, in order that its
object, the mixture of the elements, may be
fulfilled:

It follows that there must be some final and efficient
cause, whereby this projection may be accomplished.

_a_. The final cause has been seen to be the purpose
of Universal Nature.
_b_. The efficient cause cannot be (i) the Earth,
(ii) the Water, (iii) the Air or Fire, (iv) the
heaven of the Moon, (v) the Planets, nor (vi)
the Primum Mobile:

Therefore it must be ascribed to the heaven of
the Fixed Stars (for this has variety hi efficiency,
as is seen in the various constellations),
and in particular to those Stars of the Northern
Hemisphere which overhang the dry land.

(_x_) _First objection_: Why is the projecting
continent then, not circular, since the
motion of these stars is circular?

_Answer_: Because the material did not
suffice for so great an elevation.

(_y_) _Second objection_: Why is this elevation
in this particular place?

_Answer_: Because God whose ways are
inscrutable, willed it so.

We should therefore desist from examining
too closely the reasons, which we
can never hope to fathom.

D. _Refutation of the original arguments_:
_Reason 1._ Invalid because Earth and Water are spheres
with the same center.
_Reason 2._ Invalid because of the external influence of
Universal Nature, counteracting the internal influence
of Particular Nature.
_Reason 3._ Invalid because it is sphericity of the sea and
not the lowness of the land which interferes with one's
view at sea.
_Reason 4._ Invalid because Water does not flow to the
tops of mountains, but ascends thither in the form of
vapors.
_Reason 5._ Invalid because Water imitating the moon in
one respect, need not imitate it in all.[61]

This brief obviously illustrates much more than the form of the
mediaeval Disputation. It leaves one in no doubt as to the difference
between the natural science of the Middle Ages and that of our own time.
It also illustrates the weakness of the scholastic method when applied
to questions which modern science would settle by experiment. The
argument abounds in misstatements of fact, the conclusion is incorrect,
and the "reasoning" by which it is reached can be described, from the
modern point of view, on