The First Proposition, by way of Preface. That the strangenesse of this opi­nion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, -because other certaine truths have beene formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common consent.

THere is an earnest­nesse and hunge­ring after noveltie, which doth still adhere unto all our natures, and it is part of that primitive image, that wide ex­tent and infinite capacity at first created in the heart of man, for this since its depravation in [Page 2] Adam perceiving it selfe altoge­ther emptied of any good doth now catch after every new thing, conceiving that possibly it may finde satisfaction among some of its fellow creatures. But our enemy the divell (who strives still to pervert our gifts, and beate us with our owne wea­pons) hath so contriv'd it, that any truth doth now seeme dis­tastefull for that very reason, for which errour is entertain'd—Novelty, for let but some up­start heresie be set abroach, and presently there are some out of a curious humour; others, as if they watched an occasion of sin­gularity, will take it up for ca­nonicall, and make it part of their creede and profession;-whereas solitary truth cannot any where finde so ready enter­tainement; but the same Novelty which is esteemed the commen­dation of errour and makes that acceptable, is counted the fault [Page 3] of truth, and causes that to bee rejected. How did the incredu­lous World gaze at Columbus when he promised to discover another part of the earth, and he could not for a long time by his confidence, or arguments, induce any of the Christian Princes, ei­ther to assent unto his opinion, or goe to the charges of an ex­periment. Now if he who had such good grounds for his asser­tion, could finde no better en­tertainement among the wiser sort, and upper end of the World; 'tis not likely then that this opinion which I now deli­ver, shall receive any thing from the men of these daies, especially our vulgar wits, but misbeliefe or derision. It hath alwaies beene the unhappinesse of new truths in Philosophy, to be de­rided by those that are igno­rant of the causes of things, and reiected by others whose per­versenesse ties them to the con­trary [Page 4] opinion, men whose envi­ous pride will not allow any new thing for truth which they themselves were not the first in­ventors of. So that I may iustly expect to be accused of a prag­maticall ignorance, and bold ostentation, especially since for this opinion Xenophanes, a man whose authority was able to adde some credit to his asserti­on could not escape the like cen­sure from others. For Natales Mytholog. lib. 3. c. 17. Comes speaking of that Philo­sopher, and this his opinion, saith thus, Nonnulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua novo monstra in Philosophiā introducunt, ut alicuius rei inventores fuisse appareant. Some there are who least they might seeme to know nothing, will bring up monstrous absurdi­ties in Philosophy, that so af­terward they may bee famed for the invention of somewhat. The same author doth also in a­nother place accuse Anaxagoras Lib. 7. c. 1. [Page 5] of folly for the same opinion, Est enim non ignobilis gradus stul­titiae, vel si nescias quid dicas, tamen velle de rebus propositis hanc vel illam partem stabilire.

'Tis none of the worst kindes of folly, boldly to affirme one side or other, when a man knows not what to say.

If these men were thus cen­sur'd, I may iustly then expect to be de [...]ided by most, and to be believed by few or none; especi­ally since this opinion seemes to carry in it so much strange­nesse, so much contradiction to the generall consent of o­thers. But how ever, I am resol­ved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that it is not the common opi­nion of others that can either adde or detract from the truth. For,

1. Other truths have beene for­merly esteemed altogether as ridiculous as this can be.

[Page 6] 2 Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by ge­nerall opinion.

I shall give an instance of each, that so I may the better prepare the Reader to consider things without a prejudice, when hee shall see that the common op­position against this which I affirme cannot any way dero­gate from its truth.

1. Other truths have beene formerly accounted as ridicu­lous as this, I shall specifie that of the Antipodes, which have beene denied and laught at by many wise men and great Schol­lers, such as were Herodotus, St. Austine, Lactantius, the Venerable Bede, Lucretius the Poet, Procopi­us, and the voluminous Abulen­sis with others. Herodotus coun­ted it so horrible an absurdity, that hee could not forbeare laughing to thinke of it. [...] [Page 7] [...]. I cannot choose but laugh, (saith he) to see so many men venture to describe the earths compasse, relating those things that are without all sense, as that the Sea flowes about the World, and that the earth it selfe is round as an Orbe. But this great ignorance is not so much to be admired in him, as in those learneder men of later times, when all sciences began to flourish in the World. Such was Saint Austin who censures that relation of the Antipodes to be an incredible fable, and de Civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 9. with him agrees the eloquent Lactantius, quid illi qui esse con­trarios vestigiis nostris Antipodes Institut. l. 3. c. 24. putant? num aliquid loquuntur? aut est quispiam tam ineptus, qui credat esse homines, quorum vesti­gia sunt superiora quàm capita? aut ibi quae apud nos jacent inver­sa [Page 8] pendere? fruges & arbores deor­sum versus crescere, pluvias & ni­ves, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in terram? & miratur aliquis ho [...]tos pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum Philosophi, & agros & maria, & urbes & montes pensiles faciunt? &c. What (saith he) are they that thinke there are Antipodes, such as walke with their feete against ours? doe they speake any likely­hood? or is there any one so foolish as to believe that there are men whose heeles are high­er than their heads? that things which with us doe lie on the ground doe hang there? that the Plants and Trees grow downewards, that the haile, and raine, and snow fall upwards to the earth? and doe wee admire the hanging Orchards amongst the seven wonders, whereas here the Philosophers have made the Field and Seas, the Cities and [Page 9] mountaines hanging. What shall wee thinke (saith hee in Plutareh) that men doe clyng to that place like wormes, or hang by their clawes as Cats, or if wee suppose a man a little beyond the Center, to be dig­ging with a spade? is it like­ly (as it must be according to this opinion) that the earth which hee loosened, should of it selfe ascend upwards? or else suppose two men with their middles about the center, the feete of the one being placed where the head of the other is, and so two other men crosse them, yet all these men thus si­tuated according to this opi­nion should stand upright, and many other such grosse conse­quences would follow (saith he) which a false imagination is not able to fancy as possible. Vpon which considerations, Bede also denies the being of any De ratione temporum, Cap 32. Antipodes, Ne (que) enim Antipoda­rum [Page 10] ullatenus est Fabulls accom­modandus assensus, Nor should wee any longer assent to the Fable of Antipodes. So also Lucretius the Poet speaking of the same subject, saies,

That some idle fancy faigned these for fooles to believe. Of this opinion was Procopius Ga­zaeus, Comment. in 1. Cap. Gen. but he was perswaded to it by another kinde of reason; for he thought that all the earth un­der us was sunke in the water, according to the saying of the Psalmist, Hee hath founded the Psal. 24. 2. earth upon the Seas, and there­fore he accounted it not inhabi­ted by any. Nay Tostatus a man of later yeeres and generall lear­ning doth also confidently deny that there are any such Antipo­des, though the reason which he urges for it be not so absurd as the former, for the Apostles, saith he, travelled through the whole Comment. in 1. Genes. [Page 11] habitable world, but they never passed the Equinoctiall; and if you answer that they are said to goe through all the earth, be­cause they went through all the knowne world, hee replies, that this is not sufficient, since Christ would have all men to be saved, and come to the know­ledge of his truth, and therefore 1 Tim. 2. 4. 'tis requisite that they should have travelled thither also, if there had been any inhabitants, especially since he did expresse­ly command them to goe and teach all nations, and preach the Gospell through the whole Mat. 28. 19. world, and therefore he thinkes that as there are no men, so nei­ther are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniency for ha­bitation: 'tis commonly related of one Virgilius, that he was ex­communicated and condemned for a Heretique by Zachary Bi­shop of Rome, because hee was not of the same opinion. But [Page 12] Baronius saies, it was because hee Annal. Ec­cles. A. D. 748. thought there was another ha­bitable world within ours. How ever, you may well enough dis­cerne in these examples how confident many of these great Schollars were in so grosse an errour, how unlikely, what an incredible thing it seemed to them, that there should be any Antipodes, and yet now this truth is as certaine and plaine, as sense or demonstration can make it. This then which I now deli­ver is not to be rejected, though it may seeme to contradict the common opinion.

2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall consent. I might instance in many remarkeable examples, but I will onely speake of the supposed labour of the Moone in her eclipses, because this is neerest to the chiefe matter in hand, and was received as a common opinion amongst ma­ny [Page 13] of the ancients, and there­fore Plutarch speaking of a Lu­nary eclipse, relates, that at such times 'twas a custome amongst the Romanes (the most civill and learned people in the world) to sound brasse Instruments, and In vita Paul. Aemil. hold great torches toward the heaven. [...]. for by this meanes they suppo­sed the Moone was much eased in her labours, and therfore Ovid Metam. Lib. 4. calls such loud Instruments the auxiliaries or helpes of the Moone ‘Cum frustra resonant aera auxiliaria Lunae.’ and therefore the Satyrist too describing a loud scold, saies, she was able to make noise enough to deliver the labouring Moone.

Now the reason of all this their ceremonie, was, because they feared the world would fall [Page 14] asleepe, when one of its eyes be­ganne to wincke, and therefore they would doe what they could by loud sounds to rouse it from its drowsinesse, and keepe it a­wake by bright torches, to be­stow that light upon it which it beganne to lose. Some of them thought hereby to keepe the Moone in her orbe, whereas otherwise she would have fallen downe upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights, for the credulous people believed, that Inchanters and Witches could bring the Moone downe, which made Virgil say, ‘Can [...]us & è coelo possunt deducere Lunam.’ And those Wizards knowing the times of her eclipses, would then threaten to shew their skill, by pulling her out of her orbe. So that when the silly multitude saw that she began to looke red, they presently feared they should lose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a great noise that [Page 15] she might not heare the sound of those Charmes, which would otherwise bring her downe, and this is rendred for a reason of this custome by Pliny and Pro­pertius: Nat. Hist. Lib. 2. c. 12.

Plutarch gives another reason of it, and he saies, 'tis because they would hasten the Moone out of the darke shade wherein she was involv'd, that so she might bring away the soules of those Saints that inhabit within her, which cry out by reason they are then deprived of their wonted happi­nesse, and cannot heare the mu­sicke of the Spheares, but are for­ced to behold the torments, and wailing of those damned soules which are represented to them as they are tortured in the region of the aire, but whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition, yet certain­ly 'twas a very ridiculous cu­stome, [Page 16] and bewrayed a great ig­norance of those ancient times, especially since it was not onely received by the vulgar, such as were men of lesse note and lear­ning, but believed also, by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were those great Poets, Stesi­chorus and Pindar. And not on­ly amongst the more sottish hea­thens, who might account that Planet to be one of their Gods, but the primitive Christians al­so were in this kinde guilty, which made S. Ambrose so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said, Tum turbatur car­minibus Globus Lunae, quando ca­licibus turbantur & oculi. When your heads are troubled with cups, then you thinke the Moone to be troubled with charmes.

And for this reason also did Maximus a Bishop, write a Turinens. Episc. Homily against it, wherein hee shewed the absurditie of that [Page 17] foolish superstition. I remem­ber that Ludovicus Ʋives relates a more ridiculous story of a peo­ple that imprisoned an Asse for drinking up the Moone, whose image appearing in the water was covered with a cloud as the Asse was drinking, for which the poore beast was afterward brought to the barre to receive a sentence according to his de­serts, where the grave Senate be­ing set to examine the matter, one of the Counsell (perhaps wiser than the rest) rises up, and out of his deepe judgement thinkes it not fit that their Towne should lose its Moone, but that rather the Asse should bee cut up and that taken out of him, which sentence being ap­proved by the rest of those Po­liticians, as the subtillest way for the conclusion of the matter was accordingly performed. But whether this tale were true or no I will not question, how­ever [Page 18] there is absurdity enough in that former custome of the an­cients that may confirme the truth to be proved, and plainely declare the insufficiency of com­mon opinion to adde true worth or estimation unto any thing. So that from that which I have said may be gathered thus much.

1. That a new truth may seeme absurd and impossible not onely to the vulgar, but to those also who are otherwise wise men and excellent schol­lers; and hence it will follow that every new thing which seemes to oppose common principles is not presently to bee rejected, but rather to bee pry'd into with a dili­gent enquiry, since there are many things which are yet hid from us, and reserv'd for future discovery.

2. That it is not the common­nesse of an opinion that can priviledge it for a truth, the [Page 19] wrong way is sometime a well beaten path, whereas the right way (especially to hidden truths) may be lesse trodden and more obscure.

True indeed, the strangenesse of this opinion will detract much from its credit; but yet we should know that nothing is in its selfe strange, since every naturall ef­fect has an equall dependance upon its cause, and with the like necessity doth follow from it, so that 'tis our ignorance which makes things appeare so, and hence it comes to passe that many more evident truths seeme incredible to such who know not the causes of things: you may as soone perswade some Countrey peasants that the Moone is made of greene Cheese (as we say) as that 'tis bigger than his Cart-wheele since both seeme equally to contradict his sight, and he has not reason e­nough to leade him farther than [Page 20] his senses. Nay suppose (saith Plutarch) a Philosopher should bee educated in such a secret place, where hee might not see either Sea or River and after­wards should bee brought out where one might shew him the great Ocean telling him the quality of that water that it is brackish salt and not potable, and yet there were many vast creatures of all formes living in it, which make use of the water as we doe of the ayre, question­lesse he would laugh at al this as being monstrous lies, and fables without any colour of truth. Just so will this truth which I now deliver appeare unto others; be­cause we never dreamt of any such matter as a world in the Moone, because the state of that place hath as yet beene vailed from our knowledge, therefore we can scarcely assent to any such mat­ter. Things are very hardly re­ceived which are altogether [Page 21] strange to our thoughts and our senses. The soule may with lesse difficulty be brought to believe any absurdity, when as it has formerly beene acquainted with some colours and probabilities for it, but when a new, and an unheard of truth shall come be­fore it, though it have good grounds and reasons, yet the un­derstanding is afraid of it as a stranger, and dares not admit it into its beliefe without a great deale of reluctanty and tryall. And besides things that are not manifested to the senses, are not assented unto without some la­bour of mind, some travaile and discourse of the understanding, and many lazie soules had ra­ther quietly repose themselves in an easie errour, then take paines to search out the truth. The strangenesse then of this opinion which I now deliver will be a great hinderance to its beliefe, but this is not to be re­spected [Page 22] by reason it cannot bee helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface, because that pre­judice which the meere title of the booke may beget cannot ea­sily be removed without a great deale of preparation, and I could not tell otherwise how to recti­fie the thoughts of the reader for an impartiall survey of the fol­lowing discourse.

