{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19103/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19103","id":"gutenberg_19103","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19103","summary":null,"tags":["Astronomy","Astronomy -- Early works to 1800","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science-Fiction & Fantasy","Moon -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Shimmin and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n  [Transcriber's Note:\n\n  Spelling and punctuation are as in the original, including the\n  consistently \"modern\" use of V and U. Italic capital V has two forms,\n  used interchangeably. Since italic capital U does not occur, the\n  rounded V-form has been transcribed as U.\n\n  Greek words and phrases have been transliterated and shown between\n  +marks+. Hebrew is shown between #marks#.\n\n  Latin quotations were given in italics; the translation was usually\n  printed with marginal quotation marks. In this e-text, Latin passages\n  are shown as block quotes (indented) _without_ quotation marks, while\n  passages with marginal quotes are shown as block quotes _with_\n  quotation marks.\n\n  The six Sidenotes shown with an asterisk alongside their number were\n  printed with an asterisk in the original text; all other notes were\n  unmarked.\n\n  References from the Sidenotes are identified at the end of the text,\n  followed by a complete list of errata.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n           *       *       *       *\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n  [Illustration:\n  Sun with six orbits, each with symbol:\n    Mercurius, Venus, Ceres et Proserpina, Mars, Jupiter, Saturnus\n  Sun utters: Ame omnes\n  \"Ceres and Proserpina\" orbit continuing below sun shows earth with\n    orbiting moon.\n  Text on earth orbit: Sua fovent; Vniuersum ornant.\n  Text on moon's orbit: Mutuo se illuminant]\n\n\n                      THE\n                   DISCOVERY\n                      OF A\n                     WORLD\n                    IN THE\n                     MOONE.\n\n\n                      or,\n\n                  A DISCOVRSE\n                    Tending\n                    TO PROVE\n\n            that 'tis probable there\n            may be another habitable\n             World in that Planet.\n\n\n    _Quid tibi inquis ista proderunt? Si nihil aliud,\n        hoc cert\u00e8, sciam omnia angusta esse._\n        SENECA. Pr\u00e6f. ad 1. Lib. _N. Q._\n\n                 [Decoration]\n\n                   _LONDON_,\n\n     Printed by _E. G._ for _Michael Sparl_\n          and _Edward Forrest_, 1638.\n\n\n\n\n  [Decoration]\n\n  _Perlegi h\u00e6c +paradoxa+ & novitatis graci\u00e2 typis\n     mandari permitto._\n\n  Mart. 29. 1638.\n    THO. WEEKES _R.P._\n      _Episc. Lond. Cap._\n        _Domest._\n\n  [Decoration]\n\n\n\n\nTo the Reader.\n\n\n_If amongst thy leisure houres thou canst spare any for the perusall of\nthis discourse, and dost looke to finde somewhat in it which may serve\nfor thy information and benefit: let me then advise thee to come unto\nit with an equall minde, not swayed by prejudice, but indifferently\nresolved to assent unto that truth which upon deliberation shall seeme\nmost probable unto thy reason, and then I doubt not, but either thou\nwilt agree with mee in this assertion, or at least not thinke it to be\nas farre from truth, as it is from common opinion._\n\n_Two cautions there are which I would willingly admonish thee of in the\nbeginning._\n\n1. _That thou shouldst not here looke to find any exact, accurate\n   Treatise, since this discourse was but the fruit of some lighter\n   studies, and those too hudled up in a short time, being first\n   thought of and finished in the space of some few weekes, and\n   therefore you cannot in reason expect, that it should be so\n   polished, as perhaps, the subject would require, or the leisure\n   of the Author might have done it._\n\n2. _To remember that I promise onely probable arguments for the\n   proofe of this opinion, and therefore you must not looke that every\n   consequence should be of an undeniable dependance, or that the truth\n   of each argument should be measured by its necessity. I grant that\n   some Astronomicall appearances may possibly be solved otherwise then\n   here they are. But the thing I aime at is this, that probably they\n   may so be solved, as I have here set them downe: Which, if it be\n   granted (as I thinke it must) then I doubt not, but the indifferent\n   reader will find some satisfaction in the maine thing that is to be\n   proved._\n\n_Many ancient Philosophers of the better note, have formerly defended\nthis assertion, which I have here laid downe, and it were to be wished,\nthat some of us would more apply our endeavours unto the examination of\nthese old opinions, which though they have for a long time lien\nneglected by others, yet in them may you finde many truths well worthy\nyour paines and observation. Tis a false conceit, for us to thinke, that\namongst the ancient variety and search of opinions, the best hath still\nprevailed. Time (saith the learned _Verulam_) seemes to be of the nature\nof a river or streame, which carrieth downe to us that which is light,\nor blowne up, but sinketh that which is weighty and solid._\n\n_It is my desire that by the occasion of this discourse, I may raise up\nsome more active spirit to a search after other hidden and unknowne\ntruthes. Since it must needes be a great impediment unto the growth of\nsciences, for men still so to plod on upon beaten principles, as to be\nafraid of entertaining any thing that may seeme to contradict them. An\nunwillingnesse to take such things into examination, is one of those\nerrours of learning in these times observed by the judicious _Verulam_.\nQuestionlesse there are many secret truths, which the ancients have\npassed over, that are yet left to make some of our age famous for their\ndiscovery._\n\n_If by this occasion I may provoke any reader to an attempt of this\nnature, I shall then thinke my selfe happy, and this work successefull._\n\nFarewell.\n\n\n\n\n  [Decoration]\n\n\nThe First Proposition, by way of Preface.\n\n_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it\n  should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly\n  esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common\n  consent._\n\n\nThere is an earnestnesse and hungering after novelty, which doth still\nadhere unto all our natures, and it is part of that primative image,\nthat wide extent and infinite capacity at first created in the heart of\nman, for this since its depravation in _Adam_ perceiving it selfe\naltogether emptied of any good doth now catch after every new thing,\nconceiving that possibly it may finde satisfaction among some of its\nfellow creatures. But our enemy the divell (who strives still to pervert\nour gifts, and beate us with our owne weapons) hath so contriv'd it,\nthat any truth doth now seeme distastefull for that very reason, for\nwhich errour is entertain'd--Novelty, for let but some upstart heresie\nbe set abroach, and presently there are some out of a curious humour;\nothers, as if they watched an occasion of singularity, will take it up\nfor canonicall, and make it part of their creede and profession; whereas\nsolitary truth cannot any where finde so ready entertainement; but the\nsame Novelty which is esteemed the commendation of errour and makes that\nacceptable, is counted the fault of truth, and causes that to bee\nrejected. How did the incredulous World gaze at _Columbus_ when hee\npromised to discover another part of the earth, and he could not for a\nlong time by his confidence, or arguments, induce any of the Christian\nPrinces, either to assent unto his opinion, or goe to the charges of an\nexperiment. Now if he who had such good grounds for his assertion, could\nfinde no better entertainement among the wiser sort, and upper end of\nthe World; 'tis not likely then that this opinion which I now deliver,\nshall receive any thing from the men of these daies, especially our\nvulgar wits, but misbeliefe or derision. It hath alwaies beene the\nunhappinesse of new truths in Philosophy, to be derided by those that\nare ignorant of the causes of things, and reiected by others whose\nperversenesse ties them to the contrary opinion, men whose envious pride\nwill not allow any new thing for truth which they themselves were not\nthe first inventors of. So that I may iustly expect to be accused of a\npragmaticall ignorance, and bold ostentation, especially since for this\nopinion _Xenophanes_, a man whose authority was able to adde some credit\nto his assertion could not escape the like censure from others. For\n_Natales Comes_ speaking of that Philosopher,[1] and this his opinion,\nsaith thus,\n\n  _Nonnulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua nova monstra in\n  Philosophi\u00e3 introducunt, ut alicujus rei inventores fuisse appareant._\n\n  \"Some there are who least they might seeme to know nothing, will\n  bring up monstrous absurdities in Philosophy, that so afterward they\n  may bee famed for the invention of somewhat.\"\n\nThe same author doth also in another place accuse _Anaxagoras_[2] of\nfolly for the same opinion,\n\n  _Est enim non ignobilis gradus stultiti\u00e6, vel si nescias quid dicas,\n  tamen velle de rebus propositis hanc vel illam partem stabilire._\n\n\"'Tis none of the worst kindes of folly, boldly to affirme one side or\nother, when a man knows not what to say.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Mytholog. lib. 3. c. 17._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Lib. 7. c. 1._]\n\nIf these men were thus censur'd, I may iustly then expect to be derided\nby most, and to be believed by few or none; especially since this\nopinion seemes to carry in it so much strangenesse, so much\ncontradiction to the generall consent of others. But how ever, I am\nresolved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that it\nis not the common opinion of others that can either adde or detract from\nthe truth. For,\n\n1. Other truths have beene formerly esteemed altogether as ridiculous\n   as this can be.\n\n2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall opinion.\n\nI shall give an instance of each, that so I may the better prepare the\nReader to consider things without a prejudice, when hee shall see that\nthe common opposition against this which I affirme cannot any way\nderogate from its truth.\n\n1. Other truths have beene formerly accounted as ridiculous as this, I\nshall specifie that of the Antipodes, which have beene denied and laught\nat by many wise men and great Schollers, such as were _Herodotus_, St.\n_Austin_, _Lactantius_, the _Venerable Bede_, _Lucretius_ the Poet,\n_Procopius_, and the voluminous _Abulensis_ with others. _Herodotus_\ncounted it so horrible an absurdity, that hee could not forbeare\nlaughing to thinke of it. +Gel\u00f4 de hor\u00f4n g\u00eas periodous grapsantas,\npollous \u00ead\u00ea kai oudena noon echontas ex\u00eag\u00easamenon hoi \u00d4keanon te\nrheonta graphousi, perix t\u00ean te g\u00ean eousan kukloterea h\u00f4s apo tornou.+\n\n  \"I cannot choose but laugh, (saith he) to see so many men venture to\n  describe the earths compasse, relating those things that are without\n  all sense, as that the Sea flowes about the World, and that the earth\n  it selfe is round as an Orbe.\"\n\nBut this great ignorance is not so much to be admired in him, as in\nthose learneder men of later times, when all sciences began to flourish\nin the World. Such was Saint _Austin_ who censures that relation of the\nAntipodes to be an incredible fable,[1] and with him agrees the eloquent\n_Lactantius_,[2]\n\n  _quid illi qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris Antipodes putant?\n  num aliquid loquuntur? aut est quispiam tam ineptus, qui credat esse\n  homines, quorum vestigia sunt superiora qu\u00e0m capita? aut ibi qu\u00e6 apud\n  nos jacent inversa pendere? fruges & arbores deorsum versus crescere,\n  pluvias & nives, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in terram? &\n  miratur aliquis hortor pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum\n  Philosophi, & agros & maria, & urbes & montes pensiles faciunt? &c._\n\n  \"What (saith he) are they that thinke there are Antipodes, such as\n  walke with their feet against ours? doe they speake any likelyhood?\n  or is there any one so foolish as to believe that there are men whose\n  heeles are higher than their heads? that things which with us doe lie\n  on the ground doe hang there? that the Plants and Trees grow\n  downewards, that the haile, and raine, and snow fall upwards to the\n  earth? and doe wee admire the hanging Orchards amongst the seven\n  wonders, whereas here the Philosophers have made the Field and Seas,\n  the Cities and Mountaines hanging.\"\n\nWhat shall wee thinke (saith hee in _Plutarch_) that men doe clyng to\nthat place like wormes, or hang by their clawes as Cats, or if wee\nsuppose a man a little beyond the Center, to bee digging with a spade?\nis it likely (as it must bee according to this opinion) that the earth\nwhich hee loosened, should of it selfe ascend upwards? or else suppose\ntwo men with their middles about the center, the feete of the one being\nplaced where the head of the other is, and so two other men crosse them,\nyet all these men thus situated according to this opinion should stand\nupright, and many other such grosse consequences would follow (saith\nhee) which a false imagination is not able to fancy as possible. Upon\nwhich considerations, _Bede_[3] also denies the being of any Antipodes,\n\n  _Neque enim Antipodarum ullatenus est Fabulis accommodandus assensus_,\n\n\"Nor should wee any longer assent to the Fable of Antipodes.\" So also\n_Lucretius_ the Poet speaking of the same subject, sayes:\n\n  _Sed vanus stolidis h\u00e6c omnia finxerit error._[4]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 9._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Institut. l. 3. c. 24._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _De ratione temporum, Cap. 32._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _De nat. rerum, lib. 1._]\n\nThat some idle fancy faigned these for fooles to believe. Of this\nopinion was _Procopius Gaz\u00e6us_,[1] but he was perswaded to it by another\nkinde of reason; for he thought that all the earth under us was sunke in\nthe water, according to the saying of the Psalmist,[2] Hee hath founded\nthe Earth upon the Seas, and therefore hee accounted it not inhabited by\nany. Nay _Tostatus_ a man of later yeeres and generall learning doth\nalso confidently deny that there are any such Antipodes, though the\nreason which hee urges for it bee not so absurde as the former, for the\nApostles, saith hee,[3] travelled through the whole habitable world, but\nthey never passed the Equinoctiall; and if you answer that they are said\nto goe through all the earth, because they went through all the knowne\nworld, hee replies, that this is not sufficient, since Christ would have\nall men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth,[4] and\ntherefore 'tis requisite that they should have travelled thither also,\nif there had been any inhabitants, especially since he did expressely\ncommand them to goe and teach all nations, and preach the Gospell\nthrough the whole world,[5] and therefore he thinkes that as there are\nno men, so neither are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniency\nfor habitation: 'tis commonly related of one _Virgilius_, that he was\nexcommunicated and condemned for a Heretique by _Zachary_ Bishop of\n_Rome_, because hee was not of the same opinion. But _Baronius_\nsaies,[6] it was because hee thought there was another habitable world\nwithin ours. How ever, you may well enough discerne in these examples\nhow confident many of these great Schollars were in so grosse an errour,\nhow unlikely, what an incredible thing it seemed to them, that there\nshould be any Antipodes, and yet now this truth is as certaine and\nplaine, as sense or demonstration can make it. This then which I now\ndeliver is not to be rejected; though it may seeme to contradict the\ncommon opinion.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Comment. in 1. Cap. Gen._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Psal. 24. 2._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Comment. in_ 1. Genes.]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: 1 Tim. 2. 4.]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: Mat. 28. 19]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: _Annal. Eccles. A.D. 748._]\n\n2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall consent. I\nmight instance in many remarkeable examples, but I will onely speake of\nthe supposed labour of the Moone in her eclipses, because this is\nneerest to the chiefe matter in hand, and was received as a common\nopinion amongst many of the ancients, and therefore _Plutarch_ speaking\nof a Lunary eclipse, relates, that at such times 'twas a custome amongst\nthe _Romanes_ (the most civill and learned people in the world) to sound\nbrasse Instruments, and hold great torches toward the heaven. +T\u00f4n de\nR\u00f4mai\u00f4n (h\u00f4sper est\u00f4 enomismenon) chalkou te patagois anakaloumen\u00f4n\nto ph\u00f4s autos kai pura polla dalois kai dassin anechont\u00f4n pros ton\nouranon+,[1] for by this meanes they supposed the Moone was much eased\nin her labours, and therfore _Ovid_ calls such loud Instruments the\nauxiliaries or helpes of the Moone.[2]\n\n  _Cum frustra resonant \u00e6ra auxiliaria Lun\u00e6._\n\nand therefore the Satyrist too describing a loud scold, saies, she was\nable to make noise enough to deliver the labouring Moone.[3]\n\n  _Vna laboranti poterit succurrere Lun\u00e6._\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _In vita Paul. \u00c6mil._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Metam. l. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Iuven. Sat. 6_]\n\nNow the reason of all this their ceremonie, was, because they feared the\nworld would fall asleepe, when one of its eyes began to winke, and\ntherefore they would doe what they could by loud sounds to rouse it from\nits drowsinesse, and keepe it awake by bright torches, to bestow that\nlight upon it which it began to lose. Some of them thought hereby to\nkeepe the Moone in her orbe, whereas otherwise she would have fallen\ndowne upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights,\nfor the credulous people believed, that Inchanters, and Witches could\nbring the Moone downe, which made _Virgil_ say,\n\n  _Cantus & \u00e8 coelo possunt deducere Lunam._\n\nAnd those Wizards knowing the times of her eclipses, would then threaten\nto shew their skill, by pulling her out of her orbe. So that when the\nsilly multitude saw that she began to looke red, they presently feared\nthey should lose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a great\nnoise that she might not heare the sound of those Charmes, which would\notherwise bring her downe, and this is rendered for a reason of this\ncustome by _Pliny_ and _Propertius_:\n\n  _Cantus & \u00e8 curru lunam deducere tentant,\n  Et facerent, si non \u00e6ra repulsa sonent._[1]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. hist. lib. 2. c. 12._]\n\n_Plutarch_ gives another reason of it, and he sayes, 'tis because they\nwould hasten the Moone out of the darke shade wherein shee was involv'd,\nthat so she might bring away the soules of those Saints that inhabit\nwithin her, which cry out by reason they are then deprived of their\nwonted happinesse, and cannot heare the musicke of the Spheares, but are\nforced to behold the torments, and wailing of those damned soules which\nare represented to them as they are tortured in the region of the aire,\nbut whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition,\nyet certainly 'twas a very ridiculous custome, and bewrayed a great\nignorance of those ancient times, especially since it was not onely\nreceived by the vulgar, such as were men of lesse note and learning, but\nbelieved also, by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were those\ngreat Poets, _Stesichorus_ and _Pindar_. And not onely amongst the more\nsottish heathens, who might account that Planet to be one of their Gods,\nbut the primitive Christians also were in this kinde guilty; which made\nS. _Ambrose_ so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said,\n\n  _Tum turbatur carminibus Globus Lun\u00e6, quando calicibus turbantur &\n  oculi_.\n\n\"When your heads are troubled with cups, then you thinke the Moone to be\ntroubled with charmes.\"\n\nAnd for this reason also did _Maximus_ a Bishop,[1] write a Homily\nagainst it, wherein hee shewed the absurditie of that foolish\nsuperstition. I remember, that _Ludovicus Uives_ relates a more\nridiculous story of a people that imprisoned an Asse for drinking up the\nMoone, whose image appearing in the water was covered with a cloud, as\nthe Asse was drinking, for which the poore beast was afterward brought\nto the barre to receive a sentence according to his deserts, where the\ngrave Senate being set to examine the matter, one of the Counsell\n(perhaps wiser than the rest) rises up, and out of his deepe judgement,\nthinkes it not fit that their Towne should lose its Moone, but that\nrather the Asse should be cut up, and that taken out of him, which\nsentence being approved by the rest of those Politicians, as the\nsubtillest way for the conclusion of the matter was accordingly\nperformed. But whether this tale were true or no I will not question,\nhowever there is absurdity enough in that former custome of the\nancients, that may confirme the truth to be proved, and plainly declare\nthe insufficiency of common opinion to adde true worth or estimation\nunto any thing. So that from that which I have said may be gathered thus\nmuch.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Turinens. Episc._]\n\n1. That a new truth may seeme absurd and impossible not onely to the\n   vulgar, but to those also who are otherwise wise men, and excellent\n   schollers; and hence it will follow, that every new thing which\n   seemes to oppose common Principles is not presently to be rejected,\n   but rather to be pry'd into with a diligent enquiry, since there\n   are many things which are yet hid from us, and reserv'd for future\n   discovery.\n\n2. That it is not the commonnesse of an opinion that can priviledge it\n   for a truth, the wrong way is sometime a well beaten path, whereas\n   the right way (especially to hidden truths) may bee lesse trodden\n   and more obscure.\n\nTrue indeed, the strangeness of this opinion will detract much from its\ncredit; but yet we should know that nothing is in its selfe strange,\nsince every naturall effect has an equall dependance upon its cause, and\nwith the like necessity doth follow from it, so that 'tis our ignorance\nwhich makes things appeare so, and hence it comes to passe that many\nmore evident truths seeme incredible to such who know not the causes of\nthings: you may as soone perswade some Country peasants that the Moone\nis made of greene Cheese (as wee say) as that 'tis bigger than his\nCart-wheele, since both seeme equally to contradict his sight, and hee\nhas not reason enough to leade him farther than his senses. Nay, suppose\n(saith _Plutarch_) a Philosopher should be educated in such a secret\nplace, where hee might not see either Sea or River, and afterwards\nshould be brought out where one might shew him the great Ocean telling\nhim the quality of that water, that it is blackish, salt, and not\npotable, and yet there were many vast creatures of all formes living in\nit, which make use of the water as wee doe of the aire, questionlesse he\nwould laugh at all this, as being monstrous lies & fables, without any\ncolour of truth. Just so will this truth which I now deliver appeare\nunto others; because we never dreamt of any such matter as a world in\nthe Moone, because the state of that place hath as yet been vailed from\nour knowledge, therefore wee can scarcely assent to any such matter.\nThings are very hardly received which are altogether strange to our\nthoughts and our senses. The soule may with lesse difficulty be brought\nto believe any absurdity, when as it has formerly beene acquainted with\nsome colours and probabilities for it, but when a new, and an unheard of\ntruth shall come before it, though it have good grounds and reasons, yet\nthe understanding is afraid of it as a stranger, and dares not admit it\ninto its beliefe without a great deale of reluctancy and tryall. And\nbesides things that are not manifested to the senses, are not assented\nunto without some labour of mind, some travaile and discourse of the\nunderstanding, and many lazie soules had rather quietly repose\nthemselves in an easie errour, then take paines to search out the truth.\nThe strangenesse then of this opinion which I now deliver will be a\ngreat hinderance to its beliefe, but this is not to be respected by\nreason it cannot bee helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface,\nbecause that prejudice which the meere title of the booke may beget\ncannot easily be removed without a great deale of preparation, and I\ncould not tell otherwise how to rectifie the thoughts of the Reader for\nan impartiall survey of the following discourse.\n\nI must needs confesse, though I had often thought with my selfe that it\nwas possible there might be a world in the Moone, yet it seemed such an\nuncouth opinion that I never durst discover it, for feare of being\ncounted singular and ridiculous, but afterward having read _Plutarch_,\n_Galil\u00e6us_, _Keplar_, with some others, and finding many of mine owne\nthoughts confirmed by such strong authority, I then concluded that it\nwas not onely possible there might bee, but probable that there was\nanother habitable world in that Planet. In the prosecuting of this\nassertion, I shall first endeavour to cleare the way from such doubts as\nmay hinder the speed or ease of farther progresse; and because the\nsuppositions imply'd in this opinion may seeme to contradict the\nprinciples of reason or faith, it will be requisite that I first remove\nthis scruple, shewing the conformity of them to both these, and proving\nthose truths that may make way for the rest, which I shall labour to\nperforme in the second, third, fourth, and fifth Chapters, and then\nproceede to confirme such Propositions, which doe more directly belong\nto the maine point in hand.