1by Copernicus. Which arguments, as being of ſomewhat a
rent nature, may be produced, after we have examined the
ſtrength of theſe already propounded.
rent nature, may be produced, after we have examined the
ſtrength of theſe already propounded.
An argument
taken from the
Clouds, and from
Birds.
taken from the
Clouds, and from
Birds.
An argument
taken from the air
which we feel to
beat upon us when
we run a Horſe at
full ſpeed.
taken from the air
which we feel to
beat upon us when
we run a Horſe at
full ſpeed.
An argument
taken from the
whirling of
lar motion, which
hath a faculty to
extrude and
pate.
taken from the
whirling of
lar motion, which
hath a faculty to
extrude and
pate.
SAGR. What ſay you Simplicius? do you think that Salviatus
is Maſter of, and knoweth how to unfold the Ptolomean and
ſtotelian arguments? Or do you think that any Peripatetick is
qually verſt in the Copernican demonſtrations?
is Maſter of, and knoweth how to unfold the Ptolomean and
ſtotelian arguments? Or do you think that any Peripatetick is
qually verſt in the Copernican demonſtrations?
SIMPL. Were it not for the high eſteem, that the paſt
ſes have begot in me of the learning of Salviatus, and of the
cuteneſſe of Sagredus, I would by their good leave have gone my
way without ſtaying for their anſwers; it ſeeming to me a thing
impoſſible, that ſo palpable experiments ſhould be contradicted;
and would, without hearing them farther, conſirm my ſelf in my
old perſwaſion; for though I ſhould be made to ſee that it was
roneous, its being upheld by ſo many probable reaſons, would
der it excuſeable. And if theſe are fallacies, what true
tions were ever ſo fair?
ſes have begot in me of the learning of Salviatus, and of the
cuteneſſe of Sagredus, I would by their good leave have gone my
way without ſtaying for their anſwers; it ſeeming to me a thing
impoſſible, that ſo palpable experiments ſhould be contradicted;
and would, without hearing them farther, conſirm my ſelf in my
old perſwaſion; for though I ſhould be made to ſee that it was
roneous, its being upheld by ſo many probable reaſons, would
der it excuſeable. And if theſe are fallacies, what true
tions were ever ſo fair?
SAGR. Yet its good that we hear the reſponſions of Salviatus;
which if they be true, muſt of neceſſity be more fair, and that by
inſinite degrees; and thoſe muſt be deformed, yea moſt deformed,
if the Metaphy ſical Axiome hold, That true and fair are one and
the ſame thing; as alſo falſe and deformed. Therefore Salviatus
let's no longer loſe time.
which if they be true, muſt of neceſſity be more fair, and that by
inſinite degrees; and thoſe muſt be deformed, yea moſt deformed,
if the Metaphy ſical Axiome hold, That true and fair are one and
the ſame thing; as alſo falſe and deformed. Therefore Salviatus
let's no longer loſe time.
True and fair
are one and the
ſame, as alſo falſe
and deformed.
are one and the
ſame, as alſo falſe
and deformed.
SALV. The firſt Argument alledged by Simplicius, if I well
member it, was this. The Earth cannot move circularly, becauſe
ſuch motion would be violent to the ſame, and therefore not
petual: that it is violent, the reaſon was: Becauſe, that had it been
natural, its parts would likewiſe naturally move round, which is
impoſſible, for that it is natural for the parts thereof to move with a
right motion downwards. To this my reply is, that I could
ly wiſh, that Ariſtotle had more cleerly expreſt himſelf, where he
ſaid; That its parts would likewiſe move circularly; for this
ving circularly is to be underſtood two wayes, one is, that every
particle or atome ſeparated from its Whole would move circularly
about its particular centre, deſcribing its ſmall Circulets; the other
is, that the whole Globe moving about its centre in twenty four
hours, the parts alſo would turn about the ſame centre in four and
twenty hours. The firſt would be no leſſe an impertinency, than
if one ſhould ſay, that every part of the circumference of a Circle
ought to be a Circle; or becauſe that the Earth is Spherical, that
therefore every part thereof be a Globe, for ſo doth the Axiome
require: Eadem eſt ratio totius, & partium. But if he took it in
the other ſenſe, to wit, that the parts in imitation of the Whole
ſhould move naturally round the Centre of the whole Globe in
twenty four hours, I ſay, that they do ſo; and it concerns you,
member it, was this. The Earth cannot move circularly, becauſe
ſuch motion would be violent to the ſame, and therefore not
petual: that it is violent, the reaſon was: Becauſe, that had it been
natural, its parts would likewiſe naturally move round, which is
impoſſible, for that it is natural for the parts thereof to move with a
right motion downwards. To this my reply is, that I could
ly wiſh, that Ariſtotle had more cleerly expreſt himſelf, where he
ſaid; That its parts would likewiſe move circularly; for this
ving circularly is to be underſtood two wayes, one is, that every
particle or atome ſeparated from its Whole would move circularly
about its particular centre, deſcribing its ſmall Circulets; the other
is, that the whole Globe moving about its centre in twenty four
hours, the parts alſo would turn about the ſame centre in four and
twenty hours. The firſt would be no leſſe an impertinency, than
if one ſhould ſay, that every part of the circumference of a Circle
ought to be a Circle; or becauſe that the Earth is Spherical, that
therefore every part thereof be a Globe, for ſo doth the Axiome
require: Eadem eſt ratio totius, & partium. But if he took it in
the other ſenſe, to wit, that the parts in imitation of the Whole
ſhould move naturally round the Centre of the whole Globe in
twenty four hours, I ſay, that they do ſo; and it concerns you,