I must needs confesse, though I had often thought with my selfe that it was possible there might be a world in the Moone, yet it seemed such an uncouth opinion that I never durst dis­cover it, for feare of being coun­ted singular and ridiculous, but afterward having read Plutarch, Galileus, Keplar, with some o­thers, and finding many of mine owne thoughts confirmed by such strong authority, I then concluded that it was not onely possible there might be, but pro­bable that there was another [Page 23] habitable world in that Planet. In the prosecuting of this asser­tion I shall first endeavour to cleare the way from such doubts as may hinder the speed or ease of farther progresse; and be­cause the suppositions imply'd in this opinion may seeme to contradict the principles of rea­son or faith, it will be requisite that I first remove this scruple shewing the conformity of them to both these, and proving those truths that may make way for the rest, which I shall labour to performe in the second, third, fourth, and fifth Chapters, and then proceede to confirme such propositions, which doe more directly belong to the maine point in hand.

Proposition 2. That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason or faith.

TIs reported of Aristotle that when hee saw the bookes of Moses he commended them for such a majesticke stile as might become a God, but withall hee censured that manner of writing to be very unfitting for a Philo­sopher because there was no­thing proved in them, but mat­ters were delivered as if they would rather command than perswade beliefe. And 'tis ob­served that hee sets downe no­thing himselfe, but he confirmes it by the strongest reasons that may be found, there being scarce an argument of force for any subject in Philosophy which may not bee picked out of [Page 25] his writings, and therefore 'tis likely if there were in reason a necessity of one onely world, that hee would have found out some such necessary proofe as might confirme it: Especially since hee labours for it so much in two whole Chapters. But now all the arguments which he himselfe urges in this subject, De Coelo l. 1. c. 8. 9. are very weake and farre enough from having in them any con­vincing power. Therefore 'tis likely that a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any princi­ple of reason. However, I will set downe the two chiefe of his arguments from his owne workes, and from them you may guesse the force of the other. The 1 is this, since every heavy ibid. body doth naturally tend down­wards, and every light body up­wards, what a hudling and con­fusion must there bee if there were two places for gravity and two places for lightnesse: for it [Page 26] is probable that the earth of that other world would fall downe to this Centre, and so mutually the aire and fire here ascend to those Regions in the other, which must needs much derogate from the providence of nature, and cause a great dis­order in his workes. To this I answer, that if you will con­sider the nature of gravity, you will plainely see there is no ground to feare any such confu­sion, for heavinesse is nothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in 'its subject to tend downewards towards its owne Centre, so that for some of that earth to come hither would not bee said a fall but an ascension, since it moved from its owne place, and this would be impossible (saith Ruvio) be­cause against nature, and there­fore no more to bee feared De Coelo l. 1. c 9. q. 1. than the falling of the Hea­vens.

Another argument hee had Metaphys. l. 12. c. 8. Diog. Laert. lib. 3. from his master Plato, that there is but one world, because there is but one first mover, God.

But here I may deny the con­sequence, since a plurality of worlds doth not take away the unity of the first mover. Ʋt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379. materiam (saith a Countrey­man of ours.) As the substantiall forme, so the efficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particular matter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Arguments more fully answered by Plu­tarch in his booke (why Ora­cles are silent) and Iacob Car­pentarius in his comment on Al­cinous.

But our opposites the Inter­preters themselves, (who too of­ten doe jurare in verba magistri) will grant that there is not any [Page 28] strength in these consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could not convince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont to bee swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should rather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent to this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was because hee feared to displease his scholler Alexander, of whom 'tis related Plutarch. de tranq. anim. that he wept to heare a disputa­tion of another world, since he had not then attained the Mo­narchy of this, his restlesse wide heart would have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there had beene ano­ther, which made the Satyrist say of him,

That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend up in a narrow roome, [Page 29] when hee was confin'd but to one world. Before he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee had done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps superi­our Kings.

It may be, that Aristotle was moved to this opinion, that hee might therby take from Alexan­der the occasion of this feare and discontent, or else, perhaps, Aristotle himselfe was as loth to hold the possibility of a world which he could not discover, as Alexander was to heare of one which hee could not conquer. Tis likely that some such by-re­spect moved him to this opini­on, since the arguments he urges for it are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very sleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to prove, that there is not any evidence in the light of na­turall reason, which can suffici­ently [Page 30] manifest that there is but one world.

But however some may ob­ject, would it not be inconveni­ent and dangerous to admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of Aristotle, which all the world hath so long followed?

This question is much con­troverted by the Romish Divines; Apologia pro Galilaeo. Campanella hath writ a Treatise in defence of it, in whom you may see many things worth the reading and notice.

To it I answer, that this po­sition in Philosophy, doth not bring any inconvenience to the rest, since tis not Aristotle, but truth that should be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both found together, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Ethic. l. 1. c. 6. Master Plato, [...]. Though Plato were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to truth than him.

I must needes grant, that wee are all much beholden to the in­dustry of the ancient Philoso­phers, and more especially to Aristotle for the greater part of our learning, but yet tis not in­gratitude to speake against him, when hee opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers would be very guilty, especially Iustin, who hath writ a Treatise pur­posely against him.

But suppose this opinion were false, yet 'tis not against the faith, and so it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the sparkes of er­rour, being forc'd out by op­position, as the sparkes of fire by the striking of the flint and steele. But suppose too that it were hereticall, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the same priviledge as Aristotle, from whom many more dangerous opinions have pro­ceeded: as that the world is [Page 32] eternall, that God cannot have while to looke after these infe­riour things, that after death there is no reward or punish­ment, and such like blasphemies, which strike directly at the fun­damentalls of our Religion.

So that it is justly to be won­dred why some should be so su­perstitious in these daies, as to sticke closer unto him, than un­to Scripture, as if his Philoso­phy were the onely foundation of all divine truthes.

Vpon these grounds both S^t. Vincentius and Senafinus de firmo (as I have seene them quoted) thinke that Aristotle was the viol of Gods wrath, which was pow­red out upon the waters of Wis­dome by the third Angel; But Rev. 16. 4. for my part, I thinke the world is much beholden to Ari­stotle for all its sciences. But yet twere a shame for these later ages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, [Page 33] as if they had informed us of all things to be knowne, and when wee are set upon their shoulder [...], not to see further then they them­selves did. 'Twere a superstitious, a lazie opinion to thinke Aristotles workes the bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could be no possibi­lity of reaching. Certainely there are yet many things left to disco­very, and it cannot be any incon­venience for us, to maintaine a new truth or rectifie an ancient errour.

But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture, for

1. Moses tels us but of one world, and his History of the crea­tion had beene very imperfect if God had made another.

2. Saint Iohn speaking of Gods workes, sayes he made the world, in the singular number, and there­fore there is but one: ' [...]is the ar­gument of Aquinas, and he thinks Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3. that none will oppose it, but such [Page 34] who with Democritus esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence to be the framer of all things.

3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient times beene accoun­ted a heresie, and Baronius affirmes that for this very reason Virgilius was cast out of his Bishopricke, and excommunicated from the Church. Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748.

4. A fourth argument there is urged by Aquinas, if there bee more worlds than one, then they must either be of the same or of a diverse nature, but they are not of the same kinde, for this were ibid. needlesse and would argue an im­providence, since one would have no more perfection than the other; not of divers kinds, for then one of them could not bee called the world or universe, since it did not containe universall perfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon by Iulius Caesar la Galla, one that has pur­posely De Phaenom in orbe Lunae [Page 35] writ a Treatise against this opinion which I now deliver, but the dilemma is so blunt that it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weake that I dare trust them without an answere; And (by the way) you may see this author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one world, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlesse paines to dispute against Democritus, who thought that the world was made by the casuall concourse of atoms in a great vacuum. It should seeme that either his cause or his skill was weake, or else he would have ventured upon a stronger adver­sary. These arguments which I have set downe are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject, and yet the best of these hath not force enough to en­danger the truth that I have de­livered.

Unto the two first it may bee [Page 36] answered, that the negative au­thority of Scripture is not preva­lent in those things which are not the fundamentals of Reli­gion.

But you'le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet 'tis probable if there had beene another world, wee should have had some notice of it in Scrip­ture.

I answere, 'tis as probable that the Scripture should have infor­med us of the planets, they be­ing very remarkeable parts of the Creation, and yet neither Moses nor Iob, nor the Psalmes (the places most frequent in Astrono­micall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne and Moon, and moreover you must know that 'tis besides the scope of the Holy Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale any thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; 'tis not his intent in the new Testament, since [Page 37] we cannot conceive how it might any way belong either to the Hi­storicall exegeticall or propheti­call parts of it: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by our Countrey-man Master WRIGHT. Non Mosis In Epist. ad Gilbert. aut Prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum & loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese accommodare. 'Tis not the endeavour of Moses or the Prophets to discover any Mathematicall or Philosophicall subtilties, but rather to accōmo­date themselves to vulgar capa­cities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are wont to use their infants. True indeed, Moses is there to handle the history of the Creation, but 'tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as were very hard to be apprehended, for being to in­forme the common people as well [Page 38] as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly noted, de­claring the originall chiefely of those things which were obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things which then could not well be apprehended. And therefore Aquinas observes that Part 1. Q. 68, Art. 3. Moses writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason, Saint Austin also thinkes that there is nothing exprest concerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as remarkeable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as another world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions which set things forth rather as they ap­peare, then as they are, as when he cals the Moone one of the grea­ter Gen. 1. 16. lights [...] whereas 'tis the lest, but one that we can see in the whole heavens. [Page 39] So afterwards speaking of the Gen. 11. great raine which drowned the world, he sayes, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to come with that vio­lence, as if it were poured out from windows in the Firmament. Sr. W. Rawly c. 7. §. 6. So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things are not to bee understood in a literall sense; but rather as vulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint Austin, where l. 2. in Gen. Psal 136. 6 speaking concerning that in the Psalme, who stretched the earth upon the waters, hee notes that when the words of Scripture shall seeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be understood in a qualified sence, and not according to the letter. And 'tis observed that for want of this rule some of the ancients have fastned strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint Ambrose esteemed it a heresie to thinke that the Sunne [Page 40] and Starres were not very hot, as Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. Ecclus. 43. 3. 4. being against the words of Scrip­ture, Psalm. 19. 6. where the Psalmist sayes that there is no­thing that is hid from the heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to bee round, out of that place, Psal. 104. 2. He stretched out the Com. in c. 1. Gen. heavens like a curtaine. So Pro­copius also was of opinion that the earth was founded upon the waters, nay hee made it part of his faith, proving it out of Psal. 24. 2. Hee hath founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. These and such like absurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophy in the words of Scripture. So that, from what hath beene said, I may conclude that the filence of Scripture con­cerning any other world is not sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two first arguments.

Vnto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by others, to shew the ignorance of those primitive times, who did sometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur'd the lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for here­ticall, because they themselves could not perceive a reason of, it and therefore their practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimo­ny against us.

But lastly, I answer to all the above named objections, that the terme World, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole Universe, as it implies in it the elementary and aethereall bodies, the starres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiour World consisting of ele­ments. Now the maine drift of all these arguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, and if there were any such, it might, perhaps, seeme strange, [Page 42] that Moses, or S^t. Iohn should either not know, or not mention its creation. And Virgilius was condemned for this opinion, be­cause he held quòd sit alius mun­dus sub terrâ, alius (que) Sol & Luna, (as Baronius) that within our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne and Moone, and so he might seeme to exclude this from the number of the other creatures.

But now there is no such dan­ger in this opinion, which is here delivered, since this world is said to be in the Moone, whose crea­tion is particularly exprest.

So that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, which is all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second sense, and so I affirme there may be more, nor doe any of the above na­med objections prove the cōtrary.

Neither can this opinion dero­gate from the divine Wisdome (as Aquinas thinkes) but rather ad­vance [Page 43] it, shewing a compendium of providence, that could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world for habitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of the whole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onely for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of the Cusanus de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12. whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe, so is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve as well for the conser [...]ation of that which is within it, as the helpe of others without it.

I have now in some measure, shewed that a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so cleared the first part of that supposition which is implied in the opinion.

It may next be enquired, whe­ther 'tis possible there may be a globe of elements in that which [Page 44] we call the aethereall parts of the Universe; for if this (as it is ac­cording to the common opinion) be priviledged from any change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine any element there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke out some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore shall be this.