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 2.\n\n_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of\n  reason or faith._\n\n\nTis reported of _Aristotle_ that when hee saw the bookes of _Moses_ he\ncommended them for such a majesticke stile as might become a God, but\nwithall hee censured that manner of writing to be very unfitting for a\nPhilosopher because there was nothing proved in them, but matters were\ndelivered as if they would rather command than perswade beliefe. And\n'tis observed that hee sets downe nothing himselfe, but he confirmes it\nby the strongest reasons that may be found, there being scarce an\nargument of force for any subject in Philosophy which may not bee picked\nout of his writings, and therefore 'tis likely if there were in reason a\nnecessity of one onely world, that hee would have found out some such\nnecessary proofe as might confirme it: Especially since hee labours for\nit so much in two whole Chapters. But now all the arguments which he\nhimselfe urges in this subject,[1] are very weake and farre enough from\nhaving in them any convincing power. Therefore 'tis likely that a\nplurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason.\nHowever, I will set downe the two chiefe of his arguments from his owne\nworkes, and from them you may guesse the force of the other. The 1. is\nthis,[2] since every heavy body doth naturally tend downwards, and every\nlight body upwards, what a hudling and confusion must there bee if there\nwere two places for gravity and two places for lightnesse: for it is\nprobable that the Earth of that other World would fall downe to this\nCenter, and so mutually the aire and fire here ascend to those Regions\nin the other, which must needes much derogate from the providence of\nnature, and cause a great disorder in his workes. To this I answere,\nthat if you will consider the nature of gravity, you will plainely see\nthere is no ground to feare any such confusion, for heavinesse is\nnothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in 'its subject\nto tend downewards towards its owne Centre, so that for some of that\nearth to come hither would not bee said a fall but an ascension, since\nit moved from its owne place, and this would bee impossible (saith\n_Ruvio_) because against nature,[3] and therefore no more to bee feared\nthan the falling of the Heavens.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Coelo_ l. 1. c. 8. 9.]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Ibid._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _De Coelo_ l. 1. c. 9. q. 1.]\n\nAnother Argument hee had from his master _Plato_,[1] that there is but\none World, because there is but one first mover, God.[2]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Metaphys._ l. 12. c. 8.]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Diog. Laert. lib._ 3.]\n\nBut here I may deny the consequence, since a plurality of worlds doth\nnot take away the unity of the first mover.\n\n  _Vt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem\n  solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam materiam_\n\n(saith a Countreyman of ours.)[1] As the substantiall forme, so the\nefficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particular\nmatter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Arguments\nmore fully answered by _Plutarch_ in his Booke (why Oracles are silent)\nand _Iacob Carpentarius_ in his comment on _Alcinous_.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379._]\n\nBut our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often doe\n_jurare in verba magistri_) will grant that there is not any strength in\nthese consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could not\nconvince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont to\nbee swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should\nrather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent\nto this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was\nbecause hee feared to displease his scholler _Alexander_, of whom 'tis\nrelated[1] that he wept to heare a disputation of another world, since\nhe had not then attained the Monarchy of this, his restlesse wide heart\nwould have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there\nhad beene another, which made the Satyrist say of him,\n\n  _\u00c6stuat infoelix angusto limite mundi._[2]\n\n  \"That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend\n  up in a narrow roome, when hee was confin'd but to one world.\"\n\nBefore he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee had\ndone his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps\nsuperiour Kings.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de tranq. anim._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Iuvenal._]\n\nIt may be, that _Aristotle_ was moved to this opinion, that hee might\nthereby take from _Alexander_ the occasion of this feare and discontent,\nor else, perhaps, _Aristotle_ himselfe was as loth to hold the\npossibility of a world which he could not discover, as _Alexander_ was\nto heare of one which he could not conquer. Tis likely that some such\nby-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments he urges for\nit are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very\nsleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to\nprove, that there is not any evidence in the light of naturall reason,\nwhich can sufficiently manifest that there is but one world.\n\nBut however some may object, would it not be inconvenient and dangerous\nto admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of\n_Aristotle_, which all the world hath so long followed?\n\nThis question is much controverted by the _Romish_ Divines; _Campanella_\nhath writ a Treatise[1] in defence of it, in whom you may see many\nthings worth the reading and notice.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galil\u00e6o._]\n\nTo it I answer, that this position in Philosophy, doth not bring any\ninconvenience to the rest, since tis not _Aristotle_, but truth that\nshould be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both found\ntogether, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Master _Plato_,\n\n  +amphoin gar ontoin philoin, hosion protiman t\u00ean al\u00eatheian+.[1]\n\n  \"Though _Plato_ were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to\n  truth than him.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Ethic. l. 1. c. 6._]\n\nI must needs grant, that wee are all much beholden to the industry of\nthe ancient Philosophers, and more especially to _Aristotle_, for the\ngreater part of our learning, but yet tis not ingratitude to speake\nagainst him, when hee opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers would\nbe very guilty, especially _Iustin_, who hath writ a Treatise purposely\nagainst him.\n\nBut suppose this opinion were false, yet 'tis not against the faith, and\nso it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the\nsparkes of errour, being forc'd out by opposition, as the sparkes of\nfire, by the striking of the flint and steele. But suppose too that it\nwere hereticall, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the\nsame priviledge as _Aristotle_, from whom many more dangerous opinions\nhave proceeded: as that the world is eternall, that God cannot have\nwhile to looke after these inferiour things, that after death there is\nno reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies, which strike\ndirectly at the fundamentalls of our Religion.\n\nSo that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superstitious\nin these daies, as to sticke closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as if\nhis Philosophy were the onely foundation of all divine truths.\n\nUpon these grounds both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_ _de firmo_ (as I\nhave seene them quoted) thinke that _Aristotle_ was the viol of Gods\nwrath, which was powred out upon the waters of Wisedome by the third\nAngel;[1] But for my part, I thinke the world is much beholden to\n_Aristotle_ for all its sciences. But yet twere a shame for these later\nages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, as\nif they had informed us of all things to be knowne, and when wee are set\nupon their shoulders, not to see further then they themselves did.\n'Twere a superstitious, a lazie opinion to thinke _Aristotles_ workes\nthe bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could\nbe no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things left\nto discovery, and it cannot be any inconvenience for us, to maintaine a\nnew truth, or rectifie an ancient errour.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: Rev. 16. 4.]\n\nBut the position (say some) is directly against Scripture, for\n\n1. _Moses_ tells us but of one world, and his History of the creation\nhad beene very imperfect if God had made another.\n\n2. Saint _John_ speaking of Gods workes, saies he made the world, in the\nsingular number, and therefore there is but one:[1] 'tis the argument of\n_Aquinas_, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with\n_Democritus_ esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence to\nbe the framer of all things.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3.]\n\n3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient time beene accounted a\nheresie, and _Baronius_ affirmes that for this very reason, _Virgilius_\nwas cast out of his Bishopricke, and excommunicated from the Church.[1]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Annal. Eccl. A.D. 748._]\n\n4. A fourth argument there is urged by _Aquinas_, if there be more\nworlds than one, then they must either be of the same, or of a diverse\nnature, but they are not of the same kinde,[1] for this were needlesse,\nand would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection\nthan the other; not of divers kinds, for then one of them could not be\ncalled the world or universe, since it did not containe universall\nperfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon\nby _Iulius C\u00e6sar la Galla_,[2] one that has purposely writ a Treatise\nagainst this opinion which I now deliver, but the Dilemma is so blunt,\nthat it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weake, that I\ndare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see this\nAuthor in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one\nworld, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlesse\npaines to dispute against _Democritus_, who thought that the world was\nmade by the casuall concourse of _atoms_ in a great _vacuum_. It should\nseeme, that either his cause, or his skill was weake, or else he would\nhave ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have\nset downe, are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject,\nand yet the best of these hath not force enough to endanger the truth\nthat I have delivered.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Ibid._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _De Ph\u00e6nom. in orbe lun\u00e6._]\n\nUnto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of\nScripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the\nfundamentalls of Religion.\n\nBut you'le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet 'tis\nprobable if there had beene another world, wee should have had some\nnotice of it in Scripture.\n\nI answer, 'tis as probable that the Scripture should have informed us of\nthe Planets they being very remarkable parts of the Creation, and yet\nneither _Moses_ nor _Job_, nor the _Psalmes_ (the places most frequent\nin Astronomicall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne and\nMoone, and moreover, you must know, that 'tis besides the scope of the\nHoly Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale any\nthing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; 'tis not his intent\nin the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any way\nbelong either to the Historicall exegeticall or propheticall parts of\nit: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by\nour Countrey-man Master WRIGHT.[1]\n\n  _Non Mosis aut Prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas\n  aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum\n  & loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese\n  accommodare._\n\n  \"'Tis not the endeavour of _Moses_ or the Prophets to discover any\n  Mathematicall or Philosophicall subtilties, but rather to acc\u00f5modate\n  themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are\n  wont to use their infants.\"\n\nTrue indeede, _Moses_ is there to handle the history of the Creation,\nbut 'tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as\nwere very hard to be apprehended, for being to informe the common people\nas well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly\nnoted, declaring the originall chiefely of those things which were\nobvious to the sense, and being silent of other things, which then could\nnot well be apprehended. And therefore _Aquinas_ observes,[2] that\n_Moses_ writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible, the\npeople knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this\nvery reason Saint _Austin_ also thinkes that there is nothing exprest\nconcerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as\nremarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as another\nworld. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions\nwhich set things forth rather as they appeare, then as they are,[3] as\nwhen he calls the Moone one of the greater lights #hame'orot hagdolim#\nwhereas 'tis the least, but one that wee can see in the whole heavens.\nSo afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world,[4]\nhe saies, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to\ncome with that violence, as if it were, poured out from windows in the\nFirmament.[5] So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning\nthese things are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather\nas vulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint _Austin_,\nwhere speaking concerning that in the Psalme, _who stretched the earth\nupon the waters_,[6] hee notes, that when the words of Scripture shall\nseeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be\nunderstood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And\n'tis observed that for want of this rule, some of the ancients have\nfastened strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint\n_Ambrose_ esteemed it a heresie, to thinke, that the Sunne and starres\nwere not very hot, as being against the words of Scripture,[7] _Psalm._\n19. 6. where the _Psalmist_ sayes that there is nothing that is hid from\nthe heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens\nnot to be round, out of that place, _Psal._ 104. 2. _Hee stretcheth out\nthe heavens like a curtaine._[8] So _Procopius_ also was of opinion,\nthat the earth was founded upon the waters, nay, he made it part of his\nfaith, proving it out of _Psal._ 24. 2. _Hee hath founded the earth\nupon the seas, and established it upon the flouds._ These and such like\nabsurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophie\nin the words of Scripture. So that from what hath beene said, I may\nconclude that the silence of Scripture concerning any other world is\nnot sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two\nfirst arguments.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _In Epist. ad Gilbert._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3.]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: Gen. 1. 16]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: Gen. 11.]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: Sr. _W. Rawly_ c. 7. \u00a7. 6.]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: l. 2. in Gen. / Psal. 136. 6.]\n\n  [Sidenote 7: Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. / Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.]\n\n  [Sidenote 8: _Com. in c. 1. Gen._]\n\nUnto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by\nothers, to shew the ignorance of those primative times, who did\nsometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur'd\nthe lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for hereticall, because\nthey themselves could not perceive a reason of it, and therefore their\npractise in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us.\n\nBut lastly I answer to all the above named objections, that the terme\nWorld, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole\nUniverse, as it implies in it the elementary and \u00e6thereall bodies, the\nstarres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiour\nWorld consisting of elements. Now the maine drift of all these\narguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, and\nif there were any such, it might, perhaps, seeme strange, that _Moses_,\nor St. _John_ should either not know, or not mention its creation. And\n_Virgilius_ was condemned for this opinion, because he held, _qu\u00f2d sit\nalius mundus sub terr\u00e2, aliusque Sol & Luna_, (as _Baronius_) that\nwithin our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne and\nMoone, and so he might seeme to exclude this from the number of the\nother creatures.\n\nBut now there is no such danger in this opinion, which is here\ndelivered, since this world said to be in the Moone, whose creation is\nparticularly exprest.\n\nSo that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, which\nis all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second\nsense, and so I affirme there may be more nor doe any of the above named\nobjections prove the c\u00f5trary.\n\nNeither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdome (as _Aquinas_\nthinkes) but rather advance it, shewing a _compendium_ of providence,\nthat could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world for\nhabitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of the\nwhole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onely\nfor the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of\nthe whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe,[1]\nso is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve, as well\nfor the conservation of that which is within it, as the helpe of others\nwithout it.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Cusanus de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12._]\n\nI have now in some measure, shewed that a plurality of worlds does not\ncontradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so cleared\nthe first part of that supposition which is applied in the opinion.\n\nIt may next be enquired; whether 'tis possible there may be a globe of\nelements in that which we call the \u00e6thereall parts of the Universe; for\nif this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged from\nany change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine any\nelement there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke out\nsome other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore\nshall be this.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 3.\n\n_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can\n  priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these\n  inferiour bodies are liable unto._\n\n\nIt hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and\nPhilosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavens\nare framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure\nelements, as _Aristotle_[1] holds, and with him some of the late\nSchoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to\nthose vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore they\nthemselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary\nnature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent,\nwere not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest\nby their owne[2]* side. It were much to be desired, thst these men had\nnot in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without\nnecessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the\nsecrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to\nfinde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments,\nsince 'tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary\nconsequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of the\nbookes _de Coelo._\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Coelo., l. 1. cap. 2._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2*: _Colleg. Cannimb. De Coelo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3._]\n\nBut is it the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of\n_Lombard_, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these\nsublunary bodies. St. _Ambrose_ is confident of it, that hee esteemes\nthe contrary a heresie.[1] True indeed, they differ much among\nthemselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but\nherein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or\nother. For a better confirmation of this, you may see _Ludovicus\nMolina_, _Euseb. Nirembergius_, with divers others.[2] The venerable\n_Bede_ thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements, and\n'tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance,[3] as will\nbe shewed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments\nfor either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile\n_Aristotle_, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proof\nof their corruptibility.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _In Hexam. lib. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _In lib. de Mundi constit._]\n\nThe next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a\ncorruptible nature, [1]not whether they can be destroyed by God, for\nthis Scripture puts out of doubt.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: 2 Pet. 3. 12.]\n\nNor whether or no in a long time they would weare away and grow worse,\nfor from any such feare they have beene lately priviledged.[1] But\nwhether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this\ninferiour world is liable unto.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: By Doctor _Hackwell_ _Apol._]\n\nThe two chiefe opinions concerning this, have both erred in some\nextremity, the one side going so farre from the other, that they have\nboth gone beyond the right, whilest _Aristotle_ hath opposed the truth,\nas well as the Stoicks.\n\nSome of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood\nin need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually\nfed, and so had divers alterations by reason of their food, this is\nfathered on _Heraclitus_,[1] followed by that great Naturalist\n_Pliny_,[2] and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see\n_Seneca_ expressely to this purpose in these words,\n\n  _Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis\n  dividuntur, hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sydera tam exercitata,\n  tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu._[3]\n\nSpeaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment is\ndivided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hence\nwere sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day\nand night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also _Lucan_ sings,\n\n  _Necnon Oceano pasci Phoebumque polumque credimus._\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Qu\u00e6st. lib. 2. cap. 5._]\n\nUnto these _Ptolome_[1] also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree, when\nhe affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than any\nof the other Planets, by reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaled\nunto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so farre from\nthis imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they\nstood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they could\nnot subsist.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _I{o} Apost._]\n\nBut _Aristotle_ and his followers were so farre from this,[1] that they\nthought those glorious bodies could not containe within them any such\nprinciples, as might make them lyable to the least change or corruption,\nand their chiefe reason was, because we could not in so long a space\ndiscerne any alteration amongst them; but unto this I answer.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 1. cap. 3._]\n\n1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow[1] that there\nwere none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for\nspeaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, hee sayes 'tis very\nimperfect and difficult, by reason of the vaste distance of those bodies\nfrom us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not\neither bigge enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension\nand observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe bee\ndeceived in his assertions concerning these particulars.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 3._]\n\n2. Though we could not by our senses see such alterations, yet our\nreason might perhaps sufficiently convince us of them. Nor can we well\nconceive how the Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet not\nproduce some alteration of heate. _Diogenes_ the Philosopher was hence\nperswaded that those scorching heates had burnt the Moone into the forme\nof a Pumice-stone.\n\n3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there;\nwitnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. So that\nthough _Aristotles_ consequence were sufficient, when hee proved that\nthe heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes\nbeing observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent,\nthat the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so many\nalterations observed there; but of these together with a farther\nconfirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speake\nafterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that worke\nof _Scheiner_ a late Jesuit which hee titles his _Rosa Vrsina_,[1] where\nhee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavens\nlargely handled and sufficiently confirmed.