The absorption of the German states in the Thirty Years War may account for the apparent absence there of Copernican discussion until after the Peace of Westphalia. A certain Georgius Ludovicus Agricola gave a syllogistic refutation of the doctrine as his disputation at the university of Wittenberg in 1665. While he acknowledged its ingenuity, he preferred to it "the noblest, truest, and divinely inspired system" of Tycho Brahe. The four requirements of an acceptable astronomical hypothesis according to this student are: (1) That it suit all the observations of all the ages; (2) That as far as possible, it be simple and clear; (3) That it be not contrary to the principles of physics and optics; (4) That it be not contrary to the Holy Scriptures. As the Copernican theory does not meet all these tests, it is unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he considers it "ridiculous to include the earth among the planets, because then we would be living in Heaven, forsooth, since we would be in a star." He decides finally "that the decree of March, 1616, condemning the Copernican opinion was not unjust, nor was Galileo unfairly treated."[321] [Footnote 321: Agricola: _Disputatio_.] Two years later appeared a textbook at Nürnberg, by a Jesuit father, based on the twelfth century Sacrobosco treatise and without a single reference so far as I could find, to Copernicus![322] Another publication of the same year was a good deal more up to date. This was a kind of catechism in German by Johann-Henrich Voight[323] explaining for the common people various scientific and mathematical problems in a hundred questions and answers. He himself, a Royal Swedish astronomer, obviously preferred the Tychonic system, but he left his reader free to choose between that and the Copernican one, both of which he carefully explained.[324] He made an interesting summary in parallel columns of the arguments for and against the earth's motion which it seems worth while to repeat as an instance of what the common people were taught: Reasons for asserting the earth is motionless: 1. David in Psalm 89: God has founded the earth and it shall not be moved. 2. Joshua bade the sun stand still--which would not be notable were it not already at rest. 3. The earth is the heaviest element, therefore it more probably is at rest. 4. Everything loose on the earth seeks its rest on the earth, why should not the whole earth itself be at rest? 5. We always see half of the heavens and the fixed stars also in a great half circle, which we could not see if the earth moved, and especially if it declined to the north and south.... 6. A stone or an arrow shot straight up falls straight down. But if the earth turned under it, from west to east, it must fall west of its starting point. 7. In such revolutions houses and towers would fall in heaps. 8. High and low tide could not exist; the flying of birds and the swimming of fish would be hindered and all would be in a state of dizziness.