Proposition. 3. That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these inferiour bodies are liable unto.

IT hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and Philosophers, what kind of mat­ter that should be so, which the heavens are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure elements, as Ari­stotle [Page 45] holds, and with him some of De coelo. li. 1. cap. 2. the late Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bo­dies, but common materialls, and therefore they themselves had ra­ther take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent, were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest by their owne Colleg. Connimb. de coelo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3. side. It were much to be desired, that these men had not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without necessi­ty, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the se­crets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to finde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their ar­guments, since 'tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary consequence, and be­sides, you may see them set downe in any of the bookes, de Coelo.

But it is the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of Lombard, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these sub­lunary bodies. Saint Ambrose is In Hexam. lib. 4. confident of it, that hee esteemes the contrary a heresie. True in­deede, they differ much among themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or other. For a better con­firmation of this, you may see Lu­dovicus Molina, Euseb. Nirem­bergius, with divers others. The In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5. venerable Bede thought the Pla­nets to consist of all the foure ele­ments, and 'tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance, In lib. de Mundi con­stit. as will be shewed afterward; how­ever, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments for either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile Aristotle, and the Schoolmen, and the better to make way for a proofe of their corrupti­bility.

The next thing then to be en­quired after, is, whether they be of a corruptible nature, not whe­ther 2 Pet. 3. 12. they can be destroyed by God, for this Scripture puts out of doubt.

Nor whether or no in a long time they would weare away and grow worse, for from any such feare they have beene lately privi­ledged. But whether they are ca­pable of such changes and vicissi­tudes, By Doctor Hackwel Apol. as this inferiour world is liable unto.

The two chiefe opinions con­cerning this, have both erred in some extremity, the one side go­ing so farre from the other, that they have both gone beyond the right, whilest Aristotle hath op­posed the truth, as well as the Stoicks.

Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood in need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually seed, and so had [Page 48] divers alterations by reason of their food, this is fathered on He­raclitus, followed by that great Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9. Naturalist Pliny, and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see Seneca expressely to this purpose in these words, Ex illa ali­menta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis dividuntur, hinc Nat. Quaest. lib. 2. cap. 5. profertur quo sustincantur tot Sydera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctem (que), ut in opere, ita in pastu. Speaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment is di­vided to al the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hence were sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day and night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also Lucan sings, Necnon Oceano pasci Phoebum (que)

Unto these Ptolome also that lear­ned Egyptian seemed to agree, 10. Apostel. when he affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than any of the other Planets, by [Page 49] reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaled unto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so farre from this imagined in­corruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they stood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they could not subsist.

But Aristotle and his followers De coelo. li. 1. cap. 3. were so farre from this, that they thought those glorious bodies could not containe within them any such principles, as might make them lyable to the least change or corruption, and their chiefe reason was, because we could not in so long a space discerne any alte­ration amongst them▪ but unto this I answere.

1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow that there were none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 3. he sayes 'tis very imperfect and [Page 50] difficult, by reason of the vast di­stance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not ei­ther bigge enough or frequent e­nough to fall within the appre­hension and observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe bee deceived in his as­sertions concerning these parti­culars.

2. Though wee could not by our senses see such alterations, yet our reason might perhaps suffici­ently convince us of them. Nor can wee well conceive how the Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet not produce some alteration of heate. Diogenes the Philosopher w [...] hence perswaded that those scorching heates had burnt the Moone into the forme of a Pumice-stone.

3. I answere that there have beene some alterations observed there; witnesse those comets which have been seene above the Moon. [Page 51] So that though Aristotles conse­quence were sufficient, when he proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes beene observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent, that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so many altera­tions observed there; but of these together with a farther confirma­tion of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speake after­wards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that worke of Scheiner a late Jesuite which he titles his Rosa Vrsina, where hee may see this point concerning the lib. 4. par. 2. cy. 24, 35. corruptibility of the Heavens largely handled and sufficiently confirmed.

There are some other things, on which I might here take an occa­sion to enlarge my selfe, but be­cause they are directly handled by many others, and doe not im­mediately belong to the chiefe [Page 52] matter in hand, I shall therefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofe of them my s [...]lfe, as desiring all possible brevity.

1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbes. If there be a habitable world in the Moone (which I now affirme) it must follow, that her Orbe is not solid as Aristotle supposed; and if not her, why any of the other. I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint Ambrose, and Saint Basil did en­deavour Isa. 51. 6. to prove this out of that place in Isay, where they are com­pared Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4. to smoake, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus, Eusebius, Nicrembergius doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13 incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the same interpreta­tion the authority of Eustachius of Antioch; and Saint Austin, I am sure seemes to assent unto In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit. this opinion, though he does often [Page 53] in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of other Fathers to this purpose you may see in Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you to the above named Scheiner in his Rosa lib. 4. p. 11. 2 cap. 7. 26, 30. Vrsina, in whom you may see both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set downe for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which he adjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of Fredericus Caesius Lyn­ceus a Noble Prince written to Bellarmine, containing divers rea­sons to the same purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by Iohannes Pena in his preface to Euclids Opticks, and Christoph. Rothmannus, both who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble Tycho doe De stella. 15 72. l. 1. c. 9. dispute against them, yet he him­selfe holds, Quod propius ad veri­tatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter ap­probata, [Page 54] quae coelum pluribus realibus atque imperviis orbibus cipra rem re­plevit. That this opinion comes neerer to the truth than that com­mon one of Aristotle which hath to no purpose filled the Heavens with such reall and impervious Orbes.

2. There is no element of fire, which must bee held with this o­pinion here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will follow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually placed in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing at all, which is most probable since there are not any such solid Orbes, that by their swift motion might heate and enkindle the adjoyning aire, which is imagined to bee the rea­son of that element. Concerning this see Cardan, Iohannes Pena that learned Frenchman, the noble Tycho, with divers others who have purposely handled this pro­position.

[Page 55] 3. I might adde a third, viz. that there is no Musicke of the spheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such sound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because Plutarch speakes as if a man might very conveniently heare that har­mony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those neces­sary consequences which depen­ded upon his opinion. However the world would have no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at sometimes we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeed Philo the Jew thinks De somniis. it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other nourish­ment; and for this very reason (saies hee) was Moses enabled to tarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any [Page 56] thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens, -Risum teneatis. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sa­cred and prophane authors, such as Ambrose, Bede, Boetius, Anselme, Plato, Cicero and others, but be­cause it is not now, I thinke affir­med by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in arguing against it.

It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two more necessary, have re­ferred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I shall in the next place proceed to the nature of the Moones body, to know whether that be capable of any such con­ditions, as may make it possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more neerely agrees with our earth.

Proposition 4. That the Moone is a solid, compa­cted, opacous body.

I Shall not neede to stand long in the proofe of this proposi­tion, since it is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most and the best Philo­sophers.

1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayer, for how o­therwise could it beate backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?

But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her light upon us by the reflecti­on of the Sunne-beames from the superficies of her body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirme this latter part. So Averroes, Caelius Rho­diginus, Iulius Caesar, &c. and their [Page 58] reason is because this light is dis­cerned in many places, whereas De Coelo l. 2. com. 49. Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4. de phaenom. lunae. c. 11. those bodies which give light by reflexion can there onely be per­ceived where the angle of reflexi­on is equall to the angle of inci­dence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glasse those beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every place where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye is placed on the same line whereon the beames are re­flected.

But to this I answere, that the argument will not hold of such bodies, whose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone is. Wherefore it is as well the more probable as the more common opinion, that her light proceedes from both these causes, from reflexion and illumi­nation; nor doth it herein differ from our earth since that also hath some light by illumination: for [Page 59] how otherwise would the parts about us in a Sunne-shine day ap­peare so bright, when as all the rayes of reflexion cannot enter into our eye?

2. It is compact, and not a spun­gie Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13. Opt. lib. 4. Com. Pur­bac. Theo. p. 164. and porous substance. But this is denied by Diogenes, Vitellio, and Reinoldus, and some others, who held the Moone to be of the same kind of nature as a Pumice stone, and this, say they, is the reason why in the Sunnes eclipses there appeares within her a duskish rud­dy colour, because the Sun beames being refracted in passing through the pores of her body, must neces­sarily be represented under such a colour.

But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse, then why doth she not appeare under the same forme when shee is about a sextile aspect, and the darkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same rayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood [Page 60] should produce the same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must the colour still remaine visible in her body, and besides according to this opi­nion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers as the vari­ous distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne beames did Scaliger ex­ercit. 80. § 13. passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, sicne it is meer­ly this penetration of the Sunne beames that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.

3. It is opacous, not transpa­rent or diaphanous like Chrystall or glasse, as Empedocles thought, Plut. de facie lunae. who held the Moone to be a globe of pure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then,

[Page 61] 1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is dispersed through all her body?

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sunne, or cause such great eclipses as have Thucid. Livii. Plut. de facie Lunae. turned day into night, that have discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden dark­nesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related indivers Histories. And therefore Herodotus tellin of an eclipse which fell in Xerxes time, describes it thus: Herodot. l. 7. c. 37. [...]. The Sunne leaving his wonted seat in the heavens, vani­shed away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as could not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there are who interpret all these relations to be hyperbolicall expressions, and the noble Tich [...] thinkes it na­turally impossible, that any eclipse should cause such darkenesse, be­cause [Page 62] the body of the Moone can never totally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, [...] other Astronomers (if I may be­lieve Keplar) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.

But here Julius Caesar once more, puts in to hinder our pas­sage. De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11. The Moone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the same nature with the heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and his reason is, because perspicuity is an insepa­rable accident of those purer bo­dies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily be granted, for he stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an answer, till hee hath made up his argu­ment.

We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our earth doth the Moone; since [Page 63] then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like ef­fect, they must necessarily be of the like natures, that is alike opa­cous, which is the thing to be shewed; and this was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why In lib. de animalib. Aristotle affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature, because of their agreement in opacity, where­as all the other elements save that, are in some measure perspicuous.

But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether unlike the Moon, is, because the one is a bright bo­dy, and hath light of its owne, and the other a grosse darke body which cannot shine at all. 'Tis re­quisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt, and shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.

Proposition. 5. That the Moone hath not any light of her owne.

Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of Rabbi Simeon, that the Moone Tostatus in 1. Gen. Hieron. de 5. Hide. Haebreoma. l 2. c. 4. was nothing else but a contracted Sunne, and that both those planets at their first creation were equall both in light and quantity, for be­cause God did then call them both great lights, therefore they infer­red, that they must be both equall in bignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone put up her complaint to God against the Sun, shewing, that it was not fit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchie would best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this, God commanded her to contract her selfe into a nar­rower compasse, but shee being [Page 65] much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken that which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This sentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was shee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrow might be some way paci­fied, God bid her be of good cheere, because her priviledges and charter should be greater then the Suns, he should appeare in the day time onely, shee both in the day and night, but her melancho­ly being not satisfied with this, she replied againe, that that alas was no benefit, for in the day time she should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, God to com­fort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should cele­brate all their feast and holy daies by a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to con­tent her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; howe­ver [Page 66] shee hath still reserved much light of her owne.

Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be around globe, the one halfe of whose bo­dy was of a bright substance, the other halfe being darke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the va­riety of her appearances: of this opinion was Berosus, as he is cited Lib. 9. Ar­chitecturae in enarrat. Psal morum. by Vitruvius, and S^t. Austin thought it was probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally ab­surd with the former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent and easie ex­perience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is perceived about her middle, when shee is in the in­crease, may be discern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkned, is after inlightened, and that the one part [Page 67] is not alwaies darke and the other light of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy, that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that, which is already granted, I suppose now, that nei­ther of them hath any patrons, and therfore need no confutation.

Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she hath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. Cardan amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinks that De Subtil. lib. 3. if any of us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse, Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac in­numeris cereis splendidissimis ac­censis, at (que) in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus; wee should per­ceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would blind us with the meere sight, and when shee is enlightened by the Sunne, [Page 68] then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon her. This Cardan saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any proofe for its confirmation. However I will set downe the arguments that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are ta­ken either from Scripture or rea­son; from Scripture is urged that place, 1 Cor. 15. where it is said, There is one glory of the Sunne, and an [...]ther glory of the Moone. Vlysses Albergettus urges that in Math. 24. 29. [...], The Moone shall not give her light: therefore (sayes he) she hath some of her owne.

But to these we may easily an­swere that the glory and light there spoken off, may be said to bee hers though it bee derived, as you may see in many other in­stances.

The arguments from reason are taken either

1. From that light which is [Page 69] discerned in her, when there is a totall eclipse of her owne body, or of the Sunne.

2. From the light which is dis­cerned in the darker part of her body, when she is but a little distant from the Sunne.

1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body a great rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a re­markable shade, as common ex­perience doth sufficiently mani­fest: but this cannot come from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth or her owne body shades her from the Sunne-beames, there­fore it must proceede from her owne light.

2. Two or three daies after the new Moone, wee may perceive light in her whole body, whereas the rayes of the Sun reflect but up­on a small part of that which is vi­sible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light of her owne.

In answering to these objecti­ons, [Page 70] I shall first shew, that this light cannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true rea­son of it.

That it is not her owne, appeares

1. From the variety of it at di­vers times; for 'tis commonly ob­served that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now redder and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of this variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by Keplar and Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3. many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an alteration: So that thus I may argue.