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35._]\n\nThere are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion to\nenlarge my selfe, but because they are directly handled by many others,\nand doe not immediately belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shall\ntherefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofe\nof them my selfe, as defining all possible brevity.\n\n1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbes. If there be a\nhabitable World in the Moone (which I now affirme) it must follow, that\nher Orbe is not solid, as _Aristotle_ supposed; and if not her, why any\nof the other? I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhaps\naereous) substance. Saint _Ambrose_, and Saint _Basil_[1] did endeavour\nto prove this out of that place in _Isay_,[2] where they are compared to\nsmoake, as they are both quoted by _Rhodiginus_, _Eusebius_,\n_Nierembergius_[3] doth likewise from that place confute the solidity\nand incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the same\ninterpretation the authority of _Eustachius_ of _Antioch_; and Saint\n_Austin_,[4] I am sure seemes to assent unto this opinion, though he\ndoes often in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of other\nFathers to this purpose you may see in _Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth.\nannot. 14._ but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you\nto the above named _Scheiner_ in his _Rosa Ursina_,[5] in whom you may\nsee both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set\ndowne for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which hee\nadjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of _Fredericus C\u00e6sius Lynceus_\na Noble Prince written to _Bellarmine_, containing divers reasons to the\nsame purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by _Johannes\nPena_ in his preface to _Euclids Opticks_, and _Christoph. Rothmannus_,\nboth who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble\n_Tycho_[6] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds,\n\n  _Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit h\u00e6c opinio, quam\n  Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, qu\u00e6 coelum pluribus realibus atque\n  imperviis orbibus citra rem replevit._\n\n  \"That this opinion comes neerer to the truth than that common one\n  of _Aristotle_ which hath to no purpose filled the heavens with such\n  reall and impervious Orbes.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Isa. 51. 6._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit._]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: _lib. 4. p. 11, 2. c. 7. 26, 30._]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: _De stella. 15. 72. l. 6. c. 9._]\n\n2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion\nhere delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will\nfollow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually\nplaced in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing\nat all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs,\nthat by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire,\nwhich is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see\n_Cardan_, _Iohannes Pena_ that learned _Frenchman_, the noble _Tycho_,\nwith divers others who have purposely handled this proposition.\n\n3. I might adde a third, _viz._ that there is no Musicke of the\nspheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such\nsound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because\n_Plutarch_ speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare that\nharmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee\nsaid this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary\nconsequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would\nhave no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at some\ntimes we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede _Philo_ the Jew[1]\nthinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an\neasie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other\nnourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was _Moses_ enabled to\ntarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any\nthing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens,--_Risum\nteneatis_. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred and\nprophane authours, such as _Ambrose_, _Bede_, _Boetius_, _Anselme_,\n_Plato_, _Cicero_ and others, but because it is not now, I thinke\naffirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in\narguing against it.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De somniis._]\n\nIt may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two\nmore necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I\nshall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, to\nknow whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it\npossible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more\nneerely agrees with our earth.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 4.\n\n_That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body._\n\n\nI shall not need to stand long in the proofe of this proposition, since\nit is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most and\nthe best Philosophers.\n\n1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayre, for how otherwise\ncould it beare backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?\n\nBut here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her light\nupon us by the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the superficies of\nher body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirme\nthis latter part. So _Averroes_, _C\u00e6lius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius C\u00e6sar_,\n_&c._ and their reason is because this light is discerned in many\nplaces,[1] whereas those bodies which give light by reflexion can there\nonely be perceived where the angle of reflexion is equall to the angle\nof incidence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glasse\nthose beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every\nplace where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye is\nplaced on the same line whereon the beames are reflected.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 2. com. 49._\n  _Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4._\n  _De ph\u00e6nom. lun\u00e6. c. 11._]\n\nBut to this I answere, that the argument will not hold of such bodies,\nwhose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone\nis. Wherefore it is as well the more probable as the more common\nopinion, that her light proceedes from both these causes, from reflexion\nand illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth, since that\nalso hath some light by illumination: for how otherwise would the parts\nabout us in a Sunne-shine day appeare so bright, when as all the rayes\nof reflexion cannot enter into our eye?\n\n2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance.[1] But this is\ndenied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, who\nheld the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, and\nthis, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeares\nwithin her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames being\nrefracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be\nrepresented under such a colour.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13._\n  _Opt. l. 4._\n  _Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164._]\n\nBut I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she not\nappeare under the same forme when she is about a sextile aspect, and the\ndarkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same\nrayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce\nthe same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from\nus, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must\nthe colour still remaine visible in her body,[1] and besides according\nto this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, as\nthe various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beames\ndid passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why\ndoth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a\nlong flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames\nthat is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. \u00a7 13._]\n\n3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall or\nglasse,[1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe of\npure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fa. lun\u00e6._]\n\n1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is\ndispersed through all her body?\n\n2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or cause\nsuch great eclipses as have turned day into night,[1] that have\ndiscovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden\ndarknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related in\ndivers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse which\nfell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] +ho h\u00ealios eklip\u00f4n t\u00ean ek\ntou ouranou hedr\u00ean aphan\u00eas \u00ean+. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in\nthe heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as\ncould not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there\nare who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions,\nand the noble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipse\nshould cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never\ntotally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all other\nAstronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion,\nby reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare\nbigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Thucid._\n  _Livii._\n  _Plut. de fa. Lun\u00e6._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Herodot. l. 7 c. 37._]\n\nBut here _Julius C\u00e6sar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our passage. The\nMoone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the\nsame nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and\nhis reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those\npurer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for hee\nstops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an\nanswere, till hee hath made up his argument.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De ph\u00e6nom. Lun\u00e6. c. 11._]\n\nWe may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our\nearth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both,\ndoth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like\nnatures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; and\nthis was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_\naffirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature,[1] because of their\nagreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in\nsome measure perspicuous.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _In lib. de animalib._]\n\nBut the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether\nunlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light\nof its owne, and the other a grosse dark body which cannot shine at all.\n'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt,\nand shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 5.\n\n_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._\n\n\nTwas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _Rabbi\nSimeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne,[1] and\nthat both those planets at their first creation were equall both in\nlight and quantity, for because God did then call them both great\nlights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall in\nbignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone\nput up her complaint to God against the Sunne, shewing, that it was not\nfit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchy\nwould best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this God\ncommanded her to contract her selfe into a narrower compasse, but she\nbeing much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken\nthat which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This\nsentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was\nshee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrow\nmight be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheere, because her\npriviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he should\nappeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but her\nmelancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that that\nalas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene,\nor not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his\npeople the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daies\nby a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her,\nshee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath still\nreserved much light of her owne.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen._\n  _Hieron. de 5. Hide._\n  _Hebr\u00e6onia l. 2. c. 4._]\n\nOthers there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, the\none halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being\ndarke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes,\ncaused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, as\nhe is cited by _Vitruvius_,[1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it was\nprobable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the\nformer, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall\ntruths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent\nand easie experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is\nperceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be\ndiscern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must\nfollow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after\ninlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the other\nlight of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy,\nthat I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that which\nis already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath any\npatrons, and therefore need no confutation.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architectur\u00e6._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum._]\n\n'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her\nlight from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she\nhath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. _Cardan_\namongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any of\nus were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse,[1]\n\n  _Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis\n  accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis c\u00e6cutiremus_;\n\n\"wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would\nblind us with the meere sight,\" and when shee is enlightened by the\nSunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon\nher. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any\nproofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the arguments\nthat are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from\nScripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15._\nwhere it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another glory\nof the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22._\n+h\u00ea sel\u00ean\u00ea ou d\u00f4sei to phengos aut\u00eas+, _The Moone shall not give her\nlight_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. lib. 3._]\n\nBut to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken\nof, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in many\nother instances.\n\nThe arguments from reason are taken either\n\n1. From that light which is discerned in her, when there is a totall\neclipse of her owne body, or of the Sunne.\n\n2. For the light which is discerned in the darker part of her body, when\nshe is but a little distant from the Sunne.\n\n1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body a\ngreat rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a remarkeable\nshade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannot\ncome from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth, or her owne\nbody shades her from the Sun-beames, therefore it must proceede from her\nowne light.\n\n2. Two or three daies after the new Moone, wee may perceive light in her\nwhole body, whereas the rayes of the Sun reflect but upon a small part\nof that which is visible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light\nof her owne.\n\nIn answering to these objections, I shall first shew, that this light\ncannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true reason of\nit.\n\nThat it is not her own, appeares\n\n1. From the variety of it at divers times; for 'tis commonly observed,\nthat sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now\nredder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of\nthis variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1]\nand many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne,\nthat being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an\nalteration: So that thus I may argue.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3._]\n\nIf there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet\nappeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest to\nthe earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in\nher Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any\nenlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the\nspecies and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our\nadversaries, and they are the very words of noble _Tycho_,[1]\n\n  _Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terr\u00e6 esset,\nillud non amitteret, sed e\u00f2 evidenti\u00f9s exereret, omne enim lumen in\ntenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non pr\u00e6peditur._\n\nIf the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in\nthe earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light\nappeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a more\nperspicuous brightnesse.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. c. 10._]\n\nBut now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation doth\nmanifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearing\nwith a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in her\nApoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she is\nin her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her\nowne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper\nlight of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her\ninherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an\nopinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in the\nfore-cited place,\n\n  _Nec umbra terr\u00e6 corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia,\n  aut lun\u00e6 lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro pr\u00e6ripere,\n  sed est qu\u00e6dam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum\n  corpus terr\u00e6._\n\nNor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that\nit can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, but\nit is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of the\ninterposition of the earths opacous body.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164._]\n\n2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be,\neither such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else\nsuch a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body,\nwhen shee is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of\nthese may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of\nthese, therefore she hath none of her owne.\n\n1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can\nwee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer parts\nof the Moone?\n\nYou will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that greater light,\ntakes away that appearance.\n\nI reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wonted\nrednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater\nbrightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? nor can there\nbe any reason given why that greater light should represent her body\nunder a false colour.\n\n2. 'Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part of\nher body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne,\nfor then why does shee appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shade\ncannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of darknesse by its\nopposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and cleare\nbrightnesse then they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet\nthose parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, and\ntherefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither of\nthese lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Nor\nis this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such\nwas _Macrobius_,[1] who being for this quoted of _Rhodiginus_, he calls\nhim _vir reconditissim\u00e6 scienti\u00e6_,[2] a man who knew more than ordinary\nPhilosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Authour.\nTo him assents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath this\ncomparison.[3] As the Looking-glasse represents not any image within it\nselfe, unlesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not any\nlight, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed _Albertus\nMagnus_, _Scaliger_, _M\u00e6slin_, and more especially _Mulapertius_,[4]\nwhose words are more pat to the purpose then others, and therefore I\nshall set them downe as you may finde them in his Preface to his\nTreatise concerning the _Austriaca sydera_;\n\n  _Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humid\u00e6 sunt substanti\u00e6\n  ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra._\n\nThe Moone, _Venus_, and _Mercurie_ (saith he) are of an earthly and\nmoyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, then\nthe earth hath. Nay, some there are who thinke that all the other\nStarres doe receive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us from\nthe Sunne, so _Ptolomie_, _Isidore Hispalensis_, _Albertus Magnus_ and\n_Bede_, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light.[5]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _In lib. de natur. rerum._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _De 4r. Co\u00e6vis. Q. 4\u00aa. Art. 21._\n  _Exercit. 62._\n  _1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._\n  _De Coelo. l. 2._\n  _De ratione tempor. c. 4._]\n\nBut enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first I\npromised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It remaines in the\nnext place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke\n'tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipses\nis nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passe\nthrough the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second\nlight with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times appeares\nunto us. I may call it _Lumen crepusculum_, the _Aurora_ of the Moone,\nor such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he is\nneere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thicker\nvapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and the\nreflexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare very\nred.\n\nThe Moabites in _Iehorams_ time when they rose early in the morning, and\nbeheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood.[1]\n\n  _Et causa hujus est, quia radius solaris in aurora contrahit quandam\n  rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem\n  terr\u00e6, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua\n  ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere\n  locum aquarum, in quo est repercussio esse rubrum_,\n\nsaith _Tostatus_.[2] The reason is, because of his rayes, which being in\nthe lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed light upon the\nwaters. Thus the Moone being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beames\nwhich are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body,\nyet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, make\nher appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest,\nwhen shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge, of greatest distance from us,\nbecause then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refraction\nis made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must be\nrepresented under a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed,\nbeing in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she is\ninvolved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the\nrefraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needes be\nweaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the reason may\nbe of that light which we discerne in the darker part of the new Moone:\nI answer, 'tis reflected from our earth which returnes as great a\nbrightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have\noccasion to prove afterward.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: 2 King. 3. 22.]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _2\u00aa. Qu\u00e6st. in hoc cap._]\n\nI have now done with these propositions which were set downe to cleare\nthe passage, and confirme the suppositions implied in the opinion, I\nshall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chiefe\nmatter in hand.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 6.