In his Dog-day [Conversations] (first colloquy), Simon Maiolus says: “That the Sun stood still was indeed an excellent miracle; but another is to be preferred to this — namely, if the Sun should go back.” Yet I do not see the reason for this. For the terminus from which and the terminus to which, in these circular motions, are not of themselves opposed. Then, whatever terminus you name, to which the Sun has gone back, it is certainly of such a kind that the Sun would afterward come to it, and would tend to that very [point] from which it had advanced; on the contrary…
(col. 1033)
…[the regression of the Sun by ten lines (in Hezekiah)], though accomplished, is such that in it only this seems wonderful: that the Sun returned to the same terminus by a more compendious [shorter] way, the wonted revolution being interrupted; not, however, that it simply returned. But for the same Sun to stand in whatever place and position of heaven [it may be] is simply wonderful. And indeed, in the motions which are called “straight,” is it not as wonderful — or almost more wonderful — if a stone falling from a higher place should hang, as it were suspended, in the middle space of the air, than if it should go back up? In the motions which come about from a certain equilibrium, we see that it is more difficult to make those [things] which so move stand still, than to impel [them] to one side or the other. For a struck bell, when one has made an end of pulling [the rope], does not at once rest, but is agitated, and for some time still keeps moving to and fro. A wheel, once impelled, you could more quickly and easily impel to the other side than make it rest entirely from motion. But I say briefly:
First. As to the power of God, by which every miracle [comes to] be; as to the force of the Angel, the mover of the heavens; and as to the form of the celestial body itself, and its propensity to motion and rest — each miracle is equal. The first is clear, because there is not greater power in the one than in the other — [a power] which in every miracle is always infinite. The second is also clear, because the impression of motion upon the heaven brings no greater labor or difficulty to the Angel than the cessation of that impression. The third is clear from what was said above (question 14).
Secondly. The Joshuan standstill of the Sun seems greater than the Hezekian regression. First: because it was done imperiously [by command] by a man. Secondly: because it was done in a more illustrious place and manner, in the sight of all the Israelites. Thirdly: for the advantage and safety of more [people]. Fourthly: because the Joshuan day was longer. Fifthly: [there was] a greater novelty, and a more unusual miracle, in the Sun. Sixthly: because together with the Sun the Moon also stood still — not merely by some consequence, but by the same command and order of Joshua. Seventhly: that the miracle of the standing Sun was performed for a greater and more illustrious cause than [that] of the returning [Sun], is clear from what is narrated in 4 Kings [2 Kings] 20 and Ezechiel 38.
[Translator’s note: the print reads “Ezechiel 38”; the Hezekiah sundial passage is Isaiah 38 (with 2 Kings 20), which Serarius cited correctly as Isaiah 38 elsewhere — a slip.]