If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet appeare brightest when she is eclipsed in her Perige being neerest to the earth, and so conse­quently more obscure and duskish when she is in her Apoge or far­thest [Page 71] from it; the reason is, because the neerer any enlightned body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the species and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our adversa­ries, and they are the very words De nova stella. lib. 1. c. 10. of noble Tycho, Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, uti (que) cum in um­bra terrae esset, illud non amitteret, sed eo evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepe­ditur. If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in the earth [...] shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light appeares greater in the darke, when it is not hin­dered by a more perspicuous brightnesse.

But now the event fals out cleane contrary, (as observation Reinhold comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164. doth manifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant) the Moone appearing with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclip­sed [Page 72] being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when shee is in her Perige or nearest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her owne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her in­herent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether mis-becom­ming a Philosopher, as Tycho grants in the fore-cited place; Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, out de [...]sa aliqua substanti, aut lunae lu­men obtenebrare possit, at (que) id visui nostro praeripere, sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpo­situm opacum corpus terrae. Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that it can cloud the Moones bright­nesse or take it away from our sight, but it is a meere privation of the Sunnes light by reason of the interposition of the earths o­pacous body.

[Page 73] 2. If she had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be, either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else such a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body, when she is a little past the con­junction. (That it must be one of these may follow from the oppo­site arguments) but it is neither of these, therefore she hath none of her owne.

1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can we not see the like red­nesse, when we may discerne the obscurer parts of the Moone?

You will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that grea­ter light takes away that appea­rance.

I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wonted rednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater brightnesse make him ap­peare white as the other Planets? [Page 74] nor can there be any reason given why that greater light should re­present her body under a false colour.

2. 'Tis not such a duskish lea­den light, as we see in the darker part of her body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne, for then why does she appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shade cannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of dark­nesse by its opposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and cleare brightnesse than they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet those parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, and therefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither of these lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Nor is this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such was Macrobius, who being for this quoted of Rhodiginus, he cals him Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20. [Page 75] vir re conditissimae scientiae, a man Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15. who knew more then ordinary Philosophers, thus commen­ding the opinion in the credit of the Authour. To him assents the Venerable Bede, upon whom the glosse hath this comparison. As In lib. de natur. rerum the Looking-glasse represents not any image within it selfe un­lesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not any light, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed Albertus Mag­nus, Scaliger, Maeslin, and more De 4^r Coae­vis. Q. 4^a. Art. 21. Exercit. 62. 1. Epitom. Astron. l. 4. p. 2. especially Mulapertius, whose words are more pa [...] to the pur­pose then others, and therefore I shall set them downe as you may finde them in his preface to his Treatise concerning the Austriaca sydera; Luna, Ʋenus, & Mercu­rius, terrestris & humidae sunt sub­stantiae, ideo (que) de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra. The Moone, Venus, and Mercurie (saith he) are of an earthly and moyst substance, and therefore have no more light of [Page 76] their owne, then the earth hath. Nay some there are who thinke that all the other Starres doe re­ceive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us from the Sunne, so Ptolomie, Isidere Hispa­lensis, Originum l. 3. c. 60. De Coelo: l. 2. De ratione tempor. c. 4. Albertus Magnus, and Bede, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light.

But enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first I promised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It re­maines in the next place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke 'tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipses is nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passe through the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second light with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times ap­peares unto us. I may call it Lu­men crepusculum, the Aurora of [Page 77] the Moone, or such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he is neere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thicker vapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne be­ing in the Horizon, and the re­flexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare very red.

The Moabites in Iehorams time when they rose early in the mor­ning, 2 King. 3. 22. and beheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood. Et causa hujus est quia radius solaris in Aurora contrahit quandam rube­dinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem terrae, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ru­borem, & faciunt apparere locum aquarum, in quo est repercussia esse 2^a. Quaest. in hoc cap. rubrum saith Tostatus. The rea­son is, because of his rayes, which being in the lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed [Page 78] light upon the waters. Thus the Moon being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beames which are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body, yet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, make her appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest, when shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge or greatest distance from us, because then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refraction is made through a nar­rower medium. So on the con­trary, she must be represented un­der a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she is involved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the re­fraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needs be weaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the rea­son may be of that light which we [Page 79] discorne in the darker part of the new Moone. I answer, 'tis re­flected from our earth which re­turnes as great a brightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have occasion to prove af­terward.

I have now done with these pro­positions which were set downe to cleare the passage, and confirme the suppositions implied in the opinion, I shall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chiefe matter in hand.

Proposition 6. That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may pro­bably be deduced from the tenents of others.

SInce this opinion may be sus­pected of singularity, I shall [Page 80] therefore first confirme it by suffi­cient authority of divers authours, both ancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the prejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an obsolete errour. This is by some attributed to Or­pheus, one of the most ancient, Greeke Poets, who speaking of the Moone, saies thus, [...], Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13 That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses in it. To him assented Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, Demo­critus, Ibid. c. 25. and Heraclitus, all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like to our earth, contai­ning Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9. in it many large fields, cham­pion grounds, and divers inhabi­tants, unto these agreed Pythago­ras, who thought that our earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne, (as De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13. Aristotle relates it of him) and the Pythagoreans in generall did af­firme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she was inhabited [Page 81] as this lower world, That those li­ving creature, & plants which are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours: viz. by 15. times. This Pythagoras Plut. ibid. cap. 30. was esteemed by all, of a most di­vine wit, as appeares especially by his valuation amongst the Romans, who being cōmanded by the Ora­cle to erect a statue to the wisest Graecian, the Senate determined Pythagoras to be meant, preferring Plin. Nat. Hist. l 34. cap. 6. him in their judgements before the divine Socrates, whom their Gods pronounc'd the wisest. Some think him a Jew by birth, but most agree that hee was much conversant a­mongst the learneder sort, and Priests of that Nation, by whom he was informed of many secrets, and perhaps, this opinion, w^ch he vented afterwards in Greece, where he was much opposed by Aristotle in some worded disputations, but never confuted by any solid reason.

To this opinion of Pythagoras [Page 82] did Plato also assent, when hee considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this, that it had no light of its owne, Plat. de con­viviis. Macreb. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. c. 11. that it was so full of spots. And therefore wee may often reade in him and his followers, of an aetherea terra, and lunares populi, an aethereall earth, and inhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with many ridiculous fancies: for some of them conside­ring the mysteries implied in the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily be a Trinity of worlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whose element of water is represented by the spheare of Mercury, the aire by Venus, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe might the better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that Mars shall be a spheare of the fire, Iupiter of aire, Saturne of water; and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious [Page 83] and pleasant places appointed for the habitation of those unsported soules, that either never were im­prisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any commerce Exercit. 62. with the body. Scaliger speaking of this Platonick fancie, quae intres trientes mundum quasi assem divi­sit, thinks 'tis confutation enough, to say, 'tis Plato's. However for the first part of this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of the grossenesse and in­equality of this planet, ' [...]was fre­quently called quasi terra coelestis, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those De facie Lu­nae. purer bodies, you may see this proved by Plutarch, in that de­lightfull work which he properly made for the confirmation of this Instit. ad discip. Plat. Coel. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4. particular. With him agreed Al­cinous and Plotinus, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfect testimony of Mahomet, whose authority of grant can adde but little credit to this opinion, [Page 84] because hee was an ignorant im­poster, but yet consider that ori­ginall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge, and then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probability. Hee is commonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the Jewes in the secrets of their philosophy and, perhaps, learned this from those Rabbies, for in Azoara. 57. & 65. his Alcaron, hee talkes much of mountaines, pleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he was for the maine very unlearned, hee was not able to de­liver any thing so distinctly as he was informed. The Cardinall Cu­sanus Cusa. de dect. ign. l. 2. cap. 12. and Iornandus Brunus, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he saies, it is stella quae­dam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & di­versam ab omnibus aliis stellis; a noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all [Page 85] the rest. Unto this Nichol. Hill, a country man of ours was inclined, when hee said Astrea terrae natura Philos. epi­cur. part. 434. probabilis est: That 'tis probable the earth hath a starry nature.

But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by Maslin Keplar, and Galilaeus, each of them late wri­ters, and famous men for their sin­gular In Thesibus dissertatio cum Nic. Hill. Nunci­us Sydereus. skill in Astronomy. As for those workes of Maeslin and Kep­lar wherein they doe more expres­ly treate of this opinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However their opinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and the testimony of others concerning them. But Julius Caesar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimo­ny whom I now cite for this opi­nion, viz. Keplar and Galilaeus De phaenom. lunae. c. 4. affirmes that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this, and as for any such world, he assu­redly [Page 86] knowes they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then his pretended knowledge.

'Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the maine scope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as any indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure Campanella (a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as Caesar was) would never have writ an apolo­gie for him. And besides 'tis very likely if it had beene but a jest, Galilaeus would never have suffe­red so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge which hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confi­dence (I say not presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse in them may well derogate from Cap. 7. his credit in this. For speaking of Ptolome's Hypothesis he pronoun­ces this verdict, Impossibile est ex­centricorum [Page 87] & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquus est ex Mathematicis adeo stultis qui veram illam existi­met. The position of Excen­trickes and Epicycles is altogether impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to thinke it true. I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any other Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematickes, as to deny that any good Author held this. For I would faine know whether there were never any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there were such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplied; if so, then Caesar la Calla was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are equally true, that Galilaeus and Keplar did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other.

But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observa­tion of Galilaeus, the inventor of [Page 88] that famous perspective, whereby we may discerne the Heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others have formerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discovered beyond ex­ception or doubt, of which admi­rable invention, these latter ages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated by posterity. 'Tis related of Eudoxus, that hee wished himselfe burnt with Phaeton, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its nature; had hee lived in these daies, hee might have enjoyed his wish at an easier rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainely have discerned what hee so much desired. Keplar conside­ring those strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose but cry out in a [...] and rapture of admi­ration. O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextra tenet, ille non dominus [Page 89] constitnatur operum Dei? And Io­hannes De macula in sole obser. Fabrieius an elegant wri­ter, speaking of the same glasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, sayes thus; Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronun­ciatu de missam represent âsse putan­tur nos non tantum innocenter de­mittamus, sed etiam familiuri quo­dam intuitu ejus quasi conditionem intueamur. So much are wee above the ancients, that whereas they were faine by their magicall charmes to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a more familiar view be­hold her condition. And because you shall have no occasion to que­stiō the truth of those experiments, which I shall afterwards urge from it; I will therefore setdowne the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beene ac­counted [Page 90] prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed Caesar la De phaenom. cap. 1. Galla, whose words are these: Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum vero novum Jovis interpretem Telescopio caducaeo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas videt & admiratur. Wise antiquity fabled Mercury carry­ing a rodde in his hand to relate newes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hath been the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire Galilaeus the new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his per­spective to unfold the nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient Philosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of this excellent in­vention.

Now if you would know what [Page 91] might bee done by this glasse, in the sight of such things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you, when he sayes, that by it those things which could ibid. c. 5. scarce at all bee discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might plainely and di­stinctly be perceived for 16 Ita­lian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre with these eyes which Gali­laeus hath bestowed upon us, as Lynceus could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the Cap. 1. same Author may confirme you, when he sayes they were shewed, Non u [...]i aut alteri, sed quamplu­rimis, ne (que) gregariis hominibus, sed praecipuis at (que) disciplinis omnibus, [Page 92] ne [...]on Mathematicis & opticis praeceptis, optimè instructis sedulâ ac diligenti inspectione. Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well vers'd in Mathematickes and Opticks, and that not with a meere glance, but with a sedulous and dili­gent inspection. And least any scruple might remaine unanswe­red, or you might thinke the men who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. Hee addes that it was shewed, vires qui Cap. 5. ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant. To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of con­tradiction. Thus you may see the certainety of those experi­ments which were taken by this glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall bor­row many things in my farther [Page 93] discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.

I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition that it might pro­bably be deduced from the tenents of others: such were Aristarchus, Philolaus and Copernicus, with many other later writers who as­sented to their hypothesis, so Ioach. Rlelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert, and (if I may believe Campanella) Innu­meri Apologia pro Galilaeo. alii Angli & Galli. Very many others, both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to bee one of the Planets, and the Sunne to be the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move, and how horid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or obser­vation in Opticks (saith Pena) that can disprove it.

Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them) then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?

Thus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceede farther, 'tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shall follow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World in the Moone.

The order by which I shall be guided will be that which Arista­tle à 10. cap. ad 10m. uses in his booke De mundo (if that booke were his.)

First, [...] of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the elementary and aethereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong to the elementary contro­versie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, [...], of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.

Proposition 7. That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may bee di­stinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea and Land in that other World.

FOr the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first rec­kon up and refute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of those spots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion, and how agreeable it is to that truth, which is most commonly received; as for the opinions of other concer­ning these, they have beene very many, I will only reckon up those which are common and remark­able.

Some there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any de­formity [Page 96] of the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance discerne an equall light in that planet, but these doe but one­ly say it, and shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others thinke that there are some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping off the So Bede in li. de Mund. constit. lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots which we there discerne.

Others would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here below represēted there as in a loo­king-glasse. But none of those fan­cies can be true, because the spots are still the same, and not varied according to the difference of pla­ces, and besides, Cardan thinks it is impossible that any image should De subtil. lib. 3. be conveyed so farre as there to be represented unto us at such a distance, but tis commonly related of Pythagoras, that he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexiō of the same species, would [Page 97] make those letters to appeare in the circle of the Moone, where they should be legible by any o­ther, who might at that time be some miles distant from him. Occulta-ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6. A­grippa affirmes this to be possible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, with some others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like meanes performe those strange conclusi­ons which hee professes in his Nuncius inanimatus, where hee pretends that hee can informe his friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant, forte etiam, vel miliare millesimum, they are his owne words, and, perhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minutes space, or little more, quicker than the Sunne can move.