\n\n_That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of\n  many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may probably be\n  deduced from the tenents of others._\n\n\nSince this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall therefore\nfirst confirme it by sufficient authority of divers authours, both\nancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the\nprejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an absolute errour. This is by\nsome attributed to _Orpheus_, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, who\nspeaking of the Moone, saies thus, +h\u00ea poll' ourea echei, poll' astea,\npolla melathra+,[1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses\nin it. To him assented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and\n_Heraclitus_,[2] all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like to\nour earth,[3] containing in it many large fields, champion grounds, and\ndivers inhabitants, unto these agreed _Pythagoras_, who thought that our\nearth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne,[4]\n(as _Aristotle_ relates it of him) and the _Pythagoreans_ in generall\ndid affirme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she was\ninhabited as this lower world. That those living creatures & plants\nwhich are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same\nproportion, as their daies are longer than ours: _viz._ by 15 times.\nThis _Pythagoras_[5] was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, as\nappeares especially by his valuation amongst the _Romans_ who being\nc\u00f5manded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest _Grecian_, the\nSenate determined[6] _Pythagoras_ to be meant, preferring him in their\njudgements before the divine _Socrates_, whom their Gods pronounc'd the\nwisest. Some think him a _Iew_ by birth, but most agree that hee was\nmuch conversant amongst the learneder sort, & Priests of that Nation,\nby whom he was informed of many secrets, and perhaps, this opinion,\nwhich he vented afterwards in _Greece_, where he was much opposed by\n_Aristotle_ in some worded disputations, but never confuted by any solid\nreason.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Ibid. c. 25._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13._]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: _Plut. ibid. cap. 30._]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: _Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6._]\n\nTo this opinion of _Pythagoras_ did _Plato_ also assent, when hee\nconsidered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this,\nthat it had no light of its owne, that it was so full of spots. And\ntherefore wee may often reade in him and his followers,[1] of an\n_\u00e6therea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an \u00e6thereall earth, and\ninhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with many\nridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries implied\nin the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily bee a Trinity of\nworlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whose\nelement of water is represented by the spheare of _Mercury_, the aire by\n_Uenus_, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe might\nthe better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that _Mars_\nshall be a spheare of the fire, _Iupiter_ of aire, _Saturne_ of water;\nand above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant places\nappointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that either\nnever were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any\ncommerce with the body. _Scaliger_[2] speaking of this _Platonicke_\nfancie, _qu\u00e6 in tres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit_, thinks 'tis\nconfutation enough, to say, 'tis _Plato's_. However for the first part\nof this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of\nthe grossnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called\n_quasi terra coelestis_, as being esteemed the sediment and more\nimperfect part of those purer bodies, you may see this proved by\n_Plutarch_,[3] in that delightfull work which he properly made for the\nconfirmition of this particular. With him agreed _Alcinous_[4] and\n_Plotinus_, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfect\ntestimony of _Mahomet_, whose authority of grant can adde but little\ncredit to this opinion, because hee was an ignorant imposter, but yet\nconsider that originall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge,\nand then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probablity. He is\ncommonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the\nJewes in the secrets of their Philosophy,[5] and perhaps, learned this\nfrom those Rabbies, for in his _Alcaron_, hee talkes much of mountaines,\npleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he was\nfor the maine very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing so\ndistinctly as he was informed.[6] The Cardinall _Cusanus_ and _Iornandus\nBunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of\nthem defining our earth, he saies, it is\n\n  _stella qu\u00e6dam nobilis, qu\u00e6 lunam & calorem & influentiam habet\n  aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;\n\na \"noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all the\nrest.\" Unto this _Nichol. Hill_, a country man of ours was inclined,\nwhen he said _Astrea terr\u00e6 natura probabilis est_: \"That 'tis probable\nthe earth hath a starry nature.\"[7]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plat. de conviviis._\n  _Macrob. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. ca. 11._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Exercit. 62._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _De facie Lun\u00e6._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _Instit. ad discip._ Plat. _C\u00e6l. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: _Azoara. 57. & 65._]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: _Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2. cap. 12._]\n\n  [Sidenote 7: _Philos. epicur. part. 434._]\n\nBut the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by\n_M\u00e6slin_, _Keplar_, and _Galil\u00e6us_, each of them late writers, and\nfamous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.[1] As for those workes\nof _M\u00e6slin_ and _Keplar_ wherein they doe more expresly treate of this\nopinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However their\nopinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and the\ntestimony of others concerning them. But _Iulius C\u00e6sar_, whom I have\nabove quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this\nopinion,[2] _viz._ _Keplar_ and _Galil\u00e6us_ affirmes that to his\nknowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning\nthis, and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much\nas dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then his\npretended knowledge.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _In Thesibus_\n  _dissertatio cum Nic. Hill._\n  _Nuncius Sydereus._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _De ph\u00e6nom. lun\u00e6. c. 4._]\n\n'Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the maine\nscope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as\nany indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure _Campanella_\n(a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as\n_C\u00e6sar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides 'tis\nvery likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galil\u00e6us_ would never have\nsuffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge\nwhich hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confidence (I say\nnot presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them may\nwell derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome's_\n_Hypothesis_ he pronounces this verdict,\n\n  _Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis\n  est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet._\n\n  \"The position of _Excentricks_ and _Epicycles_ is altogether\n  impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to\n  thinke it true.\"\n\nI should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any\nother Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematicks, as to deny that\nany good Authour held this. For I would faine know whether there were\nnever any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there\nwere such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplyed; if so,\nthen _C\u00e6sar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are\nequally true, that _Galil\u00e6us_ and _Keplar_ did not hold this, and that\nthere were none which ever held that other.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Cap. 7._]\n\nBut in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of\n_Galil\u00e6us_, the inventour of that famous perspective, whereby we may\ndiscerne the heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others have\nformerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discovered\nbeyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latter\nages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated\nby posterity. 'Tis related of _Eudoxus_, that hee wished himselfe burnt\nwith _Phaeton_, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its\nnature; had hee lived in these daies, he might have enjoyed his wish at\nan easie rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainely\nhave discerned what hee so much desired. _Keplar_ considering those\nstrange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose\nbut cry out in a +pros\u00f4popeia+ and rapture of admiration.\n\n  _O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te\n  dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?_\n\nAnd _Johannes Fabricius_[1] an elegant writer, speaking of the same\nglasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former\ntimes of greater ignorance, saies thus;\n\n  _Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici\n  pronunciatu de missam represent\u00e2sse putantur nos non tantum\n  innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi\n  conditionem intueamur._\n\n  \"So much are wee above the ancients, that whereas they were faine by\n  their magical charms to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot\n  onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a\n  more familiar view behold her condition.\"\n\nAnd because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of those\nexperiments, which I shal afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set\ndowne the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beene\naccounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed _C\u00e6sar la\nGalla_,[2] whose words are these:\n\n  _Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas\n  ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galil\u00e6um ver\u00f2 novum\n  Iovis interpretem Telescopio caduc\u00e6o instructum Sydera aperire, &\n  veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra \u00e6tas\n  videt & admiratur._\n\nWise antiquity fabled _Mercury_ carrying a rodde in his hand to relate\nnewes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hath\nbeene the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire _Galil\u00e6us_\nthe new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfold\nthe nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient\nPhilosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of this\nexcellent invention.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De macula in sole obser._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _De ph\u00e6nom. c. 1._]\n\nNow if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of\nsuch things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you,[1]\nwhen hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all bee\ndiscerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might\nplainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as\nthey were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying\nat all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our\nmore happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre\nwith these eyes which _Galil\u00e6us_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_\ncould with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet\ndoubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour may\nconfirme you,[2] when hee saies they were shewed,\n\n  _Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus,\n  sed pr\u00e6cipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis &\n  opticis pr\u00e6ceptis, optim\u00e8 instructis sedul\u00e2 ac diligenti inspectione_.\n\n  \"Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men,\n  but to those who were well vers'd in Mathematickes and Opticks,\n  and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent\n  inspection.\"\n\nAnd least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke the\nmen who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came\nwith credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addes\nthat it was shewed,[3]\n\n  _vius qui ad experimenta h\u00e6c contradicendi animo accesserant_.\n\n  \"To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent\n  of contradiction.\"\n\nThus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken by\nthis glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall\nborrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which\nwere made by it.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _ibid. c. 5._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5._]\n\nI have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have\ndirectly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the\nproposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others:\nsuch were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many other\nlater writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_,\n_David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe\n_Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others both\nEnglish and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets,\nand the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies\ndid move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it\nlikely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation in\nOpticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galil\u00e6o._]\n\nNow if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them)\nthen why may not another of the Planets be an earth?\n\nThus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceede\nfarther, 'tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shall\nfollow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World in\nthe Moone.\n\nThe order by which I shall bee guided will be that which _Aristotle_[1]\nuses in his booke _De mundo_ (if that booke were his.)\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _\u00e0 1\u00ba. cap. ad 10m._]\n\nFirst, +peri t\u00f4n en aut\u00ea+ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the\nelementary and \u00e6thereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong\nto the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly,\n+peri aut\u00ean path\u00f4n+, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as\nthe seasons, meteors and inhabitants.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 7.\n\n_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be\n  distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea\n  and Land in that other World._\n\n\nFor the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first reckon up and\nrefute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of those\nspots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion,\nand how agreeable it is to that truth, which is most commonly received;\nas for the opinions of other concerning these, they have beene very\nmany, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkeable.\n\nSome there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any deformity\nof the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance\ndiscerne an equall light in that planet, but these do but onely say it,\nand shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others think[1]\nthat there be some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping off\nthe lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots which\nwee there discerne.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._]\n\nOthers would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here below\nrepresented there as in a looking-glasse. But none of those fancies can\nbee true, because the spots are stil the same, & not varied according to\nthe difference of places, and besides, _Cardan_ thinks it is impossible\nthat any image should be conveyed so farre as there to be represented\nunto us at such a distance,[1] but tis commonly related of _Pythagoras_,\nthat he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexi\u00f5 of the\nsame species, would make those letters to appeare in the circle of the\nMoone, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that time\nbe some miles distant from him.[2]* _Agrippa_ affirmes this to be\npossible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, with\nsome others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like\nmeanes performe those strange conclusions which hee professes in his\n_Nuncius inanimatus_, where hee pretends that hee can informe his\nfriends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant,\n_forte etiam, vel milliare millesimum_, they are his owne words, and,\nperhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minutes space, or little more,\nquicker than the Sunne can move.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De subtil. lib. 3._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2*: _Occulta ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6._]\n\nNow, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot\nconceive, unlesse it be carried with the light, then which wee know not\nany thing quicker; but of this onely by the way; however, whether those\nimages can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are\nnot such representations. Some thinke that when God had at first created\ntoo much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow\nthe rest, he placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkened\nit in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation,\nsince it so much detracts from the divine power and wisedome.\n\nThe *[1]Stoicks held that planet to be mixed of fire and aire, and in\ntheir opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots:\n_Anaxagoras_ thought all the starres to be of an earthly nature, mixed\nwith some fire, and as for the Sunne, hee affirmed it to be nothing else\nbut a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the _Athenians_ sentenc'd\nhim to death;[2] those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy,\nto make their God a stone, whereas not withstanding, they were so\nsenslesse in their adoration of Idolls, as to make a stone their God,\nthis _Anaxagoras_ affirmed the Moone to be more terrestriall then the\nother, but of a greater purity then any thing here below, and the spots\nhee thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with\nthe light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above destroyed the\nsupposition on which this fancy is grounded: _Pliny_[3] thinkes they\narise from some drossie stuffe, mixed with that moysture which the Moone\nattracts unto her selfe, but hee was of their opinion, who thought the\nstarres were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonly\nsee refuted in the _Commentators_ on the bookes, _de Coelo_.\n\n  [Sidenote 1*: _Plut. de placit. phil. l. 2. c. 25._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Iosephus l. 2. con. App._\n  _August. de civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 41._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Hist. lib. 2. c. 9._]\n\n_Vitellio_ and _Reinoldus_[1] affirme the spots to be the thicker parts\nof the Moone, into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light, and this\n(say they) is the reason, why in the Sunnes eclipses, the spots and\nbrighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, because the\nSunne beames are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, as\nthey may through the thinner parts of the Planet. Of this opinion also\nwas _C\u00e6sar la Galla_, whose words are these,[2]\n\n  \"The Moone doth there appeare clearest, where shee is transpicuous,\n  not onely through the superficies, but the substance also, and there\n  she seemes spotted, where her body is most opacous.\"\n\nThe ground of this his assertion was, because hee thought the Moone did\nreceive and bestow her light by illumination onely, and not at all by\nreflexion, but this, together with the supposed penetration of the Sunne\nbeames, and the perspicuity of the Moones body I have above answered and\nrefuted.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Opt. lib. 9._\n  _Comment. in Purb. pag. 164._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Ex qua parte luna est transpicua non totum secundum\n  superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua\n  autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur._ _De Ph\u00e6nom.\n  cap. 11._]\n\nThe more common and generall opinion[1] is, that the spots are the\nthinner parts of the Moone, which are lesse able to reflect the beames\nthat they receive from the Sunne, and this is most agreeable to reason,\nfor if the starres are therefore brightest, because they are thicker and\nmore solid then their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts of\nthe Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thickenesse. It was\nthe providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to\nhave these spots within it, for since that is neerest to those lower\nbodies which are so full of deformity, 'tis requisite that it should in\nsome measure agree with them, and as in this inferiour world the higher\nbodies are the most compleat, so also in the heavens perfection is\nascended unto by degrees, and the Moone being the lowest, must be the\nleast pure, and therefore _Philo_ the Jew[2] interpreting _Iacobs_\ndreame concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory shew, how that in the\nfabricke of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher,\nand this is the reason (saith hee) why the Moone doth not consist of any\npure simple matter, but is mixed with aire, which shewes so darkely\nwithin her body.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Albert. mag. de co\u00e6vis. Q. 4. Art. 21._\n  _Colleg. Con._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _De Somniis._]\n\nBut this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true that\nnature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it as\ntrue, that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office to\nwhich shee intends it. Now, had she intended the Moone meerly to reflect\nthe Sunne beames and give light, the spots then had not so much argued\nher providence, as her unskilfulnesse and imperfection,[1] as if in the\nhaste of her worke shee could not tell how to make that body exactly\nfit, for that office to which she appointed it.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Scalig. exercit. 62._]\n\nTis likely then that she had some other end which moved her to produce\nthis variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it a\nfit body for habitation with the same conveniencies of sea and land, as\nthis inferiour world doth partake of. For since the Moone is such a\nvast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved)\nwhy may it not be probable, that those thinner and thicker parts\nappearing in her, doe shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in\nthat other world; and _Galil\u00e6us_ doubts not, but that if our earth were\nvisible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it.\n\nAs for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke they\nrepresent a man, and the Poets guesse 'tis the boy _Endimion_, whose\ncompany shee loves so well, that shee carries him with her, others will\nhave it onely to be the face of a man as the Moone is usually pictured,\nbut _Albertus_ thinkes rather, that it represents a Lyon with his taile\ntowards the East, and his head the West, and [1]*some others have\nthought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly 'tis as much like a\nLyon as that in the _Zodiake_, or as _Vrsa major_ is like a Beare.\n\n  [Sidenote 1*: Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat. lib. 8. c. 15._]\n\nI should guesse that it represents one of these as well as another, and\nany thing else as well as any of these, since 'tis but a strong\nimagination, which fancies such images as schoole-boyes usually doe in\nthe markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such similitude in the\nspots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land,\nappeares under a rugged and confused figure, and doth not represent any\ndistinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the forme it\nmay be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may shew the\ndistinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 8.\n\n_The spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land._\n\n\nWhen I first compared the nature of our earth and water with those\nappearances in the Moone; I concluded contrary to the proposition, that\nthe brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; of\nthis opinion likewise was _Keplar_ at the first; but my second thoughts,\nand the reading of others,[1] have now convinced me (as after he was) of\nthe truth of that Proposition which I have now set downe. But before I\ncome to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which at\nfirst made mee doubt of the truth of this opinion.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9._\n  _Dissert. cum nuncio Gal._]\n\n1. It may be objected, 'tis probable, if there be any such sea and land\nas ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but now\nthis Proposition takes away all likenesse betwixt them, for whereas the\nsuperficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in\nthe globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as _Scaliger_[1]\nobserves) yet here according to this opinion, the Sea should be lesse\nthen the Land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as ther is\nof the enlightened parts, wherefore 'tis probable, that either there is\nno such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Exercit. 