light is manifeſt to be directly upwards, namely,
towards the circumference of the World, therefore the motion of
the heavie is directly towards the Centre of the World: and it
happens per accidens, that it be towards the centre of the Earth,
for that this ſtriveth to be united to that. The ſeeking in the
next place, what a part of the Globe of the Sun or Moon would
do, were it ſeparated from its whole, is vanity; becauſe that
by that is ſought, which would be the conſequence of an
bility; in regard that, as Ariſtotle alſo demonſtrates, the cœleſtial
bodies are impaſſible, impenetrable, and infrangible; ſo that ſuch