Now, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot conceive, unlesse it be carried with the light, then which wee know not any thing quicker; but of this onely by the way; [Page 98] however, whether those images can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are not such representations. Some thinke that when God had at first created too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow the rest, he placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkened it in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient con­futation, since it so much detracts from the divine power and wise­dome.

The Plut. de placit. phil. l. 2. c. 25. Stoicks held that Planet to be mixed of fire and aire, and in their opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots: Anaxagoras thought all the starres to be of an earthly nature, mixed with some fire, and as for the Sunne, he affirmed it to be no­thing else but a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the Atheni­ans Joseph [...] l. 2. con. App. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 41. sentenc'd him to death; those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy, to make their [Page 99] God a stone, whereas notwithstan­ding, they were so senslesse in their adoration of Idols, as to make a stone their God, this Anaxagoras affirmed the Moone to be more terrestriall then the other, but of a greater purity then any thing here below, and the spots hee thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with the light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above de­stroyed the supposition on which this fancy is grounded: Pliny Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9. thinkes they arise from some dros­sie stuffe, mixed with that moy­sture which the Moone attracts unto her selfe, but hee was of their opinion who thought the starres were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonly see refuted in the Com­mentators on the bookes, d [...] Coelo.

Vitellio and Reinoldus affirme Opt. lib. 9. comment. in Purb. pag. 164. the spots to be the thicket parts of the Moone, into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light, [Page 100] and this (say they) is the reason, why in the Sunnes eclipses, the spots and brighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, be­cause the Sunne beames are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, as they may through the thinner parts of that Planet. Of this opinion also was Caesar la Galla, whose words are these, The Moone doth there appeare Ex qua par­te luna est transpicua nonsolum secundum superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus cla­ra, ex qua autem parte opaca est, ea­tenus obscu­ra videtur. De Ph [...]nom. cap. 11. clearest, where shee is transpi­cuous, not onely through the superficies, but the substance also, and there she seemes spot­ted, where her body is most opacous. The ground of this his assertion was, because hee thought the Moone did receive and bestow her light by illu­mination onely, and not at all by reflexion, but this, to­gether with the supposed pene­tration of the Sunne beames, and the perspicuity of the Moones body I have above answered and refuted.

The more common and gene­rall opinion is, that the spots are Albert. mag. de Coaevis. Q. 4. Art. 21. Colleg. Con. the thinner parts of the Moone, which are lesse able to reflect the beames that they receive from the Sunne, and this is most agreeable to reason; for if the starres are therefore brightest, because they are thicker and more solid then their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts of the Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thickenesse. It was the providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to have these spots within it, for since that is neerest to those lower bodies which are so full of defor­mity, 'tis requisite that it should in some measure agree with them, and as in this inferiour world the higher bodies are the most com­pleat, so also in the heavens per­fection is ascended unto by de­grees, and the Moone being the lowest, must be the least pure, and De Somniis. therefore Philo the Jew interpre­ting [Page 102] Iacobs dreame concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory shew, how that in the fabricke of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher, and this is the reason (saith hee) why the Moone doth not consist of any pure simple matter, but is mixed with aire, which shewes so darke­ly within her body.

But this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true that nature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it as true that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office to which shee intends it. Now, had she intended the Moone meer­ly to reflect the Sunne beames and give light, the spots then had not so much argued her providence, as her unskilfulnesse and imperfecti­on, as if in the haste of her worke Scalig. ex­ercit. 62. shee could not tell how to make that body exactly fit, for that office to which she appointed it.

Tis likely then that she had some [Page 103] other end which moved her to produce this variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it a fit body for habitation with the same conveniences of sea and land, as this inferiour world doth partake of. For since the Moone is such a vast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved) why may it not be probable, that those thin­ner and thicker parts appearing in her doe shew the difference be­twixt the sea and land in that other world; and Galilaeus doubts not, but that if our earth were visible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it.

As for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke they re­present a man, and the Poets guesse tis the boy Endimion, whose com­pany she loves so well, that shee carries him with her, others will have it onely to be the face of a man as the Moone is usually pictu­red, but Albertus thinkes rather, [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104] that it represents a Lyon with his taile towards the East, and his head the West, and Euscbius Nioremb. Hist. Nat. lib. 8. c. 15. some others have thought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly 'tis, as much like a Lyon as that in the Zodiake, or as Ʋrsa major is like a Beare.

I should guesse that it repre­sents one of these as well as ano­ther, and any thing else as well as any of these, since 'tis but a strong imagination, which fancies such images as schoole-boyes usu­sual'y do in the markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such simi­litude in the spots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in re­spect of the land, appeares under a rugged and confused figure, and do [...]h not represent any distinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the forme it may be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may shew the distinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world.

Proposition. 8. The spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land.

VVHen I first compared the nature of our earth and water with those appearances in the Moone; I concluded contrary to the proposition, that the brigh­ter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; of this opi­nion likewise was Keplar at the first, but my second thoughts, and the reading of others, have now Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9. Dissert. cum nuncio Gal. convinced me (as after he was) of the truth of that proposition which I have now see downe. But before I come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those seruples which at first made mee doubt of the truth of this opinion.

1. It may be objected, 'tis pro­bable, if there be any such sea and land as ours, that it bears some pro­portion and similitude with ours: but now this proposition takes a­way [Page 106] all likenesse betwixt them, for whereas the superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in the globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as Scaliger observes) yet here according to this opinion, the Exercit. 38. Sea should be lesse then the land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as there is of the enligh­tened parts, wherfore 'tis probable, that either there is no such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea.

2. The water, by reason of the smoothnesse of its superficies, seemes better able to reflect the Sun beames then the earth, which in most places is so full of rugged­nesse of grasse and trees, and such like impediments of reflexion, and besides, cōmon experience shewes, that the water shines with a grea­ter and more glorious brightnesse then the earth, therefore it should seeme that the spots are the earth, and the brighter parts the water.

But to the first it may be an­swered.

1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because 'tis so with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moone, for since there is such a difference betwixt them in divers other re­spects, they may not perhaps agree in this.

2. That assertion of Sculiger is De Meteoris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1. not by all granted for a truth. Fro­mondus with others thinke that the superficies of the Sea and Land in so much of the world as is alrea­dy discovered is equall and of the same extension.

3. The Orbe of thicke and va­porous ayer which incompasses the Moone, makes the brighter parts of that Planet appeare big­ger then in themselves they are; as I shall shew afterwards.

To the second it may be answe­red, that though the water be of a smooth superficies, and so may seeme most fit to reverberate the [Page 108] light, yet because 'tis of a perspi­cuous nature, therefore the beames must sinke into it, and cannot so strongly and clearely be reflected. Sicut in speculo ubi plumbum abra­sum fuerit, (saith Cardan) as in Looking-glasses where part of the lead is razed of, and nothing left behind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe through and not backe againe; so it is where the beames penetrate and sinke into the substance of the body, there cannot be such an im­mediate and strong reflexion as when they are beate backe from the superficies, and therefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land then upon the water. Now as for that experi­ment where tis sayd, that the wa­ters have a greater brightnesse then the Land: I answere, 'tis true onely there where they re­present the image of the Sunne or some bright cloud, and not in other places, as is very [Page 109] plaine by common observation.

So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this proposition may remaine true, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Of this opinion was Plutarch: unto him assented Kep­lar and Galilaeus, whose words are these, Si quis veterum Pytha­goreorum sententiam exuscitare De facielun. Dissertatio. Nunc. Syd. velit, lunam scilicet esse quasi tellu­rem alteram, ejus pars lucidior ter­renam superficiem, obscurior verò aqueam magis congruè repraesentet Mihi autem dubium fuit nunquam terrestris globi à longè conspecti, at (que) aradiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem, obscuriorem vero aqueam sese in conspectum daturam. If any man have a mind to renue the opinion of the Pythagoreans, that the Moone is another earth, then her brighter parts may fitly re­present the earths superficies, and the darker part the water: and for my part, I never doubted [Page 110] but that our earthly globe being shined upon by the Sunne, and beheld at a great distance, the Land would appeare brightest and the Sea more obscurely. The reasons may be

1. That which I urged about the foregoing chapter, because the water is the thinner part, and ther­fore must give lesse light.

2, Because observation tels us, that the spotted parts are alwaies smooth and equall, having every where an equality of light when once they are enlightned by the Sunne, whereas the brighter parts are full of rugged gibbosities and mountaines having many shades in them, as I shall shew more at large afterwards.

That in this Planet there must be Seas, Campanella indeavours to Apologia pro Galilaeo. prove out of Scripture interpre­ting the waters above the Firma­ment, spoken of in Genesis to bee meant of the Sea in this world. For (saith he) 'tis not likely that [Page 111] there are any such waters above the Orbes to moderate that heate which they receive from their swift motion (as some of the Fa­thers thinke) nor did Moses meane the Angels which may be called Confession. l. 13. c. 32. spirituall waters, as Origen and Austin would have it, for both these are rejected by the generall consent: Nor could he meane any waters in the second region, as most Commentators interpret it. For first there is nothing but va­pours, which though they are afterwards turned into water, yet while they remaine there, they are onely the matter of that ele­ment, which may as well be fire or earth or ayre. 2. Those vapours are not above the expansum but in it. So that hee thinkes there is no other way to salve all, but by ma­king the Planets severall worlds with Sea & Land with such Rivers and Springs as we have here be­low: Especially since Esdras 2. Esdr. 4. 7. speakes of the springs above the [Page 112] Firmament, but I cannot agree with him in this, nor doe I thinke that any such thing can be proved out of Scripture.

Before I proceede to the next position, I shall first answer some doubts which might be made a­gainst the generalitie of this truth, whereby it may seeme impossible that there should be either Sea or Land in the Moone; for since she moves so swiftly as Astronomers observe, why then does there no­thing fall from her, or why doth shee not shake something out by the celerity of her revolution? I answere, you must know that the inclination of every heavy body to its proper Center doth suffici­ently tie it unto its place, so that suppose any thing were separated, yet must it necessarily returne a­gaine, and there is no more danger of their falling into our world then there is feare of our falling into the Moone.

But yet there are many fabulous [Page 113] relations of such things as have dropped thence. There is a tale of the Nemean Lyon that Hercu­les slew, which first rushing a­mong the heards out of his un­knowne den in the Mountaine of Cytheron in Boeotia, the credulous people thought he was sent from their Goddesse the Moone. And if a whirle-winde did chance to snatch any thing up, and after­wards raine it downe againe, the ignorant multitude are apt to be­lieve that it dropt from Heaven. Thus Avicenna relates the story of a Calfe which fell downe in a storme, the beholders thinking it a Moon-calfe, and that it fell thence. So Cardan travelling upon the Apennine Mountaines, a sudden blast tooke off his hat, which if it had beene carryed farre, he thinks the peasants who had perceived it to fall, would have sworne it had rained hats. After some such man­ner many of our prodigies come to passe, and the people are wil­ling [Page 114] to believe any thing, which they may relate to others as a very strange and wonderfull event. I doubt not but the Trojan Palladi­um, the Romane Minerva, and our Ladies Church at Loretto, with many sacred reliques preser­ved by the Papists might droppe from the Moone as well as any of these.

But it may be againe objected, suppose there were a bullet shot up in that world, would not the Moone runne away from it, before it could fall downe, since the mo­tion of her body (being every day round our earth) is farre swifter than the other, and so the bullet must be left behind, and at length fall downe to us. To this I answer,

1. If a bullet could bee shot so farre till it came to the circumfe­rence of those things which belong to our center, then it would fall downe to us.

2. Though there were some [Page 115] heavie body a great height in that ayer, yet would the motion of its center by an attractive vertue still holds it within its convenient di­stance, so that whether their earth moved or stood still, yet would the same violence cast a body from it equally farre. That I may the plainer expresse my meaning, I will set downe this Diagramme.

Suppose this earth were A, which was to move in the circle C, D. and let the bullet be suppo­sed at B. within its proper verge; I say, whether this earth did stand stil or move swiftly towards D, yet the bullet would still keepe at the same distance by reason of that Magneticke vertue of the center (if I may so speake) whereby all things within its spheare are at­tracted [Page 117] with it. So that the vio­lence to the bullet, being nothing else but that whereby 'tis remo­ved from its center, therefore an equall violence can carry a body from its proper place, but at an equall distance whether or no the center stand still or move.

The impartiall Reader may finde sufficient satisfaction for this and such other arguments as may be urged against the motion of that earth in the writings of Coperni­cus and his followers, unto whom for brevities sake I will referre them.

Proposition 9. That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plaines in the body of the Moone.

THough there are some who thinke Mountaines to bee a deformity to the earth, as if they [Page 118] were either beate up by the flood, or else cast up like so many heaps of rubbish left at the creation, yet if well considered, they will bee found as much to conduce to the beauty and conveniency of the universe as any of the other parrs. Nature (saith Pliny) purposely Nat. hist. l. 36. c. 1. framed them for many excellent uses: partly to tame the violence of greater Rivers, to strengthen certaine joynts within the veines and bowels of the earth, to break the force of the Seas inundation, and for the safety of the earths inhabitants, whether beasts or men. That they make much for the protection of beasts the Psalmist Psal. 104. v. 18. testifies, The highest hils are a re­fuge for the wild goates, and the rockes for conies. The Kingly Pro­phet had learned the safety of these by his owne experience, when hee also was faine to make a mountaine his refuge from the fury of his Master Saul, who per­secuted him in the wildernesse.