38._]\n\n2. The water, by reason of the smoothnesse of its superficies, seemes\nbetter able to reflect the Sun beames then the earth, which in most\nplaces is so full of ruggednesse of grasse and trees, and such like\nimpediments of reflection, and besides, c\u00f5mon experience shewes, that\nthe water shines with a greater and more glorious brightnesse then the\nearth, therefore it should seeme that the spots are the earth, and the\nbrighter parts the water.\n\nBut to the first it may be answered.\n\n1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because 'tis\nso with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moone, for\nsince there is such a difference betwixt them in divers other respects,\nthey may not, perhaps, agree in this.\n\n2. That assertion of _Scaliger_ is not by all granted for a truth.\n_Fromondus_[1] with others, thinke, that the superficies of the Sea and\nLand in so much of the world as is already discovered, is equall, and of\nthe same extension.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Meteoris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1._]\n\n3. The Orbe of thicke and vaporous aire which encompasses the Moone,\nmakes the brighter parts of that Planet appeare bigger then in\nthemselves they are; as I shall shew afterwards.\n\nTo the second it may be answered, that though the water be of a smooth\nsuperficies, and so may seeme most fit to reverberate the light, yet\nbecause 'tis of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beames must sinke\ninto it, and cannot so strongly and clearely be reflected. _Sicut in\nspeculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit_, (saith _Cardan_) as in\nLooking-glasses where part of the lead is raized off, and nothing left\nbehind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe through\nand not backe againe; so it is where the beames penetrate and sinke into\nthe substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strong\nreflection as when they are beate backe from the superficies, and\ntherefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land then\nupon the water. Now as for that experiment, where 'tis said, that the\nwaters have a greater brightness then the Land: I answer, 'tis true\nonely there where they represent the image of the Sunne or some bright\ncloud, and not in other places, as is very plaine by common observation.\n\nSo that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this Proposition may remaine\ntrue, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Of\nthis opinion was _Plutarch_: unto him assented _Keplar_ and _Galil\u00e6us_,\nwhose words are these,\n\n  _Si quis veterum Pythagor\u00e6orum sententiam excuscitare velit, lunam\n  scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam\n  superficiem, obscurior ver\u00f2 aqueam magis congru\u00e8 repr\u00e6sentet. Mihi\n  autem dubium fuit numquam terrestris globi \u00e0 long\u00e8 conspecti,\n  atque a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem,\n  obscuriorem ver\u00f2 aqueam sese in conspectum daturam._[1]\n\n  \"If any man have a minde to renew the opinion of the _Pythagoreans_,\n  that the Moone is another earth, then her brighter parts may fitly\n  represent the earths superficies, and the darker part the water:\n  and for my part, I never doubted but that our earthly globe being\n  shined upon by the Sunne, and beheld at a great distance, the Land\n  would appeare brightest and the Sea more obscurely.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De facie lun._\n  _Dissertatio._\n  _Nunc. Syd._]\n\nThe reasons may be.\n\n1. That which I urged about the foregoing Chapter, because the water is\nthe thinner part, and therefore must give the lesse light.\n\n2. Because observation tels us, that the spotted parts are alwaies\nsmooth and equall, having every where an equality of light, when once\nthey are enlightened by the Sunne, whereas the brighter parts are full\nof rugged gibbosities and mountaines having many shades in them, as I\nshall shew more at large afterwards.\n\nThat in this Planet there must be Seas, _Campanella_[1] indeavours to\nprove out of Scripture interpreting the _waters above the Firmament_\nspoken of in _Genesis_ to be meant of the Sea in this world. For (saith\nhe) 'tis not likely that there are any such waters above the Orbes to\nmoderate that heate which they receive from their swift motion (as some\nof the Fathers thinke) nor did _Moses_ meane the Angells which may be\ncalled spirituall waters, as _Origen_ and _Austin_[2] would have it, for\nboth these are rejected by the generall consent: nor could he meane any\nwaters in the second region, as most Commentators interpret it. For\nfirst there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwards\nturned into water, yet while they remaine there, they are onely the\nmatter of that element, which may as well be fire or earth, or aire.\n2. Those vapors are not above the _expansum_, but in it. So that hee\nthinkes there is no other way to salve all, but by making the Planets\nseverall worlds with Sea & Land, with such Rivers and Springs, as wee\nhave here below: Especially since _Esdras_[3] speakes of the springs\nabove the Firmament, but I cannot agree with him in this, nor doe I\nthinke that any such thing can be proved out of Scripture.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galil\u00e6o._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Confession. l. 13. c. 32._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: 2 Esdr. 4. 7.]\n\nBefore I proceede to the next Position, I shall first answer some doubts\nwhich might be made against the generality of this truth, whereby it may\nseeme impossible that there should be either Sea or Land in the Moone;\nfor since she moves so swiftly as Astronomers observe, why then does\nthere nothing fall from her, or why doth shee not shake something out by\nthe celerity of her revolution? I answer, you must know that the\ninclination of every heavie body, to its proper Center doth sufficiently\ntie it unto its place, so that suppose any thing were separated, yet\nmust it necessarily returne againe, and there is no more danger of their\nfalling into our world then there is feare of our falling into the\nMoone.\n\nBut yet there are many fabulous relations of such things as have dropped\nthence. There is a tale of the Nemean Lyon that _Hercules_ slew, which\nfirst rushing among the heards out of his unknowne den in the Mountaine\nof _Cytheron_ in _Boeotia_, the credulous people thought he was sent\nfrom their Goddesse the Moone. And if a whirle-winde did chance to\nsnatch any thing up, and afterwards raine it downe againe, the ignorant\nmultitude are apt to believe that it dropt from Heaven. Thus _Avicenna_\nrelates the story of a Calfe which fell downe in a storme, the beholders\nthinking it a Moone-calfe, and that it fell thence. So _Cardan_\ntravelling upon the Apennine Mountaines, a sudden blast tooke off his\nhat, which if it had beene carryed farre, he thinkes the peasants who\nhad perceived it to fall, would have sworne it had rained hats. After\nsome such manner many of our prodigies come to passe, and the people are\nwilling to believe anything, which they may relate to others as a very\nstrange and wonderfull event. I doubt not but the Trojan _Palladium_,\nthe Romane _Minerva_, and our Ladies Church at _Loretto_, with many\nsacred reliques preserved by the Papists might droppe from the Moone as\nwell as any of these.\n\nBut it may be againe objected, suppose there were a bullet shot up in\nthat world, would not the Moone runne away from it, before it could fall\ndowne, since the motion of her body (being every day round our earth) is\nfarre swifter than the other, and so the bullet must be left behinde,\nand at length fall downe to us? To this I answer,\n\n1. If a bullet could be shot so farre till it came to the circumference\nof those things which belong to our center, then it would fall downe to\nus.\n\n2. Though there were some heavie body a great height in that ayer, yet\nwould the motion of its centre by an attractive vertue still hold it\nwithin its convenient distance, so that whether their earth moved or\nstood still, yet would the same violence cast a body from it equally\nfarre. That I may the plainer expresse my meaning, I will set downe this\nDiagramme.\n\n  [Illustration as described in text]\n\nSuppose this earth were A, which was to move in the circle C, D. and let\nthe bullet be supposed at B. within its proper verge; I say, whether\nthis earth did stand stil or move swiftly towards D, yet the bullet\nwould still keepe at the same distance by reason of that Magneticke\nvertue of the center (if I may so speake) whereby all things within its\nspheare are attracted with it. So that the violence to the bullet, being\nnothing else but that whereby 'tis removed from its center, therefore an\nequall violence can carry a body from its proper place, but at an equall\ndistance whether or no the center stand still or move.\n\nThe impartiall Reader may finde sufficient satisfaction for this and\nsuch other arguments as may be urged against the motion of that earth in\nthe writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers, unto whom for brevities\nsake I will referre them.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 9.\n\n_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plains\n  in the body of the Moone._\n\n\nThough there are some who thinke Mountaines to bee a deformity in the\nearth, as if they were either beate up by the flood, or else cast up\nlike so many heaps of rubbish left at the creation, yet if well\nconsidered, they will be found as much to conduce to the beauty and\nconveniency of the universe as any of the other parts. Nature (saith\n_Pliny_[1]) purposely framed them for many excellent uses: partly to\ntame the violence of greater Rivers, to strengthen certaine joynts\nwithin the veines and bowels of the earth, to breake the force of the\nSeas inundation, and for the safety of the earths inhabitants, whether\nbeasts or men. That they make much for the protection of beasts the\nPsalmist[2] testifies, _The highest hils are a refuge for the wilde\nGoats, and the rockes for Conies_. The Kingly Prophet had learned the\nsafety of these by his owne experience, when he also was faine to make a\nmountaine his refuge from the fury of his Master _Saul_, who persecuted\nhim in the wildernesse.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. hist. l. 36. c. 1._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Psal. 104. v. 18.]\n\nTrue indeed, such places as these keepe their neighbours poore, as\nbeeing most barren, but yet they preserve them safe, as being most\nstrong, witnesse our unconquered _Wales_ and _Scotland_, whose greatest\nprotection hath beene the naturall strength of their Countrey, so\nfortified with Mountaines, that these have alwaies been unto them sure\nretraites from the violence and oppression of others, wherefore a good\nAuthour doth rightly call them natures bulwarkes cast up at God\nAlmighties owne charges, the scornes and curbs of victorious armies,\nwhich made the Barbarians in _Curtius_ so confident of their owne\nsafety, when they were once retired to an inaccessible mountaine, that\nwhen _Alexanders_ Legate had brought them to a parley and perswading\nthem to yeeld, told them of his masters victories, what Seas and\nWildernesses hee had passed, they replyed that all that might be, but\ncould _Alexander_ fly too? Over the Seas he might have ships, and over\nthe land horses, but hee must have wings before he could get up thither.\nSuch safety did those barbarous nations conceive in the mountaines\nwhereunto they were retyred, certainely then such usefull parts were not\nthe effect of mans sinne, or produced by the Worlds curse the flood, but\nrather at the first created by the goodnesse and providence of the\nAlmighty.\n\nSo that if I intend to prove that the Moone is such a habitable world as\nthis is, 'tis requisite that I shew it to have the same conveniences of\nhabitation as this hath, and here if some Rabbi or Chymicke were to\nhandle the point they would first prove it out of Scripture, from that\nplace in _Moses_ his blessing,[1] where hee speakes of the ancient\nmountaines and lasting hils, _Deut._ #Hareray kedem ugva'ot olam#\nfor having immediately before mentioned those blessings which should\nhappen unto _Ioseph_ by the influence of the Moone, he does presently\nexegetically iterate them in blessing him with the chiefe things of\nthe ancient Mountaines and lasting hils; you may also see the same\nexpression used in _Iacobs_ blessing of _Ioseph_.[2]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: Deut. 33. 15]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Gen. 49. 26]\n\nBut however we may deale _pro_ or _con_ in Philosophy, yet we must not\njest with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronize any fancy of\nour owne, though, perhaps, it be truth. For the better proofe of this\nproposition, I might here cite the testimony of _Diodorus_, who thought\nthe Moone to bee full of rugged places, _vel ut terrestribus tumulis\nsuperciliosam_, but he erred much in some circumstances of this opinion,\nespecially where he saies, there is an Iland amongst the _Hyperboreans_,\nwherein those hils may to the eye bee plainely discovered, and for this\nreason. [1]*_C\u00e6lius_ calls him a fabulous Writer, but you may see more\nexpresse authority for the proofe of this in the opinions of\n_Anaxagoras_ and _Democritus_,[2] who held that this Planet was full of\nchampion grounds, mountains and vallies, and this seemed likewise\nprobable unto _Augustinus Nifus_, whose words are these:\n\n  _Forsitan non est remotum dicere, lun\u00e6 partes esse diversas, veluti\n  sunt partes terr\u00e6, quarum ali\u00e6 sunt vallos\u00e6, ali\u00e6 montos\u00e6, ex quarum\n  differentia effici potest facies illa lun\u00e6; nec est rationi dissonum,\n  nam luna est corpus imperfect\u00e8 Sph\u00e6ricum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo\n  coelo elongatum, ut supra dixit Aristoteles._\n\n  \"Perhaps, it would not be amisse to say that the parts of the Moone\n  were divers, as the parts of this earth, whereof some are vallies,\n  and some mountaines, from the difference of which, some spots in the\n  Moone may proceed, nor is this against reason, for that Planet cannot\n  be perfectly sphericall, since 'tis so remote a body from the first\n  orbe, as _Aristotle_ had said before.\"\n\nYou may see this truth assented unto by _Blancanus_ the Jesuit,[3] and\nby him confirmed with with divers reasons. _Keplar_ hath observed in the\nMoones eclipses,[4] that the division of her enlightened part from the\nshaded, was made by a crooked unequall line, of which there cannot be\nany probable cause conceived, unlesse it did arise from the ruggednesse\nof that planet, for it cannot at all be produc'd from the shade of any\nmountains here upon earth, because these would be so lessned before they\ncould reach so high in a conicall shadow, that they would not be at all\nsensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated) nor can it be\nconceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sunne.\nWherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to doe in\neclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a variety\nof parts in the Moone it selfe, and what can there be but its\ngibbosities? Now if you should aske a reason why there should be such a\nsimilitude of these in that Planet, the same _Keplar_ shall jest you out\nan answere, for supposing (saith he) those inhabitants are bigger than\nany of us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours,\nviz. by fifteen times it may bee for want of stones to erect such vast\nhouses as were requisite for their bodies, they are faine to digge great\nand round hollowes in the earth, where they may both procure water for\ntheir thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those great\nheats which otherwise they would be lyable unto; or if you will give\n_C\u00e6sar la Galla_ leave to guesse in the same manner, he would rather\nthink that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so great heaps of\nearth in digging of their wine cellars, but this onely by the way.\n\n  [Sidenote 1*: _Lect. aut l. 1. c. 15._\n  _Plut. de plac. l. 2. c. 25._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _De coelo. l. 2. p. 49._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _De Mundi fab. pars 3\u00aa. c. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: _Astron. Opt. c. 6. num 9._]\n\nI shall next produce the eye-witnesse of _Galil\u00e6us_,[1] on which I most\nof all depend for the proofe of this Proposition, when he beheld the new\nMoone through his perspective, it appeared to him under a rugged and\nspotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightned parts divided\nby a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance from\nthe other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily\nperceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are\ncommonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what I\ndeliver, I will set downe the Figure as I find it in _Galil\u00e6us_:\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nuncius Sydereus._]\n\n  [Illustration: Crescent Moon]\n\nSuppose ABCD to represent the appearance of the Moones body being in a\nsextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distance\nfrom the other, which can bee nothing else but a reflexion of the\nSunne-beames upon some parts that are higher then the rest, and those\nobscure gibbosities which stand out towards the enlightened parts must\nbee such hollow and deepe places whereto the rayes cannot reach, but\nwhen the Moone is got further off from the Sunne, and come to that\nfulnesse, as this line BD doth represent her under, then doe these parts\nalso receive an equall light, excepting onely that difference which doth\nappeare betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consider how any\nrugged body would appeare, being enlightned, you would easily conceive\nthat it must necessarily seeme under some such gibbous unequall forme,\nas the Moone is here represented. Now for the infallibility of these\nappearances, I shall referre the reader to that which hath beene said in\nthe 6th Proposition.\n\nBut _C\u00e6sar la Galla_ affirmes, that all these appearances may consist\nwith a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to be\nsome of them, _Diaphanous_, and some opacous; and if you object that the\nlight which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficies\nmust be by a continued line, whereas here there appeare many brighter\nparts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this he\nanswers, it may arise from some secret conveyances and channels within\nher body, that doe consist of a more diaphanous matter which being\ncovered over with an opacious superficies, the light passing through\nthem may breake out a great way off, whereas the other parts betwixt may\nstill remaine darke. Just as the River _Arethusa_ in _Sicile_ which\nrunnes under ground for a great way, and afterwards breakes out againe.\nBut because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby hee thinkes hee\nhath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore set\ndowne his answere in his owne words, lest the Reader might suspect more\nin them then I have expressed.[1]\n\n  _Non est impossibile coecos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis,\n  sed opac\u00e2 superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo\n  in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo\n  postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c._\n\nBut I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two enlightened parts\nremaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwaies be darke,\nand the Sunne could not make it partake of light more then it could of\nperspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in\n_Galil\u00e6us_, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes nearer to his\nopposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightned as well\nas either. Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse, for he confesses\nhimselfe that he saw this by the glasse. He had said before that he came\nto see those strange sights discovered by _Galil\u00e6us_ his glasse with an\nintent of contradiction, and you may reade that confirmed in the\nweakenesse of this answere, which rather bewrayes an obstinate then a\nperswaded will, for otherwise sure hee would never have undertooke to\nhave destroyed such certaine proofes with so groundlesse a fancy.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Cap. 11._]\n\nBut it may bee objected, that 'tis almost impossible, and altogether\nunlikely that in the Moone thete should be any mountaines so high as\nthose observations make them, for doe but suppose according to the\ncommon principles, that the Moones diameter unto the Earths is very\nneere to the proportion of 2. to 7, suppose withall that the Earths\ndiameter containes about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moones 2000 (as is\ncommonly granted) now _Gali\u00e6us_ hath observed that some parts have been\nenlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant\nfrom the common terme of illumination, so that hence it must necessarily\nfollow that there may bee some Mountaines in the Moone so high, that\nthey are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that sounds\nlike a prodigie or a fiction; wherefore 'tis likely that either those\nappearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountaines, or else\nthose are fallible observations, from whence may follow such improbable\ninconceiveable consequences.\n\nBut to this I answere:\n\n1. You must consider the height of the Mountaines is but very little, if\nyou compare them to the length of their shadowes. Sr. _Walter\nRawleigh_[1] observes that the Mount _Athos_ now called _Lacas_ casts\nits shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount is\nnone of the highest, nay _Solinus_[2] (whom I should rather believe in\nthis kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his shadow quite over the\nSea, from _Macedon_ to the Ile of _Lemnos_ which is 700 furlongs or 84\nmiles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4\nmiles upwards, in its perpendicular height.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. \u00a7 11._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Poly. histor. c. 21._]\n\n2. I affirme that there are very high Mountaines in the Moone. _Keplar_\nand _Galil\u00e6us_ thinke that they are higher than any which are upon our\nearth. But I am not of their opinion in this, because I suppose they goe\nupon a false ground whilst they conceive that the highest mountaine upon\nthe earth is not above a mile perpendicular.\n\nWhereas 'tis the common opinion and found true enough by observation,\nthat _Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_, with many others are much\nabove this height. _Tenariffa_ in the Canary Ilands is proved by\ncomputation to bee above 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height is\nthe mount _Perjacaca_ in _America_. Sr. _Walter Rawleigh_ seemes to\nthinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles upright: nay\n_Aristotle_[1] speaking of _Caucasus_ in _Asia_, affirmes it to bee\nvisible for 560 miles, as some interpreters finde by computation, from\nwhich it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicularly high, as you\nmay see confirmed by _Jacobus Mazonius_,[2] and out of him in\n_Blancanus_ the Jesuite.[3] But this deviates from the truth more in\nexcesse then the other doth in defect. However though these in the moone\nare not so high as some amongst us, yet certaine it is they are of a\ngreat height, and some of them at the least foure miles perpendicular.\nThis I shall prove from the observation of _Galil\u00e6us_, whose glasse can\nshew this truth to the senses, a proofe beyond exception and certaine\nthat man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not believe\nhis owne eye.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Meteor. l. 1. c. 11._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Comparatio Arist. cum Platone, Sect. 3. c. 5._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Exposi. in loc. Math. Artis. loc. 148._]\n\nBy that perspective you may plainely discerne some enlightned parts\n(which are the mountaines) to be distant from the other about the\ntwentieth part of the diameter. From whence it will follow, that those\nmountaines must necessarily be at the least foure Italian miles in\nheight.\n\n  [Illustration]\n\nFor let BDEF be the body of the moone, ABC will be a ray or beame of the\nSunne, which enlightens a mountaine at A and _B_ is the point of\ncontingency, the distance betwixt A and B must bee supposed to be the\ntwentieth part of the diameter which is an 100 miles, for so far are\nsome enlightened parts severed from the common terme of illumination.\nNow the aggregate of the quadrate from A _B_ a hundred, and _B_ _G_ a\n1000 will bee 1010000, unto which the quadrate arising from A G must be\nequall according to the 47th proposition in the first booke of elements.\nTherefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104, and the\ndistance betwixt H A must be above 4 miles, which was the thing to be\nproved.\n\nBut it may be againe objected, if there be such rugged parts, and so\nhigh mountaines, why then cannot wee discerne them at this distance, why\ndoth the moone appeare unto us so exactly round, and not rather as a\nwheele with teeth?\n\nI answere, by reason of too great a distance, for if the whole body\nappeare to our eye so little, then those parts which beare so small a\nproportion to the whole will not at all be sensible.\n\nBut it may be replied, if there were any such remarkeable hils, why does\nnot the limbe of the moone appeare like a wheele with teeth to those who\nlooke upon it through the great perspective on whose witnesse you so\nmuch depend? or what reason is there that she appeares as exactly round\nthrough it as shee doth to the bare eye? certainely then either there is\nno such thing as you imagine, or else the glasse failes much in this\ndiscovery.\n\nTo this I shall answere out of _Galil\u00e6us_.