True indeed, such places as these keepe their neighbours poore, as being most barren, but yet they preserve them safe, as being most strong, witnesse our unconquered Wales and Scotland, whose grea­test protection hath beene the naturall strength of their Coun­trey, so fortified with Mountaines, that these have alwaies beene unto them sure retraites from the vio­lence and oppression of others, wherefore a good Authour doth rightly call them natures bul­warkes cast up at God Almigh­ties owne charges, the scornes and, curbes of victorious armies, which made the Barbarians in Curtius so confident of their owne safety, when they were once retired to an inaccessible mountaine, that when Alexanders Legate had brought them to a parley and per­swading them to yeeld, told them of his masters victories, what Seas and Wildernesses he had pas­sed, they replied that all that might [Page 120] be, but could Alexander fly too? Over the Seas he might have ships, and over the land horses, but hee must have wings before hee could get up thither. Such safety did those barbarous nations conceive in the mountaines whereunto they were retyred, certainly then such usefull parts were not the effect of mans si [...]ne, or produced by the Worlds cu [...]se the flood, but rather at the first created by the good­nesse and providence of the Al­mighty.

So that if I intend to prove that the Moone is such a habitable world as this is, 'tis requisite that I shew it to have the same conve­niences of habitation as this hath, and here if some Rabbi or Chy­mick were to handle the point they would first prove it out of Scripture, from that place in Moses his blessing, where hee Deut. 33. 15. speakes of the ancient moun­taines and last [...]ng hills, Deut. 33. [...] [Page 121] for having immediately before mentioned those blessings which should happen unto Joseph by the influence of the Moone, he does presently exegetically iterate them in blessing him with the chiefe things of the ancient mountaines and lasting hills; you may also see the same expression used in Iacobs blessing of Ioseph. Gen. 49. 26.

But however we may deale pro or con in Philosophy, yet we must not j [...]st with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronize any fancy of our owne, though, per­haps, it be a truth. For the better proofe of this proposition, I might here cite the testimony of Diodo­rus, who thought the Moone to be full of rugged places, vel ut terrestribus tumulis superciliosam, but he erred much in some circum­stances of this opinion, espicially where hee saies, there is an Iland amongst the Hyperboreans, where­in those hills may to the eye be plainly discovered, and for this [Page 122] reason Lect. aut l. 1. cap. 15. Plut. de plac. l. 2. c. 25. Caelius calls him a fabu­lous Writer, but you may see more expresse authority for the proofe of this in the opinions of Anaxa­goras and Democritus, who held that this Planet was full of cham­pion grounds, mountains and val­lies, De coelo. l. 2. part. 49. and this seemed likewise pro­bable unto Augustinus Nifus, whose words are these: Forsitan non est remotum dicere lunae partes esse diversas, veluti sunt partes ter­rae, quarum aliae sunt vallosae, aliae montosae, ex quarum differentia ef­fici pot [...]st facies illa lunae; nec est rae­tioni dissonum, nam luna est corpus imperfectè Sphaericum, cum sit cor­pus ab ultimo coelo elongatum, ut supra dixit Aristoteles. Perhaps, it would not be amisse to say that the parts of the Moone were divers, as the parts of this earth, whereof some are vallies, and some mountaines, from the difference of which, some spots in the Moone may proceed; nor is this against reason, for that [Page 123] Planet cannot be perfectly sphe­ricall, since 'tis so remote a bod [...] from the first orbe, as Aristotle had said before. You may see this truth assented unto by Blanca­nus De Mundi fab. pars 3 [...]. c. 4. the Jesuit, and by him confir­med with divers reasons. Keplar hath observed in the Moones Astron. Opt. c. 6. num. 9 eclipses, that the division of her inlightened part from the shaded, was made by a crooked unequall line, of which there cannot be any probable cause conceived, unlesse it did arise from the ruggednesse of that planet, for it cannot at all be produc'd from the shade of any moūtains here upon earth, because these would be so lessened before they could reach so high in a coni­call shadow, that they would not be at all sensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated) nor can it be conceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sunne. Wherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to doe in eclipses, we must necessa­rily [Page 124] conclude, that it is caused by a variety of parts in the Moone it selfe, and what can there be but its gibbosities? Now if you should aske a reason why there should be such a multitude of these in that Planet, the same Keplar shall jest you out an answer, for supposing (saith hee) those inhabitants are [...]gger than any of us in the same proportion, as their daies are lon­ger than ours, vix. by fifteen times it may be for want of stones to erect such vast houses as were re­quisite for their bodies, they are faine to digge great and round hollowes in the earth, where they may both procure water for their thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those great heats which otherwise they would be liable unto; or if you will give Caesar la Galla leave to guesse in the same manner, he would rather think that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so great heaps of earth in digging of their wine cel­lars, [Page 125] but this onely by the way.

I shall next produce the eye witnesse of Galilaeus, on which I Nuncius Sydereus. most of all depend for the proofe of this Proposition, when he be­held the new Moone through his perspective it appeared to him under a rugged & spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightned parts divided by a tor­tuous line, having some parcells of light at a good distance from the other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily perceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are commonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what I deliver, I will set downe the Figure as I find it in Galilaeus:

Suppose A B C D to repre­sent the appearande of the Moones body being in a sextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distance from the other, which can be nothing else but a reflexion of the Sunne beames up­on some parts that are higher then the rest, and those obscure gibbo­sities [Page 127] which stand out towards the enlightened parts must be such hollow and deepe places where­to the rayes cannot reach, but when the Moone is got farther off from the Sunne, and come to that fulnesse, as this line B D doth re­present her under, then doe these parts also receive an equall light, excepting onely that difference which doth appeare betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consi­der how any rugged body would appeare, being enlightened, you would easily conceive that it must necessarily seeme under some such gibbous unequall forme, as the Moone is here represented. Now for the infalibility of these appea­rances, I shall referre the reader to that which hath beene said in the 6^th. Proposition.

But Caesar la Galla affirmes, that all these appearances may consast with a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to be some of them, Diaphanous, and [Page 128] some opacous; and if you object that the light which is convayed to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficies must be by a continued line, whereas here there appeare many brighter parts among the ob­scure at some distance from the rest. To this hee answers, it may arise from some secret conveiances and channels within her body, that doe consist of a more diaphanous matter which being covered over with an opacous superficies, the light passing through them may breake out a great way off, where­as the other parts betwixt may still remaine darke. Just as the River Arethusa in Sicily which runnes under ground for a great way, and afterwards breakes out againe. But because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby hee thinkes hee hath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore set downe his an­swere in his owne words, least the Reader might suspect more in [Page 129] them then I have expressed. Non Cap. 11. est impossibile coecos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opacd su­perficie protendi, us (que) in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c. But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two en­lightened parts remaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwaies be darke, and the Sunne could not make it partake of light more then it could of perspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in Galilaeus, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes nearer to his opposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightned as well as ei­ther. Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse, for he confesses him­selfe that he saw this by the glasse. He had said before that he came to see those strange sights disco­vered by Galilaeus his glasse with an intent of contradiction, and you [Page 130] may reade that confirmed in the weakenesse of this answere, which rather bewrayes an obsti­nate then a perswaded will, for otherwise sure hee would never have undertooke to have destroy­ed such certaine proofes with so groundlesse a fancy.

But it may bee objected, that ' [...]is almost impossible, and altoge­ther unlikely that in the Moone there should be any mountaines so high as those observations make them, for doe but suppose accor­ding to the common principles, that the Moones diameter unto the Earths is very neere to the proportion of 2. to 7, suppose withall that the Earths diameter containes about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moones 2000 (as is commonly granted) now Gali­laeus hath observed that some parts have been enlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant from the com­mon terme of illumination, so that [Page 131] hence it must necessarily follow that there may bee some Moun­taines in the Moone so high, that they are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that sounds like a prodigie or a fiction; wherefore 'tis likely that either those appearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountaines, or else those are fallible obser­vations, from whence may follow such improbable inconceiveable consequences.

But to this I answere:

1. You must consider the heighr of the Mountaines is but very little, if you compare them to the length of their shadowes. S^r. Wal­ter Hist. l. 1. c. 7. §. 11. Rawleigh observes that the Mount Athes now called Lacas casts its shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount is none of the highest, nay Solinus (whom I should ra­ther Poly. histor. c. 21. believe in this kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his sha­dow quite over the Sea, from [Page 132] Macedon to the Ile of Lemnos which is 700 furlongs or 84 miles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4 miles upwards, in its perpendicu­lar height.

2. I affirme that there are very high Mountaines in the Moone. Keplar and Galilaeus thinke that they are higher than any which are upon our earth. But I am not of their opinion in this, because I suppose they goe upon a false ground whilst they conceive that the highest mountaine upon the earth is not above a mile perpen­dicular.

Whereas 'tis the common opi­nion and found true enough by observation, that Olympus, Atlas, Taurus and E [...]us, with many others are much above this height. Tenariffa in the Canary Ilands is proved by computation to bee a­bove 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height is the mount Hist. l. 1. c. 7. §. 11. Perjacaca in America: S^r. Walter [Page 133] Rawleigh seeme [...] to thinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles upright: nay Aristotle spea­king Meteor. l. 1. c. 11. of Caucasus in Asia, affirmes it to bee visible for 560 miles, as some interpreters finde by compu­tation, from which it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicu­larly high, as you may see con­firmed Comparatio Arist. cum Platone Sect. 3. c. 5. by Jacobus Mazonius, and out of him in Blancanus the Je­suite. But this deviates from the truth more in excesse then the o­ther Exposi. in loc. Math. Arlis. loc. 148. doth in defect. However though these in the moone are not so high as some amongst us, yet certaine it is they are of a great height, and some of them at the least foure miles perpendicular. This I shall prove from the ob­servation of Galilaeus, whose glasse can shew this truth to the senses, a proofe beyond exception and cer­taine that man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not believe his owne eye.

By that perspective you may [Page 134] plainely discerne some enlightned parts (which are the mountaines) to be distant from the other about the twentieth part of the diame­ter. From whence it will follow, that those mountaines must neces­sarily be at the least foure Italian miles in height.

For let BDEF be the body of the moone, ABC will be a ray or beame of the Sunne, which enlightens a mountaine at A and [Page 135] B is the point of contingency, the distance betwixt A and B must bee supposed to be the twentieth part of the diameter which is an 100 miles, for so far are some enlighte­ned parts severed from the com­mon terme of illumination. Now the aggregate of the quadrate from A B a hundred, and B G a 1000 will bee 1010000, unto which the quadra [...]e arising from A G must be equall according to the 47^th proposition in the first booke of elements. Therefore the whole line A G is somewhat more than 104, and the di­stance betwixt H A must be above 4 miles, which was the thing to be proved.

But it may be againe objected, if there be such rugged parts, and so high mountaines, why then cannot wee discerne them at this distance, why doth the moone ap­peare unto us so exactly round, and not rather as a wheele with teeth?

I answere, by reason of too great a distance, for if the whole body appeare to our eye so little, then those parts which beare so small a proportion to the whole will not at all be sensible.

But it may be replied, if there were any such remarkeable hils, why does not the limbe of the moone appeare like a wheele with teeth to those who looke upon it through the great per­spective on whose witnesse you so much depend? or what reason is there that she appeares as exactly round through it as shee doth to the bare eye? certainely then either there is no such thing as you ima­gine, or else the glasse failes much in this discovery.

To this I shall answere out of Galilaeus.

1. You must know that there is not meerely one ranke of moun­taines about the edge of the moone, but divers orders, one mountaine behind another, and [Page 137] so there is somewhat to hinder those void spaces which other­wise, perhaps, might appeare.

Now where there be many hils, the ground seemes even to a man that can see the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves are lifted up, yet all may appeare plaine enough to one that stands at the shore. So where there are so many hils, the inequa­lity will be lesse remarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.

2. Though there be mountains in that part which appeares unto us, to be the limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the bright vapours hide their ap­pearance: for there is an orbe of thicke vaporous aire that doth immediatly compasse the body of the Moone, which though it have not so great opacity, as to termi­nate the sight, yet being once en­lightened by the Sunne, it doth re­pres [...]nt the body of the Moone under a greater forme, and hinders [Page 138] our fight from a distinct view of her true circumference. But of this in the next Chapter.

I have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moone, and hence it may seeme likely that there is also a world, for since pro­vidence hath some speciall end in all its workes, certainly then these mountaines were not produced in vaine, and what more probable meaning can wee conceive there should be, than to make that place convenient for habitation.

Proposition 10. That there is an Atmo-sphaera, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire, immediately incompassing the bo­dy of the Moone.

AS that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thicker substance than the other, by reason tis alwaies mixed with [Page 139] some vapours, which are continu­ally exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, that if there be a world in the Moone, that the aire about that should be alike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orbe of grosse aire, was first of all (for ought I can reade) observed by Meslin, afterwards assented un­to by Keplar and Galilaeus, and Vide Ruseb. Nierem. de Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 11. since by Baptista Cisatus, Sheiner with others, all of them confir­ming it by the same arguments which I shall onely cite, and then leave this Proposition.

1. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightened, is alwaies part of a bigger circle then that which is darker. Their fre­quent experience hath proved this, and an easie observation may quickely confirme it. But now this cannot proceede from any o­ther cause so probable, as from this orbe of aire, especially when we consider how that planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not [Page 140] send forth any such rayes as may make her appearance bigger then her body.

2. 'Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a great trepi­dation about the body of the Moone, from which we may like­wise argue an Atmo-sphaera, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a cause there should be of such an appearance as this, Quod radii Solares à vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint intercisi, that the Sun beames were broken and Scheiner. Ros. Vrs. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27. refracted by the vapours that en­compassed the Moone.

3. I may adde the like argu­ment taken from another observa­tion which will be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, wee discerne the Moone as shee is i [...] her owne naturall big­nesse, but then she appeares some­what lesse then when shee is in the full, though she be in the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle, and therefore Tycho [Page 141] hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the divers new Moones. But now there is no reason so probable to salve this appearance, as to place an or be of thicker aire, neere the body of that Planet, which may be en­lightened by the reflected beames, and through which the directraies may easily penetrate.

But some may object that this will not consist with that which was before delivered, where I said, that the thinnest parts had least light.

If this were true, how comes it to passe then, that this aire should be as bright as any of the other parts, when as tis the thin­nest of all?

I answer, if the light be re­ceived by reflection, then the thickest body hath most, because it is best able to beate backe the raies, but if the light be received by illumination (especially if there be an opacous body behinde, [Page 142] which may double the beames by reflexion) as it is here, then I de­ny not but a thinne body may re­taine much light, and perhaps, some of those appearances which wee take for fiery comets, are no­thing else but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there may be such aire without the Moone, and hence it comes to passe, that the greater spots are onely visible towards her middle parts, and none neere the cir­cumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts as else where, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of those brighter vapours which hide them.

Proposition. 11. That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone.

I Have already handled the first thing that I promised accor­ding to the Method which Ari­stotle uses in his Booke de Mundo, and shew'd you the necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moone. In the next place 'tis requisite that I proceed to those things which are extrinsecall un­to it, as the Seasons, the Me­teors, and the Inhabitants.

1. Of the Seasons;

And if there be such a world in the Moone, 'tis requisite then that their seasons should be some way correspondent unto ours, that they should have Winter and Summer, night and day, as wee have.

Now that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and [Page 144] Summer is affirmed by Aristotle De gen. ani­mal. l. 4. 12. himselfe, since there is one hemi­spheare that hath alwaies heate and light, and the other that hath darknesse and cold. True indeed, their daies and yeeres are alwaies of one and the same length, but tis so with us also under the Poles, and therefore that great difference is not sufficient to make it altoge­ther unlike ours, nor can we ex­pect that every thing there should be in the same manner as it is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about her pur­poses. Wee may easily see what great differences there are amongst us, betwixt things of the same Plut. de fac. De naturâ populorum c. 3. kinde. Some men (say they) there are, who can live onely upon smells, without eating any thing, and the same Plant, saith Besoldus, hath sometimes contrary effects. Mandragora which growes in Sy­ria, inflames the lust, wheras Man­dragora which grows in other pla­ces doth coole the blood & q [...]ench lust.

Now if with us there be such great difference betwixt things of the same kinde, we have no reason then to thinke it necessary that both these worlds should be alto­gether alike, but it may suffice if they bee correspondent in some­thing onely, however it may be questioned whether it doth not seeme to be against the wisedome of providence, to make the night of so great a length, when they have such a long time unfit for worke? I answere no, since tis so, and more with us also under the poles; and besides, the gene­rall length of their night is some­what abated in the bignesse of their Moone which is our earth. For this returnes as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it. But for the better proofe of this, I shall first free the way from such opinions as might otherwise hinder the speede of a clearer progresse.

Plutarch one of the chiefe pa­trons Plut. de fac. lunae. [Page 146] trons of this world in the Moone, doth directly contradict this pro­position; affirming, that those who live there may discerne our world as the dregges and sedi­ment of all other creatures, ap­pearing to them through clouds and foggy mists, and that altoge­ther devoid of light, being base and unmoveable, so that they might well imagine the darke place of damnation to be here situate, and that they onely were the inha­biters of the world, as being in the midst betwixt Heaven and Hell.

To this I may answere, 'tis pro­bable that Plutarch spake this inconsiderately, and without a reason, which makes him likewise fall into another absurditie, when he sayes our earth would appeare immoveable, whereas question­lesse though it did not, yet would it seeme to move, and theirs to stand still, as the Land doth to a man in a Shippe; according to [Page 147] that of the Poet:

And I doubt not but that inge­nuous Authour would easily have recanted if hee had beene but ac­quainted with those experiences which men of latter times have found out, for the confirmation of this truth.

2. Unto him assents Macrobius, Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 19. whose words are these; Terra ac­cepto solis lumine clarescit, tantum-modò, non relucet. The earth is by the Sunne-beames made bright, but not able to enlighten any thing so farre. And his reason is, because this being of a thicke and grosse matter, the light is terminated in its superficies, and cannot penetrate into the substance; whereas the moone doth therefore seeme so bright to us, because it receives the beames within it selfe. But the weaknesse of this assertion, may bee easily manifest by a common experience, [Page 148] for polished steele (whose opacity will not give any admittance to the rayes) reflects a stronger heate then glasse, and so consequently a greater light.

3. 'Tis the generall consent of Philosophers, that the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the earth doth not reach much above halfe a mile high, where they terminate the first region, so that to affirme they might ascend to the moone, were to say, there were but one region of aier, which contradicts the proved and recei­ved opinion.

Unto this it may be answered: That it is indeed the common consent, that the reflexion of the Sunne-beames reach onely to the second region, but yet some there are, and those too Philosophers of good note, who thought other­wise. Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4. Thus Plotinus is cited by Caelius, Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis subjiciatur terrae moles aquis cir­cumfusa, [Page 149] & solis syderum (que) radiis illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis modo visatur lunaris globi species. If you did conceive your selfe to bee in some such high place, where you might discerne the whole Globe of the earth and water, when it was enlightned by the Sunnes rayes, 'tis probable [...]t would then appeare to you in the same shape as the moone doth now unto us. Thus also Carolus Malapertius, whose Praefat. ad Austriaca syd. words are these▪ Terra haec nostra si in luna constituti essemus, splen­dida prorsus quasi non ignobilis planeta, nobis appareret. If wee were placed in the moone, and from thence beheld this our earth, it would appeare unto us very bright, like one of the nobler Planets. Unto these doth Fronondus assent, when he sayes, Credo equidem quod si oculus quis­piam in orbe lunari foret, globum Meteor. l. 1. c. 2. Art. 2. terrae & aquae instar ingentis syderis [Page 150] à sole illustrem conspiceret. I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like some great Starre to any one, who should looke upon it from the moone. Now this could not be, nor could it shine so remark­ably, unlesse the beames of light, were reflected from it. And there­fore the same Fromondus expresly holds, that the first region of ayre is there terminated, where the heate caused by reflexion begins to languish, whereas the beames themselves doe passe a great way further. The chiefe argument which doth most plainely mani­fest this truth, is taken from a common observation which may be easily tryed.

If you behold the Moone a little before or after the conjun­ction, when she is in a sextile with the Sunne, you may discerne not onely the part which is enlight­ned, but the rest also to have in it a kind of a duskishlight, but if you [Page 151] chuse out such a scituation, where some house or chimney (being some 70 or 80 paces distant from you) may hide from your eye the enlightned hornes, you may then discerne a greater and more re­markeable shining in those parts unto which the Sunne beames cannot reach; nay there is so great a light, that by the helpe of a good perspective you may dis­cerne its spots. In so much that Blancanus the Jesuite speaking of it sayes, Haec experientia ita me De mundi sab. p. 3 [...]. c. 3. aliquando fe fellit, ut in hunc ful­gorem casu ac repente incidens, ex­istimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore adolescentis lunae factum esse plenilunium. This experiment did once so deceive mee, that happening upon the sight of this brightnesse upon a sudden, I thought that by some new mi­racle the Moone had beene got into her full a little after her change.

But now this light is not proper [Page 152] to the Moone, it doth not proceed from the rayes of the Sunne which doth penetrate her body, nor [...]is it caused by any other of the Pla­nets and Starres. Therefore it must necessarily follow, that it comes from the earth. The two first of these I have already proved, and as for the last, it is confidently affirmed by Caelius, Quod si in l. 20. c. 5. disquisitionem evocet quis, an lunari syderi lucem foenerent planetae item alii, asseveranter astruendum non foenerare. If any should aske whether the other Planets lend any light to the Moone; I answer they doe not. True indeed, the noble Tycho discussing the reason Progym. 1. of this light attributes it to the Planet Ʋenus, and I grant that this may convey some light to the Moone, but that it is not the cause of this whereof wee now discourse, is of it selfe sufficiently plaine, because Ʋenus is sometimes over the Moone, when as shee cannot convey any light to that [Page 153] part which is turned from her.

It doth not proceede from the fixed starres, for then it would re­taine the same light in eclipses, whereas the light at such times is more ruddy and dull. Then also the light of the Moone would not be greater or lesser, according to its distance from the edge of the earths shadow, since it did at all times equally participate this light of the starres.

Now because there is no other body in the whole Universe, save the earth, it remaines that this light must necessarily be caused by that which with a just gratitude repaies to the Moone, such il­lumination as it receives from her.

And as loving friends equally participate of the same joy and griefe, so doe these mutually par­take of the same light from the Sunne, and the same darkenesse from the eclipses, being also seve­rally helped by one another in [Page 194] their greatest wants: For when the Moone is in conjunction with the Sunne, and her upper part re­ceives all the light, then her lower Hemispheare (which would o­therwise be altogether darke) is enlightened by the reflexion of the Sunne beames from the earth. When these two planets are in opposition, then that part of the earth which could not receive any light from the Sunne beames, is most enlightened by the Moone, being then in her full; and as she doth most illuminate the earth when the Sunne beames cannot, so the gratefull earth returnes to her as great, nay greater light when shee most wants it; so that al­waies that visible part of the Moone which receives nothing from the Sunne, is enlightened by the earth, as is proved by Galilaeus, with many more arguments, in that Treatise which he calls Syste­ma mundi. True indeed, when the Moone comes to a quartile, then [Page 155] you can neither discerne this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, but the reason is, be­cause of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. Quip­pe illustratum medium speciem Scal. exerc. 62. recipit valentiorem, the clearer brightnesse involves the wea­ker, it being with the species of sight, as it is with those of sound, and as the greater noise drownes the lesse, so the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But they doe alwaies in their mu­tuall vicissitudes participate of one anothers light; so also doe they partake of the same defects and darknings, for when our Moone is eclipsed, then is their Sunne dar­kened, and when our Sunne is eclipsed, then is their Moone de­prived of its light, as you may see affirmed by Maeslin. Quod si ter­ram Epit. Astro. l. 4. part. 2. nobis ex alto liceret intueri, quemadmodum deficientem lunam ex longinquo spectare possumus, vi­deremus tempore eclipsis solis terrae [Page 156] aliquam partem lumine solis defi­cere, eodem planè modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit, If wee might behold this globe of earth at the same distance as we doe the Moone in her defects, wee might discerne some part of it darkened in the Sunnes eclip­ses, just so as the Moone is in hers. For as our Moone is eclipsed by the interposition of our earth, so is their Moone eclip­sed by the interposition of theirs. The manner of this mutuall illu­mination betwixt these two you may plainly discerne in this Figure following.

Where A represents the Sun, B the Earth, and C the Moone; Now suppose the Moone C to be in a sextile of increase, when there is onely one small part of her body enlightened, then the earth B will have such a part of its visible He­mispheare darkened, as is propor­tionable to that part of the Moone which is enlightened; and as for so much of the Moone, as the Sun beames cannot reach unto, it re­ceives light from a proportionall part of the earth which shines upon it, as you may plainly per­ceive by the Figure.

You see then that agreement and similitude which there is be­twixt our earth and the Moone. Now the greatest difference which makes them unlike, is this, that the Moone enlightens our earth round about, whereas our earth gives light onely to that Hemi­spheare of the Moone which is visible unto us, as may be cer­tainly gathered from the constant [Page 159] appearance of the same spots, which could not thus come to passe, if the Moone had such a di­urnall motion about its own axis, as perhaps our earth hath. And though some suppose her to move in an epicycle, yet this doth not so turne her body round, that we may discerne both Hemispheares, for according to that hypothesis, the motion of her eccentrick, doth turne her face towards us, as much as the other doth from us.

But now if any question what they doe for a Moone who live in the upper part of her body? I answer, the solving of this is the most uncertaine and difficult thing that I know of concerning this whole matter. But yet I will give you two probable con­jectures.

1. Perhaps, the upper Hemi­spheare of the Moone doth receive a sufficient light from those planets about it, and amongst these Venus (it may be) bestowes a more espe­ciall [Page 160] brightnesse, since Galilaeus hath plainly discerned that she suf­fers the same increases and decrea­ses, as the Moone hath, and 'tis probable that this may be per­ceived there without the help of a glasse, because they are farre neerer it than wee. When Venus (saith Keplar) lies downe in the Perige or lower part of her supposed Epicycle, then is she in conjuncti­on with her husband the Sunne, from whom after she hath depar­ted for the space of ten moneths, shee gets plenum uterum, and is in the full.