\n\n1. You must know that there is not meerely one ranke of mountaines about\nthe edge of the moone, but divers orders, one mountaine behind another,\nand so there is somewhat to hinder those void spaces which otherwise,\nperhaps, might appeare.\n\nNow where there be many hils, the ground seemes even to a man that can\nsee the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves are\nlifted up, yet all may appeare plaine enough to one that stands at the\nshore. So where there are so many hils, the inequality will be lesse\nremarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.\n\n2. Though there be mountains in that part which appeares unto us, to be\nthe limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the bright\nvapours hide their appearance: for there is an orbe of thicke vaporous\naire that doth immediatly compasse the body of the Moone, which though\nit have not so great opacity, as to terminate the sight, yet being once\nenlightened by the Sunne, it doth represent the body of the Moone under\na greater forme, and hinders our sight from a distinct view of her true\ncircumference. But of this in the next Chapter.\n\nI have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moone, and\nhence it may seeme likely that there is also a world, for since\nprovidence hath some speciall end in all its workes, certainly then\nthese mountaines were not produced in vaine, and what more probable\nmeaning can wee conceive there should be, than to make that place\nconvenient for habitation.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 10.\n\n_That there is an Atmo-sph\u00e6ra, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire,\n  immediately encompassing the body of the Moone._\n\n\nAs that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thicker\nsubstance than the other, by reason tis alwaies mixed with some vapours,\nwhich are continually exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, that\nif there be a world in the Moone, that the aire about that should be\nalike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orbe of grosse\naire, was first of all (for ought I can reade) observed by _Meslin_,\nafterwards assented unto by _Keplar_ and _Galil\u00e6us_,[1] and since by\n_Baptistae Cisatus_, _Sheiner_ with others, all of them confirming it by\nthe same arguments which I shall onely cite, and then leave this\nProposition.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Vide_ Euseb. Nierem. _de Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 11._]\n\n1. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightened, is\nalwaies part of a bigger circle then that which is darker. Their\nfrequent experience hath proved this, and an easie observation may\nquickely confirme it. But now this cannot proceede from any other cause\nso probable, as from this orbe of aire, especially when we consider how\nthat planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not send forth any such\nrayes as may make her appearance bigger then her body.\n\n2. 'Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a great\ntrepidation about the body of the Moone, from which we may likewise\nargue an Atmo-sph\u00e6ra, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a\ncause there should be of such an appearance as this,\n\n  _Quod radii Solares \u00e0 vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint\n  intercisi_,[1]\n\nthat the Sun beames were broken and refracted by the vapours that\nencompassed the Moone.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Scheiner. Ros. Vrs. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27._]\n\n3. I may adde the like argument taken from another observation which\nwill be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, wee\ndiscerne the Moone as shee is in her owne naturall bignesse, but then\nshe appeares somewhat lesse then when shee is in the full, though she be\nin the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle, and therefore\n_Tycho_ hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the divers new\nMoones. But now there is no reason so probable to salve this appearance,\nas to place an orbe of thicker aire, neere the body of that Planet,\nwhich may be enlightened by the reflected beames, and through which the\ndirect raies may easily penetrate.\n\nBut some may object that this will not consist with that which was\nbefore delivered, where I said, that the thinnest parts had least light.\n\nIf this were true, how comes it to passe then, that this aire should be\nas bright as any of the other parts, when as tis the thinnest of all?\n\nI answer, if the light be received by reflection, then the thickest body\nhath most because it is best able to beare backe the raies, but if the\nlight be received by illumination[1] (especially if there be an opacous\nbody behinde, which may double the beames by reflexion) as it is here,\nthen I deny not but a thinne body may retaine much light, and perhaps,\nsome of those appearances which wee take for fiery comets, are nothing\nelse but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there may\nbe such aire without the Moone, and hence it comes to passe, that the\ngreater spots are onely visible towards her middle parts, and none neere\nthe circumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts as\nelse where, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of those\nbrighter vapours which hide them.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. \u00a7 11._]\n\n\n\n\nProposition 11.\n\n_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone._\n\n\nI have already handled the first thing that I promised according to the\nMethod which _Aristotle_ uses in his Booke _de Mundo_, and shew'd you\nthe necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moone. In the next\nplace 'tis requisite that I proceed to those things which are\nextrinsecall unto it, as the Seasons, the Meteors, and the Inhabitants.\n\n  1. Of the Seasons;\n\nAnd if there be such a world in the Moone, 'tis requisite then that\ntheir seasons should be some way correspondent unto ours, that they\nshould have Winter and Summer, night and day, as wee have.\n\nNow that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and Summer is\naffirmed by _Aristotle_ [1] himselfe, since there is one hemispheare\nthat hath alwaies heate and light, and the other that hath darknesse and\ncold. True indeed, their daies and yeeres are alwaies of one and the\nsame length, but tis so with us also under the Poles, and therefore that\ngreat difference is not sufficient to make it altogether unlike ours,\nnor can we expect that every thing there should be in the same manner as\nit is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about her\npurposes. Wee may easily see what great differences there are amongst\nus, betwixt things of the same kinde. Some men (say they) [2] there are,\nwho can live onely upon smells, without eating any thing, and the same\nPlant, saith _Besoldus_, hath sometimes contrary effects. _Mandragora_\nwhich growes in _Syria_ inflames the lust, wheras _Mandragora_ which\ngrows in other places doth coole the blood & quench lust.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De gen. animal. l. 4. 12._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Plat. de fac._\n  _De natur\u00e2 populorum. c. 3._]\n\nNow if with us there be such great difference betwixt things of the same\nkinde, we have no reason then to thinke it necessary that both these\nworlds should be altogether alike, but it may suffice if they bee\ncorrespondent in something onely, however it may be questioned whether\nit doth not seeme to be against the wisedome of providence, to make the\nnight of so great a length, when they have such a long time unfit for\nworke? I answere no, since tis so, and more with us also under the\npoles; and besides, the generall length of their night is somewhat\nabated in the bignesse of their Moone which is our earth. For this\nreturnes as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it. But\nfor the better proofe of this, I shall first free the way from such\nopinions as might otherwise hinder the speede of a clearer progresse.\n\n_Plutarch_[1] one of the chiefe patrons of this world in the Moone, doth\ndirectly contradict this proposition; affirming, that those who live\nthere may discerne our world as the dregges and sediment of all other\ncreatures, appearing to them through clouds and foggy mists, and that\naltogether devoid of light, being base and unmoveable, so that they\nmight well imagine the darke place of damnation to be here situate, and\nthat they onely were the inhabiters of the world, as being in the midst\nbetwixt Heaven and Hell.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fac. lun\u00e6._]\n\nTo this I may answere, 'tis probable that _Plutarch_ spake this\ninconsiderately, and without a reason, which makes him likewise fall\ninto another absurditie, when he sayes our earth would appeare\nimmoveable, whereas questionlesse though it did not, yet would it seeme\nto move, and theirs to stand still, as the Land doth to a man in a\nShippe; according to that of the Poet:\n\n  _Provehimur portu, terr\u00e6que urbesque recedunt._\n\nAnd I doubt not but that ingenuous Authour would easily have recanted if\nhee had beene but acquainted with those experiences which men of latter\ntimes have found out, for the confirmation of this truth.\n\n2. Unto him assents _Macrobius_, whose words are these;\n\n  _Terra accepto solis lumine clarescit, tantummod\u00f2, non relucet._\n\n  \"The earth is by the Sunne-beames made bright, but not able to\n  enlighten any thing so farre.\"\n\nAnd his reason is, because this being of a thicke and grosse matter, the\nlight is terminated in its superficies, and cannot penetrate into the\nsubstance; whereas the moone doth therefore seeme so bright to us,\nbecause it receives the beames within it selfe. But the weaknesse of\nthis assertion, may bee easily manifest by a common experience, for\npolished steele (whose opacity will not give any admittance to the\nrayes) reflects a stronger heate then glasse, and so consequently a\ngreater light.\n\n3. 'Tis the generall consent of Philosophers, that the reflection of the\nSunne-beames from the earth doth not reach much above halfe a mile high,\nwhere they terminate the first region, so that to affirme they might\nascend to the moone, were to say, there were but one region of aier,\nwhich contradicts the proved and received opinion.\n\nUnto this it may be answered:\n\nThat it is indeed the common consent, that the reflexion of the\nSunne-beames reach onely to the second region, but yet some there are,\nand those too Philosophers of good note, who thought otherwise. Thus\n_Plotinus_ is cited by _C\u00e6lius_,[1]\n\n  _Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis\n  subjiciatur terr\u00e6 moles aquis circumfusa, & solis syderumque radiis\n  illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis\n  modo visatur lunaris globi species._\n\n  \"If you did conceive your selfe to bee in some such high place,\n  where you might discerne the whole Globe of the earth and water,\n  when it was enlightned by the Sunnes rayes, 'tis probable it would\n  then appeare to you in the same shape as the moone doth now unto us.\"\n\nThus also _Carolus Malapertius_, whose words are these,[2]\n\n  _Terra h\u00e6c nostra si in luna constituti essemus, splendida prorsus\n  quasi non ignobilis planeta, nobis appareret._\n\n  \"If wee were placed in the moone, and from thence beheld this our\n  earth, it would appeare unto us very bright, like one of the nobler\n  Planets.\"\n\nUnto these doth _Fromondus_ assent, when he sayes,[3]\n\n  _Credo equidem quod si oculus quispiam in orbe lunari foret, globum\n  terr\u00e6 & aqu\u00e6 instar ingentis syderis \u00e0 sole illustrem conspiceret._\n\n  \"I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like\n  some great Starre to any one, who should looke upon it from the\n  moone.\"\n\nNow this could not be, nor could it shine so remarkably, unlesse the\nbeames of light, were reflected from it. And therefore the same\n_Fromondus_ expresly holds, that the first region of ayre is there\nterminated, where the heate caused by reflexion begins to languish,\nwhereas the beames themselves doe passe a great way further. The chiefe\nargument which doth most plainely manifest this truth, is taken from a\ncommon observation which may be easily tryed.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Pr\u00e6fat. ad Austrica syd._]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: _Meteor. l. 1. c. 2. Art. 2._]\n\nIf you behold the Moone a little before or after the conjunction, when\nshe is in a sextile with the Sunne, you may discerne not onely the part\nwhich is enlightned, but the rest also to have in it a kind of a duskish\nlight, but if you chuse out such a scituation, where some house or\nchimney (being some 70 or 80 paces distant from you) may hide from your\neye the enlightned hornes, you may then discerne a greater and more\nremarkeable shining in those parts unto which the Sunne beames cannot\nreach; nay there is so great a light, that by the helpe of a good\nperspective you may discerne its spots. Inso much that _Blancanus_ the\nJesuite speaking of it sayes[1]\n\n  _H\u00e6c experientia ita me aliquando fefellit, ut in hunc fulgorem\n  casu ac repente incidens, existimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore\n  adolescentis lun\u00e6 factum esse plenilunium._\n\n  \"This experiment did once so deceive mee, that happening upon the\n  sight of this brightnesse upon a sudden, I thought that by some new\n  miracle the Moone had beene got into her full a little after her\n  change.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De mundi fab. p. 3\u00aa. c. 3._]\n\nBut now this light is not proper to the Moone, it doth not proceed from\nthe rayes of the Sunne which doth penetrate her body, nor is it caused\nby any other of the Planets and Starres. Therefore it must necessarily\nfollow, that it comes from the earth. The two first of these I have\nalready proved, and as for the last, it is confidently affirmed by\n_C\u00e6lius_,[1]\n\n  _Quod si in disquisitionem evocet quia, an lunari syderi lucem\n  foenerent planet\u00e6 item alii, asseveranter astruendum non foenerare_.\n\n\"If any should aske whether the other Planets lend any light to the\nMoone; I answer they doe not.\" True indeed, the noble _Tycho_[2]\ndiscussing the reason of this light attributes it to the Planet _Uenus_,\nand I grant that this may convey some light to the Moone; but that it is\nnot the cause of this whereof wee now discourse, is of itselfe\nsufficiently plaine, because _Uenus_ is sometimes over the Moone, when\nas shee cannot convey any light to that part which is turned from her.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Progym. 1._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _l. 20. c. 5._]\n\nIt doth not proceede from the fixed starres, for then it would retaine\nthe same light in eclipses, whereas the light at such times is more\nruddy and dull. Then also the light of the Moone would not be greater or\nlesser, according to its distance from the edge of the earths shadow,\nsince it did at all times equally participate this light of the starres.\n\nNow because there is no other body in the whole Universe, save the\nearth, it remaines that this light must necessarily be caused by that\nwhich with a just gratitude repaies to the Moone, such illumination as\nit receives from her.\n\nAnd as loving friends equally participate of the same joy and griefe, so\ndoe these mutually partake of the same light from the Sunne, and the\nsame darkenesse from the eclipses, being also severally helped by one\nanother in their greatest wants: For when the Moone is in conjunction\nwith the Sunne, and her upper part receives all the light, then her\nlower Hemispheare (which would otherwise be altogether darke) is\nenlightened by the reflexion of the Sunne beames from the earth. When\nthese two planets are in opposition, then that part of the earth which\ncould not receive any light from the Sunne beames, is most enlightened\nby the Moone, being then in her full; and as she doth most illuminate\nthe earth when the Sunne beames cannot, so the gratefull earth returnes\nto her as great, nay greater light when shee most wants it; so that\nalwaies that visible part of the Moone which receives nothing from the\nSunne, is enlightened by the earth, as is proved by _Galil\u00e6us_, with\nmany more arguments, in that Treatise which he calls _Systema mundi_.\nTrue indeed, when the Moone comes to a quartile, then you can neither\ndiscerne this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, but the reason\nis, because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. _Quippe\nillustratum medium speciem recipit valentiorem_,[1] the clearer\nbrightnesse involves the weaker, it being with the species of sight, as\nit is with those of sound, and as the greater noise drownes the lesse,\nso the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But they doe\nalwaies in their mutuall vicissitudes participate of one anothers light;\nso also doe they partake of the same defects and darknings, for when our\nMoone is eclipsed, then is their Sunne darkened, and when our Sunne is\neclipsed, then is their Moone deprived of its light, as you may see\naffirmed by _M\u00e6slin_.[2]\n\n  _Quod si terram nobis ex alto liceret intueri, quemadmodum\n  deficientem lunam ex longinquo spectare possumus, videremus tempore\n  eclipsis solis terr\u00e6 aliquam partem lumine solis deficere, eodem\n  plan\u00e8 modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit_,\n\n  \"If wee might behold this globe of earth at the same distance as we\n  doe the Moone in her defects, wee might discerne some part of it\n  darkened in the Sunnes eclipses, just so as the Moone is in hers.\"\n\nFor as our Moone is eclipsed by the interposition of our earth, so is\ntheir Moone eclipsed by the interposition of theirs. The manner of this\nmutuall illumination betwixt these two you may plainly discerne in this\nFigure following.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Scal. exerc. 62._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Epit. Astro. l. 4. part. 2._]\n\n  [Illustration as described in text:\n  sun, crescent moon and gibbous earth]\n\nWhere A represents the Sun, B the Earth, and C the Moone; Now suppose\nthe Moone C to be in a sextile of increase, when there is onely one\nsmall part of her body enlightened, then the earth B will have such a\npart of its visible Hemispheare darkened, as is proportionable to that\npart of the Moone which is enlightened; and as for so much of the Moone,\nas the Sun beames cannot reach unto, it receives light from a\nproportionall part of the earth which shines upon it, as you may plainly\nperceive by the Figure.\n\nYou see then that agreement and similitude which there is betwixt our\nearth and the Moone. Now the greatest difference which makes them\nunlike, is this, that the Moone enlightens our earth round about,\nwhereas our earth gives light onely to that Hemispheare of the Moone\nwhich is visible unto us, as may be certainly gathered from the constant\nappearance of the same spots, which could not thus come to passe, if the\nMoone had such a diurnall motion about its own axis, as perhaps our\nearth hath. And though some suppose her to move in an epicycle, yet this\ndoth not so turne her body round, that we may discerne both\nHemispheares, for according to that hypothesis, the motion of her\neccentrick, doth turne her face towards us, as much as the other doth\nfrom us.\n\nBut now if any question what they doe for a Moone who live in the upper\npart of her body? I answer, the solving of this is the most uncertaine\nand difficult thing that I know of concerning this whole matter. But yet\nI will give you two probable conjectures.\n\n1. Perhaps, the upper Hemispheare of the Moone doth receive a sufficient\nlight from those planets about it, and amongst these _Venus_ (it may be)\nbestowes a more especiall brightnesse, since _Galil\u00e6us_ hath plainly\ndiscerned that she suffers the same increase and decreases, as the Moone\nhath, and 'tis probable that this may be perceived there without the\nhelp of a glasse, because they are farre neerer it than wee. When\n_Venus_ (saith _Keplar_) lies downe in the Perige or lower part of her\nsupposed Epicycle, then is she in conjunction with her husband the\nSunne, from whom after she hath departed for the space of ten moneths,\nshee gets _plenum uterum_, and is in the full.\n\nBut you'll reply, though _Venus_ may bestow some light when she is over\nthe Moone, and in conjunction, yet being in opposition, she is not\nvisible to them, and what shall they then doe for light?\n\nI answer, then they have none: nor doth this make so great a difference\nbetwixt those two Hemispheares as there is with us, betwixt the places\nunder the poles, and the line, but if this bee not sufficient, then I\nsay in the second place that\n\n2. Perhaps there may be some other enlightened body above the Moone\nwhich we cannot discerne, nor is this altogether improbable because\nthere is almost the like observed in Saturne, who appeares through this\nglasse with two lesser bodies on each side, which may supply the office\nof Moones, unto each hemispheare thus:\n\n    o O o\n\nSo in this world also there may be some such body, though wee cannot\ndiscerne it, because the Moone is alwaies in a streight line, betwixt\nour eye and that. Nor is it altogether unlikely that there should bee\nmore moones to one Orbe, because _Jupiter_ also is observed to have\nfoure such bodies that move round about him.\n\nBut it may seeme a very difficult thing to conceive, how so grosse and\ndarke a body as our earth, should yeeld such cleare light as proceedes\nfrom the Moone, and therefore the Cardinall _de Cusa_[1] (who thinkes\nevery Starre to be a severall world) is of opinion that the light of the\nSunne is not able to make them appeare so bright, but the reason of\ntheir shining is, because wee behold them at a great distance through\ntheir regions of fire which doe set a shining lustre upon those bodies\nthat of themselves are darke.\n\n  _Vnde si quis esset extra regionem ignis, terra ista in\n  circumferentia su\u00e6 regionis per medium ignis lucida stella\n  appareret._\n\n  \"So that if man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would\n  appear through that as a bright Starre.\"\n\nBut if this were the onely reason then would the Moone bee freed from\nsuch increases and decreases as shee is now lyable unto.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ig. l. 2. c. 12._]\n\n_Keplar_ thinkes that our earth receives that light whereby it shines\nfrom the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended cleare\nbrightnesse as the Moone is capable of, and therefore hee guesses, that\nthe earth there is of a more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_, and\nso is better able to reflect a stronger light, whereas our earth must\nsupply this intention with the quantity of its body, but this I conceive\nto be a needlesse conjecture, since our earth if all things were well\nconsidered, will be found able enough to reflect as great a light. For\n\n1. Consider its opacity, if you marke these sublunary things, you shall\nperceive that amongst them, those that are most perspicuous, are not so\nwell able to reverberate the Sunne beames as the thicker bodies. The\nrayes passe singly through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacous\nsubstance they are doubled in their returne and multiplyed by reflexion.\nNow if the moone and the other Planets can shine so clearely by beating\nbacke the Sunne beames, why may not the earth also shine as well, which\nagrees with them in the cause of this brightnesse their opacity?\n\n2. Consider what a cleare light wee may discerne reflected from the\nearth in the middest of Summer, and withall conceive how much greater\nthat must bee which is under the line, where the rayes are more directly\nand strongly reverberated.\n\n3. Consider the great distance at which wee behold the Planets, for this\nmust needs adde much to their shining and therefore _Cusanus_ (in the\nabove cited place) thinkes that if a man were in the Sunne, that Planet\nwould not appeare so bright to him, as now it doth to us, because then\nhis eye could discerne but little, whereas here wee may comprehend the\nbeames as they are contracted in a narrow body. _Keplar_ beholding the\nearth from a high mountaine when it was enlightned by the Sunne\nconfesses that it appeared unto him of an incredible brightnesse,\nwhereas then the reflected rayes entered into his sight obliquely; but\nhow much brighter would it have appeared if hee might in a direct line\nbehold the whole globe of earth and these rayes gathered together? So\nthat if wee consider that great light which the earth receives from the\nSunne in the Summer, and then suppose wee were in the Moone, where wee\nmight see the whole earth hanging in those vast spaces where there is\nnothing to terminate the sight, but those beames which are there\ncontracted into a little compasse; I say, if wee doe well consider this,\nwee may easily conceive, that our earth appeares as bright to those\nother inhabitants in the Moone, as theirs doth to us.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 12.\n\n_That tis probable there may bee such Meteors belonging to that world\n  in the Moone, as there are with us._\n\n\n_Plutarch_ discussing this point affirmes that it is not necessary there\nshould be the same meanes of growth and fructifying in both these\nworlds, since nature might in her policy finde out more waies then one\nhow to bring about the same effect. But however he thinks its probable\nthat the Moone her selfe sendeth forth warme winds, and by the\nswiftnesse of her motion there should breathe out a sweet and\ncomfortable ayer, pleasant dewes and gentle moysture, which might serve\nfor the refreshing and nourishment of the inhabitants and plants in that\nother world.\n\nBut since they have all things alike with us, as sea and land, and\nvaporous ayer encompassing both, I should rather therefore thinke that\nnature there should use the same way of producing meteors as she doth\nwith us (and not by a motion as _Plutarch_ supposes) because shee doth\nnot love to vary from her usuall operations without some extraordinary\nimpediment, but still keepes her beaten path unlesse she be driven\nthence.\n\nOne argument whereby I shall manifest this truth, may be taken from\nthose new Starres which have appeared in divers ages of the world, and\nby their parallax have beene discerned to have been above the _M_oone,\nsuch as was that in _Cassiopeia_, that in _Sagittarius_, with many\nothers betwixt the Planets. _Hipparchus_ in his time tooke especiall\nnotice of such as these,[1] and therefore fancied out such\nconstellations in which to place the Starres, shewing how many there\nwere in every asterisme, that so afterwards posterity might know,\nwhether there were any new Starre produced or any old one missing. Now\nthe nature of these Comets may probably manifest, that in this other\nworld there are other meteors also; for these in all likelihood are\nnothing else but such evaporations caused by the Sunne, from the bodies\nof the Planets. I shall prove this by shewing the improbabilities and\ninconveniences of any other opinion.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 26._]\n\nFor the better pursuite of this 'tis in the first place requisite that I\ndeale with our chiefe adversary, _C\u00e6sar la Galla_, who doth most\ndirectly oppose that truth which is here to bee proved. Hee endeavouring\nto confirme the incorruptibility of the Heavens, and being there to\nsatisfie the argument which is taken from these comets, He answers it\nthus:\n\n  _Aut argumentum desumptum ex paralaxi non est efficax, aut si est\n  efficax, eorum instrumentorum usum decipere, vel ratione astri vel\n  medii, vel distanti\u00e6, aut ergo erat in suprema parte aeris, aut si\n  in coelo, tum forsan factum erat ex reflectione radiorum Saturni &\n  Jovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant._\n\n  \"Either the argument from the paralax is not efficacious, or if it\n  be, yet the use of the instruments might deceive either in regard of\n  the starre or the _medium_, or the distance, and so this comet might\n  be in the upper regions of the aire, or if it were in the heavens,\n  there it might be produced by the reflexion of the rayes from\n  _Saturne_ and _Jupiter_, who were then in conjunction.\"\n\nYou see what shifts hee is driven to, how he runnes up and downe to many\nstarting holes, that hee may find some shelter, and in stead of the\nstrength of reason, he answers with a multitude of words, thinking (as\nthe Proverbe is) that hee may use haile, when hee hath no thunder,\n_Nihil turpius_ (saith [1]*_Seneca_)\n\n  _dubio est incerto, pedem modo referente, modo producente._\n\n  \"What can there bee more unseemely in one that should be a faire\n  disputant, then to be now here, now there, and so uncertaine, that\n  one cannot tell where to find him.\"\n\nHe thinkes that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there may\nbe many other reasons of such appearances, but what he knowes not,\nperhaps (he saies) that argument from the parallax is not sufficient, or\nif it be, then there may be some deceit in the observation. To this I\nmay safely say, that hee may justly be accounted a weake Mathematician\nwho mistrusts the strength of this argument, nor can hee know much in\nAstronomy, who understands not the parallax, which is the foundation of\nthat Science, and I am sure that hee is a timorous man, who dares not\nbelieve the frequent experience of his senses, or trust to a\ndemonstration.\n\n  [Sidenote 1*: _Epist. 95._]\n\nTrue indeed, I grant tis possible, that the eye, the _medium_, and the\ndistance may al deceive the beholder, but I would have him shew which of\nall these was likely to cause an error in this observation? Meerely to\nsay they might be deceived is no sufficient answer, for by this I might\nconfute the positions of all Astronomers, and affirme the starres are\nhard by us, because 'tis possible they may be deceived in their\nobserving that distance. But I forbeare any further reply; my opinion is\nof that Treatise, that either it was set forth purposely to tempt a\nconfutation, that hee might see the opinion of _Galil\u00e6us_ confirmed by\nothers, or else it was invented with as much haste and negligence as it\nwas printed, there being in it almost as many faults as lines.\n\nOthers thinke that these are not any new Comets, but some ancient\nstarres that were there before, which now shine with that unusuall\nbrightnesse, by reason of the interposition of such vapors which doe\nmultiply their light, and so the alteration will be here onely, and not\nin the heavens. Thus _Aristotle_ thought the appearance of the milkie\nway was produced, for he held that there were many little starres, which\nby their influence did constantly attract such a vapour towards that\nplace of heaven, so that it alwaies appeared white. Now by the same\nreason may a brighter vapor be the cause of these appearances.\n\nBut how probable soever this opinion may seeme, yet if well considered,\nyou shall finde it to be altogether absurd and impossible: for,\n\n1. These starres were never seene there before, and tis not likely that\na vapour being hard by us can so multiply that light which could not\nbefore be at all discerned.\n\n2. This supposed vapour cannot be either contracted into a narrow\ncompasse or dilated into a broad: 1. it could not be within a little\nspace, for then that starre would not appeare with the same multiplied\nlight to those in other climates: 2. it cannot be a dilated vapour, for\nthen other starres which were discerned through the same vapour would\nseeme as bigg as that; this argument is the same in effect with that of\nthe paralax, as you may see in this Figure.\n\n  [Illustration]\n\nSuppose A B to be a Hemispheare of one earth, C D to be the upper part\nof the highest region, in which there might be either a contracted\nvapour, as G, or else a dilated one, as H I. Suppose E F likewise to\nrepresent halfe the heavens, wherein was this appearing Comet at K. Now\nI say, that a contracted vapour, as G, could not cause this appearance,\nbecause an inhabitant at M could not discerne the same starre with this\nbrightnesse, but perhaps another at L, betwixt which the vapour is\ndirectly interposed. Nor could it be caused by a dilated vapour, as H I,\nbecause then all the starres that were discerned through it would be\nperceived with the same brightnesse.\n\nTis necessary therefore that the cause of this appearance should be in\nthe heavens. And this is granted by the most and best Astronomers. But,\nsay some, this doth not argue any naturall alteration in those purer\nbodies, since tis probable that the concourse of many little vagabond\nstarres by the union of their beames may cause so great a light. Of this\nopinion were _Anaxagoras_ and _Zeno_ amongst the ancient, and _Baptista\nCisatus_, _Blancanus_, with others amongst our moderne Astronomers. For,\nsay they, when there happens to be a concourse of some few starres, then\ndoe many other flie unto them from all the parts of heaven like so many\nBees unto their King. But 1. tis not likely that amongst those which wee\ncount the fixed starres there should be any such uncertaine motions,\nthat they can wander from all parts of the heavens, as if Nature had\nneglected them, or forgot to appoint them a determinate course. 2. If\nthere be such a conflux of these, as of Bees to their King, then what\nreason is there that they doe not still tarry with it, that so the Comet\nmay not be dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see it\nconfuted by many other arguments. Others there are, who affirme these to\nbe some new created stars, produced by an extraordinary supernaturall\npower. I answer, true indeed, tis possible they might be so, but however\ntis not likely they were so, since such appearances may be salved some\nother way, wherefore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a great\ninjury to nature, and to derogate from her skill, an indignitie much\nmis-becomming a man who professes himselfe to be a Philosopher,\n_Miraculum_ (saith one) _est ignoranti\u00e6 Asylum_, a miracle often serves\nfor the receptacle of a lazy ignorance which any industrious Spirit\nwould be ashamed of, it being but an idle way to shift off the labour of\nany further search. But here's the misery of it, wee first tie our\nselves unto _Aristotles_ Principles, and then conclude, that nothing\ncould contradict them but a miracle, whereas 'twould be much better for\nthe Common-wealth of learning, if we would ground our Principles rather\nupon the frequent experiences of our owne, then the bare authority of\nothers.\n\nSome there are, who thinke that these Comets are nothing else, but\nexhalations from our earth, carried up into the higher parts of the\nHeaven. So _Peno_, _Rothmannus_ & _Galil\u00e6us_,[1] but this is not\npossible, since by computation 'tis found that one of them is above 300\ntimes bigger than the whole Globe of Land and Water. Others therefore\nhave thought that they did proceed from the body of the Sun, and that\nthat Planet onely is\n\n  _Cometarum officina, unde tanquam emissarii & exploratores\n  emitterentur, brevi ad solem redituri_:\n\nThe shop or forge of Comets from whence they were sent, like so many\nspies, that they might in some short space returne againe, but this\ncannot be, since if so much matter had proceeded from him alone, it\nwould have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble _Tycho_\ntherefore thinkes that they consist of some such fluider parts of the\nHeaven, as the milkie way is framed of, which being condenst together,\nyet not attaining to the consistency of a Starre, is in some space of\ntime rarified againe into its wonted nature. But this is not likely, for\nif there had beene so great a condensation as to make them shine so\nbright, and last so long, they would then sensibly have moved downewards\ntowards some center of gravity, because whatsoever is condenst must\nnecessarily grow heavier, whereas these rather seemed to ascend higher,\nas they lasted longer. But some may object, that a thing may be of the\nsame weight, when it is rarified, as it had while it was condenst: so\nmetalls, when they are melted, and when they are cold: so water also\nwhen it is frozen, and when it is fluid, doth not differ in respect of\ngravity. But to these I answer: First, Metalls are not rarified by\nmelting, but molified. Secondly, waters are not properly condensed, but\ncongealed into a harder substance, the parts being not contracted closer\ntogether, but still possessing the same extension.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Tycho Progym. l. 1. cap. 9._]\n\nAnd beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this condensation,\nunlesse there be such qualities there, as there are in our ayre, and\nthen why may not the Planets have the like qualities, as our earth? and\nif so, then 'tis more probable that they are made by the ordinary way of\nnature, as they are with us, and consist of exhalations from the bodies\nof the Planets. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed most\nlikely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_, _Fromondus_,[1] with\nsome others. But if you aske whither all these exhalations shall\nreturne, I answer, every one into his owne Planet: if it be againe\nobjected,[2] that then there will be so many centers of gravity, and\neach severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, perhaps all of\nthem are so except the Sunne, though _Cusanus_ thinkes there is one\nalso, and later times have discovered some lesser Planets moving round\nabout him. But as for _Saturne_, he hath two Moones on each side.\n_Jupiter_ hath foure, that incircle his body with their motion. _Venus_\nis observed to increase and decrease as the Moone. _Mars_, and all the\nrest, derive their light from the Sunne onely. Concerning _Mercury_,\nthere hath beene little or no observation, because for the most part,\nhe lies hid under the Sunne beames, and seldome appeares by himselfe.\nSo that if you consider their quantity, their opacity, or these other\ndiscoveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them may\nbe a severall world. But this would be too much for to vent at the\nfirst: the chiefe thing at which I now ayme in this discourse, is to\nprove that there may be one in the Moone.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De Comet. l. 5. c. 4._\n  _Apolog._\n  _Meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: _Iohan. Fabr._\n  _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc._\n  _Scheiner. Rosa Vrsina._]\n\nIt hath beene before confirmed that there was a spheare of thicke\nvaporous aire encompasing the Moone, as the first and second regions doe\nthis earth. I have now shewed, that thence such exhalations may proceede\nas doe produce the Comets: now from hence it may probably follow, that\nthere may be wind also and raine, with such other Meteors as are common\namongst us. This consequence is so dependant, that _Fromondus_[1] dares\nnot deny it, though hee would (as hee confesses himselfe) for if the\nSunne be able to exhale from them such fumes as may cause Comets, why\nnot then such as may cause winds, and why not such also as cause raine,\nsince I have above shewed, that there is Sea and Land as with us. Now\nraine seemes to be more especially requisite for them, since it may\nallay the heate and scorchings of the Sunne, when he is over their\nheads. And nature hath thus provided for those in _Peru_, with the other\ninhabitants under the line.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6._]\n\nBut if there be such great, and frequent alterations in the Heavens, why\ncannot wee discerne them?\n\nI answer:\n\n1. There may be such, and we not able to perceive them, because of the\nweaknesse of our eye, and the distance of those places from us, they are\nthe words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above\ncited place,\n\n  _Possunt maxim\u00e6 permutationes in coelo fieri, etiamsi a nobis non\n  conspiciantur, hoc visus nostri debilitas & immensa coeli distantia\n  faciunt._\n\nAnd unto him assents _Fromondus_ himselfe, when a little after hee\nsaies,\n\n  _Si in sph\u00e6ris planetarum degeremus, plurima forsan coelestium\n  nebularum vellere toto \u00e6there passim dispersa videremus, quorum\n  species jam evanescit nimia spatii intercapedine._\n\n  \"If we did live in the spheares of the Planets, wee might there,\n  perhaps, discerne many great clouds dispersed through the whole\n  Heavens, which are not now visible by reason of this great distance.\"\n\n2. _M\u00e6slin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of these\nalterations. The words of _M\u00e6slin_ are these (as I finde them cited.)[1]\n\n  _In eclipsi Lunari vespere Dominic\u00e6 Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore\n  Lun\u00e6 versus Boream, nigricans qu\u00e6dam macula conspecta fuit, obscurior\n  c\u00e6tero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri figuram repr\u00e6sentabat;\n  dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tempestuosis\n  imbribus gravida, cujusmodi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliora\n  convallium loca videre non rar\u00f2 contingit._\n\n  \"In that lunary eclipse which happened in the even of Palme-sunday,\n  in the yeere 1605, there was a certaine blackish spot discerned in\n  the Northerly part of the Moone, being darker than any other part of\n  her body, and representing the colour of red hot yron; you might\n  conjecture that it was some dilated cloud, being pregnant with\n  showers, for thus doe such lower clouds appeare from the tops of\n  high mountaines.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Disser. 2. cum nunc. Galil._]\n\nUnto this I may adde another testimony of _Bapt. Cisatus_, as he is\nquoted by _Nierembergius_,[1] grounded upon an observation taken 23.\nyeeres after this of _M\u00e6slin_, and writ to this _Euseb. Nieremberg._ in\na letter by that diligent and judicious Astronomer. The words of it\nrunne thus:\n\n  _Et quidem in eclipsi nupra solari qu\u00e6 fuit ipso die natali Christi,\n  observavi clar\u00e8 in luna soli supposita, quidpiam quod valde probat\n  id ipsum quod Comet\u00e6 quoque & macul\u00e6 solares urgent, nempe coelum non\n  esse \u00e0 tenuitate & variationibus aeris exemptum, nam circa Lunam\n  adverti esse sph\u00e6ram seu orbem quendam vaporosum, non secus atque\n  circum terram, adeoque sicut ex terra in aliquam usque sph\u00e6ram\n  vapores & exhalationes expirant, ita quoque ex luna._\n\n  \"In that late solary eclipse which happened on Christmas day, when\n  the Moone was just under the Sunne, I plainly discerned that in her\n  which may clearely confirme what the Comets and Sunne spots doe seeme\n  to prove, _viz._ that the heavens are not solid, nor freed from those\n  changes which our aire is liable unto, for about the Moone I perceived\n  such an orbe of vaporous aire, as that is which doth encompasse our\n  earth, and as vapours and exhalations, are raised from our earth into\n  this aire, so are they also from the Moone.\"\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 11._]\n\nYou see what probable grounds and plaine testimonies have brought for\nthe confirmation of this Proposition: many other things in this behalfe\nmight be spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and passe unto the\nnext.\n\n\n\n\nProposition 13.\n\n_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but\n  of what kinde they are is uncertaine._\n\n\nI have already handled the Seasons and Meteors belonging to this new\nWorld: 'tis requisite that in the next place I should come unto the\nthird thing which I promised, and to say somewhat of the inhabitants,\nconcerning whom there might be many difficult questions raised, as\nwhether that place be more inconvenient for habitation then our World\n(as _Keplar_ thinkes) whether they are the seed of _Adam_, whether they\nare there in a blessed estate, or else what meanes there may be for\ntheir salvation, with many other such uncertaine enquiries, which I\nshall willingly omit, leaving it to their examination, who have more\nleisure and learning for the search of such particulars.\n\nBeing for mine own part content only to set downe such notes belonging\nunto these which have observed in other Writers.\n\n  _Cum tota illa regio nobis ignota sit, remanent inhabitores illi\n  ignoti penitus_,\n\n(saith _Cusanus_)[1] since we know not the regions of that place, wee\nmust be altogether ignorant of the inhabitants. There hath not yet beene\nany such discovery concerning these, upon which wee may build a\ncertainty, or good probability: well may wee guesse at them, and that\ntoo very doubtfully, but we can know nothing, for if we doe hardly\nguesse aright at things which be upon earth, if with labour wee doe\nfinde the things that are at hand, [2]how then can wee search out those\nthings that are in Heaven? What a little is that which wee know? in\nrespect of those many matters contained within this great Universe, this\nwhole globe of earth and water? though it seeme to us to be of a large\nextent, yet it beares not so great a proportion unto the whole frame of\nNature, as a small sand doth unto it; and what can such little creatures\nas wee discerne, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can they\nin the Moone know of us? If wee understand any thing (saith _Esdras_[3])\n'tis nothing but that which is upon the earth, and hee that dwelleth\nabove in the Heavens, may onely understand the things that are above in\nthe heighth of the heavens.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Wisd. 9. 16.]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: 2 Esd. 4. 22.]\n\nSo that 'twere a very needelesse thing for us, to search after any\nparticulars, however, wee may guesse in the generall, that there are\nsome inhabitans in that Planet: for why else did Providence furnish that\nplace with all such conveniences of habitation as have beene above\ndeclared?\n\nBut you will say, perhaps, is there not too great and intollerable a\nheate, since the Sunne is in their Zinith every moneth, and doth tarry\ntheir so long before hee leaves it?\n\nI answer, 1. This may, perhaps, be remedied (as it is under the line) by\nthe frequencie of mid-day showers, which may cloud their Sunne, and\ncoole their earth: 2. The equality of their nights doth much temper the\nscorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes from the one,\nrequire some space before it can be dispelled by the other, so that the\nheate spending a great while before it can have the victory, hath not\nafterwards much time to rage in. Wherfore notwithstanding this, yet that\nplace may remaine habitable. And this was the opinion of the _Cardinal\nde Cusa_, when speaking of this Planet, he saies,[1]\n\n  _Hic locus Mundi est habitatio hominum & animalium atque\n  vegetabilium_.\n\n  \"This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes.\"\n\nTo him assented _Campanella_, but hee cannot determine whether there\nwere men, or rather some other kinde of creatures. If they were men,\nthen he thinkes they could not be infected with _Adams_ sinne; yet,\nperhaps, they had some of their owne, which might make them liable to\nthe same misery with us, out of which, perhaps, they were delivered by\nthe same means as we, the death of Christ, and thus he thinkes that\nplace of the _Ephesians_ may be interpreted, where the Apostle saies,[2]\n_God gathered all things together in Christ, both which are in earth,\nand which are in the heavens_: So also that of the same Apostle to the\n_Colossians_, where hee saies,[3] that _it pleased the Father to\nreconcile all things unto himselfe by Christ, whether they be things in\nearth, or things in heaven_.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Eph. 1. 10.]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: Col. 1. 20.]\n\nBut I dare not jest with Divine truthes, or apply these places according\nas fancy directs. As I thinke this opinion doth not any where contradict\nScripture, so I thinke likewise, that it cannot be proved from it,\nwherefore _Campanella's_ second conjecture may be more probable, that\nthe inhabitants of that world, are not men as wee are, but some other\nkinde of creatures which beare some proportion and likenesse to our\nnatures, and _Cusanus_ too thinkes they differ from us in many respects;\nI will set downe his words as they may bee found in the abovecited\nplace,\n\n  _Suspicamus in regione solis magis esse solares, claros & illuminatos\n  intellectuares habitatores, spiritu aliores etiam quam in lun\u00e2, ubi\n  magis lunatici, & in terra, magis materiales, & grossi, ut illi\n  intellectualis natur\u00e6 solares sint multum in actu & parum in\n  potentia; terreni vero magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares\n  in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influentia ignili\n  solis aquatica simul & aeria lun\u00e6, & gravedine materiali terr\u00e6,\n  & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes, nullam\n  habitatoribus car\u00eare, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales\n  omnius universi, quot sunt stell\u00e6 quarum non est numerus, nisi apud\n  eum qui omnia in numero creavit._\n\n  \"Wee may conjecture (saith he) the inhabiters of the Sunne are\n  like to the nature of that Planet, more cleare and bright, more\n  intellectuall and spirituall than those in the Moone where they\n  are neerer to the nature of that duller Planet, and those of the\n  earth being more grosse and materiall than either, so that these\n  intellectuall natures in the Sun, are more forme than matter, those\n  in the earth more matter than forme, and those in the Moone betwixt\n  both. This wee may guesse from the fiery influence of the Sunne, the\n  watery and aereous influence of the Moone, as also the matereall\n  heavinesse of the earth. In some such manner likewise is it with the\n  regions of the other Starres, for wee conjecture that none of them\n  are without inhabitants, but that there are so many particular\n  worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are Stars which are\n  innumerable, unlesse it bee to him who created all things in number.\"\n\nFor he held that the stars were not all in one equall Orbe as we\ncommonly suppose, but that some were farre higher than others which made\nthem appeare lesse and that many others were so farre above any of\nthese, that they were altogether invisible unto us. An opinion (which as\nI conceive) hath not any great probability for it, nor certainty against\nit.\n\nThe Priest of _Saturne_ relating to _Plutarch_ (as he faignes it) the\nnature of the Selenites, told him they were of divers dispositions, some\ndesiring to live in the lower parts of the Moone, where they might looke\ndownewards upon us, while others were more surely mounted aloft, all of\nthem shining like the rayes of the Sun, and as being victorious are\ncrowned with garlands made with the wings of _Eustathia_ or\n_Constancie_.\n\nIt hath beene the opinion amongst some of the Ancients, that their\nHeavens and Elysian fields were in the Moone where the aire is most\nquiet and pure. Thus _Socrates_, thus _Plato_,[1] with his followers,\ndid esteeme this to bee the place where those purer soules inhabit, who\nare freed from the Sepulchre, and contagion of the body. And by the\nFable of _Ceres_, continually wandring in search of her daughter\n_Proserpina_, is meant nothing else but the longing desire of men, who\nlive upon _Ceres_ earth, to attaine a place in _Proserpina_, the Moone\nor Heaven.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Com. lib. 3. c. 19._]\n\n_Plutarch_ also seemes to assent unto this, but hee thinkes moreover,\nthat there are two places of happinesse answerable to those two parts\nwhich hee fancies to remaine of a man when hee is dead, the soule and\nthe understanding; the soule he thinkes is made of the Moone, and as our\nbodies doe so proceede from the dust of this earth, that they shall\nreturne to it hereafter, so our soules were generated out of that\nPlanet, and shall bee resolved into it againe, whereas the understanding\nshall ascend unto the Sunne, out of which it was made where it shall\npossesse an eternity of well being, and farre greater happinesse than\nthat which is enjoyed in the Moone. So that when a man dies, if his\nsoule bee much polluted, then must it wander up and downe in the middle\nregions of the aire where hell is, and there suffer unspeakable torments\nfor those sinnes whereof it is guilty. Whereas the soules of better men,\nwhen they have in some space of time beene purged from that impurity\nwhich they did derive from the body, then doe they returne into the\nMoone, where they are possest with such a joy, as those men feele who\nprofesse holy misteries, from which place (saith he) some are sent downe\nto have the superintendance of Oracles, being diligent either in the\npreservation of the good, either from or in all perils, and the\nprevention or punishment of all wicked actions, but if in these\nimployments they mis-behave themselves, then are they againe to be\nimprisoned in a body, otherwise they remaine in the Moone till their\nbody be resolved into it, & the understanding being cleared from all\nimpediments, ascends to the Sunne which is its proper place. But this\nrequires a diverse space of time according to the diverse affections of\nthe soule. As for those who have beene retired and honest, addicting\nthemselves to a studious and quiet life, these are quickly preferred to\na higher happinesse. But as for such who have busied themselves in many\nbroyles, or have beene vehement in the prosecution of any lust, as the\nambitious, the amorous, the wrathfull man, these still retaine the\nglimpses and dreames of such things as they have performed in their\nbodies, which makes them either altogether unfit to remaine there where\nthey are, or else keepes them long ere they can put off their soules.\nThus you see _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning the inhabitants and\nneighbours of the Moone, which (according to the manner of the\nAcademickes) hee delivers in a third person; you see he makes that\nPlanet an inferiour kind of heaven, and though hee differ in many\ncircumstances, yet doth hee describe it to be some such place, as wee\nsuppose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concerning the\nplace of damned spirits, that it is in the middle region of the aire,\nand in neither of these is hee singular, but some more late and Orthodox\nWriters have agreed with him. As for the place of hell, many thinke it\nmay be in the aire as well as any where else.\n\nTrue indeed, Saint _Austin_ affirmes that this place cannot bee\ndiscovered;[1] But others there are who can shew the situation of it out\nof Scripture; Some holding it to bee in some other world without this,\nbecause our Saviour calls it +skotos ex\u00f4teron+, outward darkenesse.[2]\nBut the most will have it placed towards the Center of our earth,\nbecause 'tis said,[3] Christ descended into the lower parts of the\nearth, and some of these are so confident, that this is its situation,\nthat they can describe you its bignes also, and of what capacity it is.\n_Francis Ribera_ in his Comment on the _Revelations_, speaking of those\nwords, where 'tis said,[4] that the blood went out of the Wine-presse,\neven unto the horses bridles by the space of one thousand and sixe\nhundred furlongs, interprets them to bee meant of Hell, and that that\nnumber expresses the diameter of its concavity, which is 200 _Italian_\nmiles; but _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome\nin hell,[5] and therefore hee guesses that 'tis not so wide; for (saith\nhee) the diameter of one league being cubically multiplied, will make a\nspheare capable of 800000 millions of damned bodies, allowing to each\nsixe foote in the square, whereas (saies hee) 'tis certaine that there\nshall not be one hundred thousand millions in all that shall bee damned.\nYou see the bold _Iesuit_ was carefull that every one should have but\nroome enough in hell, and by the strangenesse of the conjecture, you may\nguesse that he had rather bee absurd, than seeme either uncharitable or\nignorant. I remember there is a relation in _Pliny_, how that\n_Dionisiodorus_ a Mathematician, being dead, did send a letter from his\nplace to some of his friends upon earth, to certifie them what distance\nthere was betwixt the center and superficies: hee might have done well\nto have prevented this controversie, and enformed them the utmost\ncapacity of that place. However, certaine it is, that that number cannot\nbee knowne, and probable it is, that the place is not yet determined,\nbut that hell is there where there is any tormented soule, which may bee\nin the regions of the aire as well as in the center; but of this onely\noccasionally, and by reason of _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning those that\nare round about the Moone; as for the Moone it selfe, hee esteemes it to\nbee a lower kinde of Heaven, and therefore in another place hee cals it\na terrestriall starre,[6] and an Olympian or celestiall earth\nanswerable, as I conceive, to the paradise of the Schoolemen, and that\nParadise was either in or neere the Moone, is the opinion of some later\nWriters, who derived it (in all likelihood) from the assertion of\n_Plato_, and perhaps, this of _Plutarch_. _Tostatus_[7] laies this\nopinion upon _Isioder. Hispalensis_, and the venerable _Bede_; and\n_Pererius_[8] fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_ his Master. Some\nwould have it to bee situated in such a place as could not be\ndiscovered, which causes the penman of _Esdras_ to make it a harder\nmatter to know the outgoings of Paradise, then to weigh the weight of\nthe fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call againe a day that is\npast.[9] But notwithstanding this, there bee some others who thinke that\nit is on the top of some high mountaine under the line, and these\ninterpreted the torrid Zone to be the flaming Sword whereby Paradise was\nguarded. 'Tis the consent of divers others, who agree in this, that\nParadise is situated in some high and eminent place.[10] So _Tostatus_:\n\n  _Est etiam Paradisus situ altissima, supra omnem terr\u00e6 altitudinem_,\n\n  \"Paradise is situated in some high place above the earth\":\n\nand therefore in his C\u00f5ment upon the 49. of _Genesis_, hee understands\nthe blessing of _Iacob_ concerning the everlasting hills to bee meant of\nParadise, and the blessing it selfe to bee nothing else but a promise of\nChrists comming, by whose passion the gates of Paradise should bee\nopened. Unto him assented _Rupertus_, _Scotus_, and most of the other\nSchoolemen, as I find them cited by _Pererius_,[11] and out of him in\nSr. _W. Rawleigh_. Their reason was this: because in probability this\nplace was not overflowed by the flood, since there were no sinners there\nwhich might draw that curse upon it. Nay _Tostatus_ thinkes that the\nbody of _Enoch_ was kept there, and some of the Fathers, as _Tertullian_\nand _Austin_ have affirmed, that the blessed soules were reserved in\nthat place till the day of judgement, and therefore 'tis likely that it\nwas not overflowed by the flood; and besides, since all men should have\nwent naked if _Adam_ had not fell, 'tis requisite therefore that it\nshould be situated in some such place where it might bee priviledged\nfrom the extremities of heat and cold. But now this could not bee (they\nthought) so conveniently in any lower, as it might in some higher aire.\nFor these and such like considerations have so many affirmed that\nParadise was in a high elevated place, which some have conceived could\nbee no where but in the Moone: For it could not be in the top of any\nmountaine, nor can we thinke of any other body separated from this earth\nwhich can bee a more convenient place for habitation than this Planet,\ntherefore they concluded that it was there.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. lib. 22. ca. 16._]\n\n  [Sidenote 2: Mat. 25. 30]\n\n  [Sidenote 3: Eph. 4. 9.]\n\n  [Sidenote 4: Rev. 14. 20.]\n\n  [Sidenote 5: _De Morib. div. l. 13. c. 24._]\n\n  [Sidenote 6: _Cur silent oracula._]\n\n  [Sidenote 7: _S. W. Raw. lib. 1. cap. 3. \u00a7 7._]\n\n  [Sidenote 8: _in Gen._]\n\n  [Sidenote 9: 2 Esd. 4. 7.]\n\n  [Sidenote 10: _In_ Genes.]\n\n  [Sidenote 11: _Comment. in 2. Gen. v. 8. lib 1. cap. 3. \u00a7 6 7._]\n\nIt could not bee on the top of any mountaine.\n\n1. Because wee have expresse Scripture, that the highest of them was\noverflowed.[1]\n\n  [Sidenote 1: Gen. 7. 19.]\n\n2. Because it must bee of a greater extension, and not some small patch\nof ground, since 'tis likely all men should have lived there, if _Adam_\nhad not fell. But for a satisfaction of these arguments, together with a\nfarther discourse of Paradise, I shall referre you to those who have\nwritten purposely upon this subject. Being content for my owne part to\nhave spoken so much of it, as may conduce to shew the opinion of others\nconcerning the inhabitants of the Moone, I dare not my selfe affirme any\nthing of these Selenites, because I know not any ground whereon to build\nany probable opinion. But I thinke that future ages will discover more;\nand our posterity, perhaps, may invent some meanes for our better\nacquaintance with these inhabitants. 'Tis the method of providence not\npresently to shew us all, but to lead us along from the knowledge of one\nthing to another. 'Twas a great while ere the Planets were distinguished\nfrom the fixed Stars, and sometime after that ere the morning and\nevening starre were found to bee the same, and in greater space I doubt\nnot but this also, and farre greater mysteries will bee discovered. In\nthe first ages of the world the Islanders either thought themselves to\nbe the onely dwellers upon the earth, or else if there were any other,\nyet they could not possibly conceive how they might have any commerce\nwith them, being severed by the deepe and broad Sea, but the after-times\nfound out the invention of ships, in which notwithstanding none but some\nbold daring men durst venture, there being few so resolute as to commit\nthemselves unto the vaste Ocean, and yet now how easie a thing is this,\neven to a timorous & cowardly nature? So, perhaps, there may be some\nother meanes invented for a conveyance to the Moone, and though it may\nseeme a terrible and impossible thing ever to passe through the vaste\nspaces of the aire, yet no question there would bee some men who durst\nventure this as well as the other. True indeed, I cannot conceive any\npossible meanes for the like discovery of this conjecture, since there\ncan bee no sailing to the Moone, unlesse that were true which the Poets\ndoe but feigne, that shee made her bed in the Sea. We have not now any\n_Drake_ or _Columbus_ to undertake this voyage, or any _D\u00e6dalus_ to\ninvent a conveyance through the aire. However, I doubt not but that time\nwho is still the father of new truths, and hath revealed unto us many\nthings which our Ancestours were ignorant of, will also manifest to our\nposterity, that which wee now desire, but cannot know. _Veniet tempus_\n(saith _Seneca_[1])\n\n  _quo ista qu\u00e6 nunc latent, in lucem, dies extrahet, & longioris \u00e6vi\n  diligentia._\n\nTime will come when the indeavours of after-ages shall bring such things\nto light, as now lie hid in obscurity. Arts are not yet come to their\nSolstice, but the industry of future times assisted with the labours of\ntheir forefathers, may reach unto that height which wee could not\nattaine to.\n\n  _Ueniet tempus quo posteri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse mirentur._\n\nAs wee now wonder at the blindnesse of our Ancestors, who were not able\nto discerne such things as seeme plaine and obvious unto us. So will our\nposterity admire our ignorance in as perspicuous matters. _Keplar_\ndoubts not, but that as soone as the art of flying is found out, some of\ntheir Nation will make one of the first colonies that shall inhabite\nthat other world. But I leave this and the like conjectures to the\nfancie of the reader; Desiring now to finish this Discourse, wherein I\nhave in some measure proved what at the first I promised, a world in the\nMoone. However, I am not so resolute in this, that I thinke tis\nnecessary there must be one, but my opinion is that 'tis possible there\nmay be, and tis probable there is another habitable world in that\nPlanet. And this was that I undertooke to prove. In the pursuit whereof,\nif I have shewed much weaknesse or indiscretion; I shall willingly\nsubmit my selfe to the reason and censure of the more judicious.\n\n  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Qu\u00e6st. l. 7. c. 25._]\n\n\n\n\n  [Decoration]\n\nThe Propositions that are proved in this Discourse.\n\n\nProposition 1.\n\n_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it\n  should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly\n  esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common\n  consent._\n\nBy way of Preface.\n\n\nProp. 2.\n\n_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of\n  reason or faith._\n\n\nProp. 3.\n\n_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can\n  priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these\n  inferiour bodies are liable unto._\n\n\nProp. 4.\n\n_That the Moone is a solid, compacted opacous body._\n\n\nProp. 5.\n\n_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._\n\n\nProp. 6.\n\n_That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of\n  many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may probably be\n  deduced from the tenents of others._\n\n\nProp. 7.\n\n_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be\n  distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the\n  Sea and Land in that other world._\n\n\nProp. 8.\n\n_That the spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land._\n\n\nProp. 9.\n\n_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plaines\n  in the body of the Moone._\n\n\nProp. 10.\n\n_That there is an Atmo-sph\u00e6ra, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire,\n  immediately encompassing the body of the Moone._\n\n\nProp. 11.\n\n_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone._\n\n\nProp. 12.\n\n_That tis probable there may bee such Meteors belonging to that world\n  in the Moone, as there are with us._\n\n\nProp. 13.\n\n_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but\n  of what kinde they are is uncertaine._\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n           *       *       *       *\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Transcriber's Additional Notes and Errata]\n\nWorks and Authors Cited in Sidenotes:\n\nThis is not intended to be a comprehensive list. A few sources could not\nbe identified; others are so well-known, they did not need to be marked.\n\nThe following spellings and name forms are used consistently:\n\n  Austin = Augustine\n  Blancanus the Jesuit(e) = Josephus Blancanus, Giuseppe Biancani\n  Caelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus\n  Tycho = Tycho Brahe\n  Nicholas Hill \"a country man of ours\". Hill the early atomist,\n    not Hill (Montanus, van de Bergh) the printer.\n  Keplar = Kepler (Johannes)\n  Julius Caesar = C\u00e6sar la Galla, Giulio Cesare La Galla, Lagalla\n  M\u00e6slin = Maestlin (Michael)\n  Rawleigh, Rawly = Raleigh (Sir Walter)\n  Verulam = Francis Bacon (1st Baron Verulam)\n\n  Note also \"sydera\" for \"sidera\".\n\nAlbertus Magnus: _De quattuor coaequaevis_\n----: _De caelo et mundo_\nAristotle: _De Caelo_\nBede: _De ratione temporum_\nChristopher Besoldus: _De Natura Populorum ejusque variatione, et de\n    Linguarum ortu atque immutatione_ (1632)\nJosephus Blancanus (Giuseppe Biancani): _Sphaera mundi_\n    (Full Title: _Sphaera Mundi seu Cosmographia. Demonstrativa, ac\n    facili Methodo tradita: In qua totius Mundi fabrica, una cum novis,\n    Tychonis, Kepleri, Galilaei, aliorumque; Astronomorum adinventis\n    continetur_)\n----: _Aristotelis loca mathematica ex universes ipsius operibus\n    collecta et explicata_\nTycho (Brahe): _Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata_\nTh. (Tommaso) Campanella: _Apologia pro Galileo_ (1622)\nCollegium Conimbricenses (Jesuits of Coimbra University): _Commentarii\n    Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros\n    physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo_ (1592)\nCardinal de Cusa, Cusanus (Nicholas of Cusa/Kues, Nicolaus Cryffts):\n    _De Docta Ignorantia_\nJohannes Fabricius: _De Maculis in Sole Observatis, et Apparente earum\n    cum Sole Conversione Narratio_ (1611)\n    Text not identified by name.\nLibertus Fromondus (Libert Froidmont): _Meteorologicorum libri sex_\n    (1627)\nGalileo: _Nuncius Sidereus_\nCamillus Gloriosus (Giovanni Camillo Glorioso): _De Cometis dissertatio\n    astronomico-physica_ (1624)\nIsidore: _Originum_\nJohannes Kepler: _Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo_\n    The name \"Galileo\" (or \"Galilei\") is sometimes included in the\n    title, as \"Diss. cum Nunc. Syd. Galil.\"\n----: _Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae_\n----: _Astronomiae Pars Optica_\nJulius Caesar (Giulio Cesare La Galla): _De Phenomenis in Orbe Lunae_\n     (1612)\nLeonard Lessius: _De perfectionibus moribusque divinis_ (1620)\n    This work is often cited as \"De Moribus\"; other early mentions are\n    found in _Tristram Shandy_ and _The Anatomy of Melancholy_.\nM\u00e6slin (Michael Maestlin): _Epitome Astronomiae_ (1610)\nCarolus Malapertus, Malapertius (Charles Malapert): _Austriaca sidera\n    heliocyclia astronomicis hypothesibus illigata_ (1633)\nJacobus Mazonius (Jacopo Mazzoni): _In universam Platonis et Aristotelis\n    philosophiam praeludia sive de Comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis_\nJohannes Eusebius (Juan Eusebio) Nieremberg: _Historia Naturae_ (1635)\nAugustinus Nifus (Niphus, Agostino Nifo)\n    Quoted text not identified by name.\nBenedictus Pererius (Benito Pereira): _Commentariorum et disputationum\n    in Genesim tomi quattuor_ (1591-99)\nPlutarch: _De facie in orbe lunae_\n----: _De tranquillitate animi_\nErasmus Reinhold: Commentary (1542, 1553) on Georg Purbach's _Theoricae\n    novae planetarum_\nCaelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus (Lodovico / Luigi Ricchieri):\n    _Lectionum antiquarum libri triginta_\nRuvio (Antonio Rubio): Commentary on Aristotle's _De Caelo_\n(Julius Caesar) Scaliger: _Exotericae exercitationes ad Hieronymum\n    Cardanum_\nChristoph Scheiner: _Rosa Ursina sive Sol ex Admirando Facularum\n    & Macularum suarum Phoenomeno varius_\nTostatus (Alonso Tostado): _In Genesis_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nErrors and Anomalies:\n\nAll but one occurrence of -que is written with a ligature. They have\nbeen expanded for this e-text.\n\nthough they have for a long time lien neglected\n  _so in original: \"lain\"?_\n+pollous \u00ead\u00ea kai oudena noon echontas+\n  _text reads +pellous+; last vowel in +echontas+ unclear_\nboth St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_\n  _\"Senafinus\" could not be identified, but cannot be Serafinus_\n_Aristotle_ was the viol of Gods wrath\n  _spelling \"viol\" as in original_\nthe world is much beholden to _Aristotle_ for all its sciences\n  _text reads \"it sciences\"_\nif there be more worlds than one\n  _text reads \"more words\"_\n[Sidenote] Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.\n  _so in original: \"Eccles.\"?_\n[Sidenote to \"Ptolome\"] _I{o} Apost._\n  _reading unclear, text not identified: \"I^o.\"?_\n[Sidenote to \"Rosa Vrsina\"] _lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35._\n  _unclear: \"ty.\" or error for \"cp.\"?_\n_Hebr\u00e6onia l. 2. c. 4._\n  _text unclear: \"Hebraeoma\"?_\nand more especially _Malapertius_\n  _text reads \"Mulapertius\"_\nbut never confuted by any solid reason\n  _text reads \"coufuted\"_\n[Sidenote] ... _dissertatio / cum Nic. Hill._ ...\n  _so in original: error for \"dissertatio cum Nunc[ius] Sid[ereus]\"\n  (by Kepler)?_\nvius qui ad experimenta h\u00e6c contradicendi animo accesserant\n  _so in original_\nit might probably be deduced\n  _text reads \"de deduced\"_\nso _Ioach. Rlelicus_\n  _so in original: \"Rheticus\"?_\nOthers think[1] that there be some bodies\n  _text reads \"that there some bodies\"_\n[Sidenote] So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._\n  _single letter illegible: could be \"fi\" or \"\u00e0\"_\n[Sidenote] Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat.\n  _so in original: \"Nieremberg\"_\nsententiam exsuscitare velit\n  _text reads \"excuscitare\"_\nthat earth in the writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers\n  _spelling as in original_\n[Sidenote] _Lect. ant. l. 1. c. 15._\n  _text reads \"Lect. aut l. 1\"_\nNay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse\n  _text reads \"owne-eye-witnesse\"_\nthat in the Moone there should be any mountaines\n  _text reads \"thete\"_\n_Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_\n  _text unclear; may be \"Emus\": for Mt. Aenus?_\nthe 47th proposition in the first booke of elements.\nTherefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104\n  _\"the 47th proposition\" is better known as the Pythagorean theorem.\n  \"104\" is presumably an error for \"1004\"; the correct figure is\n  almost 1005_\n[Sidenote] _Plat. de fac._\n  _so in original: \"Plut[arch]\"?_\n[Sidenote] _Pr\u00e6fat. ad Austrica syd._\n  _so in original: \"Austriaca\"_\n[Sidenote to C\u00e6lius] _Progym. 1._\n[Sidenote to Tycho] _l. 20. c. 5._\n  _notes may be reversed: Tycho Brahe wrote a \"Progymnasmata\"_\nbecause of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts\n  _so in original: \"exsuperancy\"_\nbecause they are farre neerer it than wee\n  _text unclear_\na more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_\n  _spelling as in original: \"chalky\"_\nin his time tooke especiall notice\n  _text reads \"looke\" but catchword has \"tooke\"_\nsuch appearances may be salved some other way\n  _so in original_\n[Sidenote] _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc._\n  _so in original: Malapert(i)us_\n2. _M\u00e6slin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of these\n    alterations. The words of _M\u00e6slin_ are these (as I finde them\n    cited.)\n[Sidenote] _Disser. 2. cum nunc. Galil._\n  _sidenote is attached to M\u00e6slin quote, but work named is by Kepler_\nthere are some inhabitants in that Planet\n  _text reads \"inhabitans\"_\nThe equality of their nights doth much temper the scorching of the day,\n    and the extreme cold that comes from the one, require some space\n  _wording as in original_\nThis part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes.\n  _text reads \"Planets\"_\nintellectuares habitatores\n  _so in original: \"intellectuales\"?_\nex influentia ignili solis\n  _adjective \"ignilis\" may have been invented by author cited_\nbut _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome\n  _text reads \"opi/on\" at line break_\nhee cals it a terrestriall starre\n  _text reads \"terrestraill\"_\n_Pererius_ fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_\n  _text reads \"fathers is\"_\n\nPunctuation:\n\nthe Cities and Mountaines hanging.\" What shall wee thinke\n  _marginal quotes continue through line beginning \"shall wee\"_\na propension in its subject\n  _text reads \"'its\" with leading apostrophe_\nBut the position (say some) is directly against Scripture\n  _opening parenthesis missing_\nScripturequ\u00e6 coelum pluribus realibus atque\n  _\"atque\" written out (all other -que occurrences use ligature)_\nmore directly proved by _M\u00e6slin_, _Keplar_, and _Galil\u00e6us_\n  _no comma after \"M\u00e6slin\"_\nit seemed most / likely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_\n  _text has period (full stop) for comma_\ntoo much for to vent at the first: the chiefe thing\n  _text reads \"at the first. the\"_\nthe words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above\n    cited place, _Possunt maxim\u00e6 ..._\n  _text has \"... cited place) _Possunt ...\"_\n  _could also be:_\n    the words of _Fienus_ (as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the\n    above cited place) _Possunt maxim\u00e6\nvespere Dominic\u00e6 Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore Lun\u00e6\n  _text reads \"Anni 1605. in corpore\"_\nAnd this was the opinion of the _Cardinal de Cusa_\n  _text reads \"de cusa\"_\nbut to lead us along from the knowledge of one thing to another\n  _\"a/long\" printed at line break without hyphen_\n\nPrinter's Errors:\n\nInvisible letters or punctuation marks, supplied from context, are shown\nin {braces}.\n\n2{.} Grosse absurdities have beene entertained\n[Sidenote] _Plutarch. de t{r}anq. anim._\n[Sidenote] _Lib. 9. Architectur\u00e6{.}_\n[Sidenote] Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Th{e}or. pag. 164._\n[Sidenote] _In lib. de natur. rerum{.}_\n[Sidenote] _De 4r. Co\u00e6vis.... Exercit{.} 62._\n[Sidenote] _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13{.}_]\n[Sidenote] _Ex qua parte luna est transpi{c}ua non totum secundum\n    superfi{ci}em,\n[Sidenote] _Albert. mag. de {c}o\u00e6vis. Q. 4. Art. 21._\n[Sidenote] _S{c}alig. exercit. 62._\nsome others have thought it to be ver{y} much like a Fox\nMihi autem dubium fuit nu{m}quam ... sese in conspectum da{t}uram\nBut it may be againe obj{e}cted\nyet would the motion of i{t}s centre by an attractive vertue still hold\n    it w{it}hin i{t}s convenient distance, so that whether their ear{t}h\n    moved\n  _\"within\": \"i\" missing, \"t\" invisible_\nYou may see this truth assented unto by _Blancanus_ the J{e}suit\nand if you obj{e}ct that the light which is conveyed\nfor he confesses himselfe that he saw this by the glasse{.}\nour earth appeares a{s} brigh{t}\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPagination:\n\n_Pages 177-192 (printed as 175-190) are all one error: The eight pages\nprinted on one side of the sheet forming signature N were misnumbered\nby -2._\n\n118, 120 _read_ 18, 20\n123 _reads_ 113\n166 _reads_ 66\n177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 192\n  _read_ 175, 178, 179, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190\n209 _reads_ 107\n210, 211 _read_ 208, 209\n212, 213, 214 _no printed number_\n215 _reads_ 63","title":"The discovery of a world in the moone : $b or, A discovrse tending to prove that 'tis probable there may be another habitable world in that planet","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":34541}