But you'll reply, though Venus may bestow some light when she is over the Moone, and in conjun­ction, yet being in opposition, she is not visible to them, and what shall they then doe for light?

I answer, then they have none: nor doth this make so great a dif­ference betwixt those two Hemi­spheares as there is with us, be­twixt the places under the poles, [Page 161] and the line, but if this bee not sufficient, then I say in the second place that

2. Perhaps there may be some other enligh [...]ned body above the Moone which we cannot discerne, nor is this altogether improbable because there is almost the like observed in Saturne, who ap­peares through this glasse with two lesser bodies on [...]ach side, which may supply the office of Moones, unto each hemispheare thus:

So in this world also there may be some such body, though wee cannot discerne it, because the Moone is alwaies in a streight line, betwixt our eye and that. Nor is it altogether unlikely that there should bee more moones to one Orbe, because Jupiter also is observed to have foure such [Page 162] bodies that move round about him.

But it may seeme a very difficult thing to conceive, how so grosse and darke a body as our earth, should yeeld such a cleare light as proceedes from the Moone, and therefore the Cardinall de Cusa (who thinkes every Starre to be De doct. ig. l. 2. c. 12. a severall world) is of opinion that the light of the Sunne is not able to make them appeare so bright, but the re [...]son of their shining is, because wee behold them at a great distance through their regions of fire which doe set a shining lustre upon those bodies that of themselves are darke. Vnde si quis esset extra regionem ignis, terra ista in circumferentia suae regionis per medium ignis lucida stella appareret. So that if a man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would appeare through that as a bright Starre. But if this were the onely reason then would the Moone bee [Page 163] freed from such increases and decreases as shee is now lyable unto.

Keplar thinkes that our earth receives that light whereby it shines from the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended cleare brightnesse as the Moone is capable of, and therefore hee guesses, that the earth there is of a more chokie soyle like the Ile of Creete, and so is better able to re­flect a stronger light, whereas our earth must supply this inten [...]ion with the quantity of its body, but this I conceive to be a needlesse conjecture, since our earth if all things were well considered will be sound able enough to reflect as great a light. For

1. Consider its opacity, if you marke these sublunary things, you shall perceive that amongst them, those that are most perspicuous, are not so well able to reverberate the Sunne beames as the thicker bodies. The rayes passe singly [Page 164] through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacous substance they are doubled in their returne and mul­tiplyed by reflexion. Now if the moone and the other Planets can shine so clearely by beating backe the Sunne beames, why may not the earth also shine as well, which agrees with them in the cause of this brightnesse their opacity.

2. Consider what a cleare light wee may discerne refl [...]cted from the earth in the middest of Sum­mer, and withall conceive how much greater that must bee which is under the line, where the rayes are more directly and strongly re­verberated.

3. Consider the great distance at which wee behold the Planets, for this must needs adde much to their shining and therefore Cusa­nus (in the above cited place) thinkes that if a man were in the Sunne, that Planet would not appeare so bright to him, as now [Page 165] it doth to us, because then his eye could discerne but little, whereas here wee may comprehend the beames as they are contracted in a narrow body. Keplar beholding the earth from a high mountaine when it was enlightned by the Sunne confesses that it appeared unto him of an incredible bright­nesse, whereas then the refl [...]cted rayes entered into his sight ob­liquely; but how much brighter would it have appeared if hee might in a direct line behold the whole globe of earth and these rayes gathered together. So that if wee consider that great light which the earth receives from the Sunne in the Summer, and then suppose wee were in the Moone, where wee might s [...]e the whole earth hanging in those vast spaces where there is nothing to termi­nate the sight, but those beames which are there contracted into a little compasse; I say, if wee doe well consider this, wee may easily [Page 166] conceive, that our earth appeares as bright to those other inhabi­tants in the Moone, as theirs doth to us.

Proposition 12. That tis probable there may bee such Meteors belonging to that world in the Moone, as there are with us.

PLutarch discussing this point affirmes that it is not necessary there should be the same meanes of growth and fructifying in both these worlds, since nature might in her policy finde out more waies then one how to bring about the same effect. But however he thinks it is probable that the Moone her selfe sendeth forth warme winds, and by the swiftnesse of her moti­on there should breathe out a sweet and comfortable ayer, plea­sant dewes and gentle moysture, [Page 167] which might serve for the refre­shing and nourishment of the in­habitants and plants in that other world.

But since they have all things alike with us, as sea and land, and vaporous ayer encompassing both, I should rather therefore thinke that nature there should use the same way of producing meteors as she doth with us (and not by a motion as Plutarch supposes) be­cause shee doth not love to vary from her usuall operations with­out some extraordinary impedi­ment, but still keepes her beaten path unlesse she be driven thence.

One argument whereby I shall manifest this truth, may be taken from those new Starres which have appeared in divers ages of the world, and by their paralax have beene discerned to have been above the Moone, such as was that in Cassiopeia, that in Sagitta­rius, with many others betwixt the Planets. Hipparchus in his time [Page 168] tooke especiall notice of such as Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 26 these, and therefore fancied out such constellations in which to place the Starres, shewing how many there were in every aste­ri [...]me, that so afterwards posterity might know, whether there were any new Starre produced or any old one missing. Now the nature of these Comets may probably manifest, that in this other world there are other meteors also; for these in all likelihood are nothing e [...]e but such evaporations caused by the Sunne, from the bodies of the Planets. I shall prove this by shewing the improbabilities and inconveniences of any other opinion.

For the better pursuite of this 'tis in the first place requisite that I deale with our chiefe adversary, Caesar la Galla, who doth most directly oppose that truth which is here to bee proved. Hee en­deavouring to confirme the in­corruptibility of the Heavens, [Page 169] and being there to satisfie the argu­ment which is taken from these comets, He answers it thus: Aut argumentum desumptum ex para­laxi non est efficax, aut si est efficax, eorum instrumentorum usum deci­pere, vel ratione astri vel medii, vel distantiae, aut ergo erat in suprema parte aeris, aut si in coelo, tum for­san factum erat ex reflectione radi­orum Saturni & Jovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant. Either the argument from the paralax is not essicacious, or if it be, yet the use of the instruments might deceive either in regard of the starre or the medium, or the di­stance, and so this comet might be in the upper regions of the aire, or if it were in the heavens, there it might be produced by the reflexion of the rayes from Saturne and Jupiter, who were then in conjunction. You see what shifts hee is driven to, how he runnes up and downe to many starting holes, that hee may find [Page 170] some shelter, and in stead of the strength of reason, he answers with a multitude of words, thinking (as the Proverbe is) that hee may use haile, when hee hath no thun­der, Nihilturpius (saith Epist. 95. Seneca) dubio est incerto, pedem modo refe­rente, modo producente. What can there bee more unseemely in one that should be a faire disputant, then to be now here, now there, and so uncertaine, that one cannot tell where to find him. He thinkes that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there may be many other reasons of such appearances, but what he knowes not, perhaps (he saies) that argument from the pa­ralax is not sufficient, or if it be, then there may be some deceit in the observation. To this I may safely say, that hee may justly be accounted a weake Mathematici­an who mistrusts the strength of this argument, nor can hee know much in Astronomy, who under­stands [Page 171] not the paralax, which is the foundation of that Science, and I am sure that hee is a timerous man, who dares not believe the frequent experience of his senses, or trust to a demonstration.

True indeed, I grant tis possible, that the eye, the medium, and the distance may al deceive the behol­der, but I would have him shew which of all these was likely to cause an error in this observation? Meerely to say they might be de­ceived is no sufficient answer, for by this I might confute the positi­ons of all Astronomers, and affirme the starres are hard by us, because 'tis possible they may be deceived in their observing that distance. But I forbeare any further reply; my opinion is of that Treatise, that either it was set forth purposely to tempt a confutation, that hee might see the opinion of Galilaeus confirmed by others, or else it was invented with as much haste and negligence as it was printed, there [Page 172] being in it almost as many faults as lines.

Others thinke that these are not any new Comets, but some ancient starres that were there before, which now shine with that unusu­all brightnesse, by reason of the in­terposition of such vapors which doe multiply their light, and so the alteration will be here onely, and not in the heavens. Thus Aristotle thought the appearance of the milkie way was produced, for he held that there were many little starres, which by their influence did constantly attract such a va­pour towards that place of hea­ven, so that it alwaies appeared white. Now by the same reason may a brighter vapor be the cause of these appearances.

But how probable soever this opinion may seeme, yet if well considered, you shall finde it to be altogether absurd and impos­sible: for,

1. These starres were never [Page 173] seene there before, and tis not like­ly that a vapour being hard by us can so multiply that light which could not before be at all dis­cerned.

2. This supposed vapour can­not be either contracted into a narrow compasse or dilated into a broad: 1. it could not be with­in a little space, for then that starre would not appeare with the same multiplied light to those in other climates: 2. it cannot be a dilated vapour, for then other starres which were discerned through the same vapour would seeme as bigg as that; this argu­ment is the same in effect with that of the paralax, as you may see in this Figure.

Suppose A B to be a Hemi­spheare of one earth, C D to be the upper part of the highest re­gion, in which there might be either a contracted vapour, as G, or else a dilated one, as H I. Sup­pose E F likewise to represent halfe the heavens, wherein was this appearing Comet at K. Now I say, that a contracted vapour, as G could not cause this appea­rance, because an inhabitant at M could not discerne the same starre [Page 175] with this brightnesse, but perhaps another at L, betwixt which the vapour is directly interposed. Nor could it be caused by a dilated vapour, as H I, because then all the starres that were discerned through it would be perceived with the same brightnesse.

Tis necessary therefore that the cause of this appearance should be in the heavens. And this is gran­ted by the most and best Astrono­mers. But, say some, this doth not argue any naturall alteration in those purer bodies, since tis pro­bable that the concourse of many little vagabond starres by the uni­on of their beames may cause so great a light. Of this opinion were Anaxagor as and Zeno amongst the ancient, and Baptista Cisatus, Blan­canus, with others amongst our moderne Astronomers. For, say they, when there happens to be a concourse of some few starres, then doe many other flie unto them from all the parts of heaven [Page 176] like so many Bees unto their King. But 1. tis not likely that amongst those which wee count the fixed starres there should be any such uncertaine motions, that they can wander from all parts of the heavens, as if Nature had neglected them, or forgot to appoint them a determinate course. 2. If there be such a conflux of these, as of Bees to their King, then what reason is there that they doe not still tarry with it, that so the Comet may not he dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see it con­futed by many other arguments. Others there are, who affirme these to be some new created stars, produced by an extraordinary su­pernaturall power. I answer, true indeed, tis possible they might be so, but however tis not likely they were so, since such appearances may be salved some other way, wherefore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a great in­jury to nature, and to derogate [Page 175] from her skill, an indignity much mis-becomming a man who professes himselfe to bee a Philosopher. Miraculum (saith one) est ignorantiae Asylum, a mi­racle often serves for the recep­tacle of a lazy ignorance which any industrious Spirit would be ashamed of, it being but an idle way to shift off the labour of any further search. But her's the mi­sery of it, we first tye our selves unto Aristotle [...] principles, and then conclude that nothing could contradict them but a mi­racle, whereas 'twould be much better for the Common-wealth of learning, if we would ground our principles rather upon the frequent experiences of our owne, then the bare authority of others.

Some there are who thinke, that these Comets are nothing else, but exhalations from our earth, carryed up into the higher parts of the Heaven. So Pen [...], [Page 178] Rothmannus & Galilaeus, but this Tycho Pro­gym. l. 1. c. 9. is not possible, since by compu­tation 'tis found that one of them is above 300 times bigger than the whole Globe of Land and Water. Others therefore have thought that they did pro­ceed from the body of the Sun, and that that Planet onely is Cometarum officina, unde tanquam emissarii & exploratores emitteren­tur, brevi ad solem redituri: The shop or forge of Comets from whence they were sent, like so many spies, that they might in some short space returne againe, but this cannot be, since if so much matter had proceeded from him alone, it would have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble Tycho therefore thinkes that they con­sist of some such fluider parts of the Heaven, as the milky way is framed of, which being condenst together, yet not attaining to the consistency of a Starre, is in [Page 179] some space of time rarifyed a­gaine into its wonted nature. But this is not likely, for if there had beene so great a condensa­tion as to make them shine so bright and last so long, they would then sensibly have moved downewards towards some cen­ter of gravity, because whatso­ever is condenst must necessarily grow heavier, whereas these ra­ther seemed to ascend higher, as they lasted longer. But some may object, that a thing may be of the same weight, when it is rarified, as it had while it was condenst, so metals when they are melted and when they are cold, so water also when it is frozen, and when it is fluid, doth not differ in respect of gravity. But to these I answere: First, Metals are not rarified by mel­ting, but molified. Secondly, waters are not properly conden­sed but congealed into a harder substance, the parts being not [Page 178] contracted closer together, but still possessing the same exten­sion.

And beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this conden­sation, unlesse there be such qua­lities there, as there are in our ayer, and then why may not the Planets have the like qualities as our earth? and if so, then 'tis more probable that they are made by the ordinary way of nature, as they are with us, and consist of exhalations from the bodies of the Planets. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed most likely to Camillus De Comet. l. 5. c. 4. Apolog. Meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6. Gloriosus. Th. Campanella, Fro­mondus, with some others. But if you aske whither all these ex­halations shall returne, I answer every one into his owne Pla­net: if it be againe objected, that Iohan. Fabr. Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc. Scheiner. Rosa Visina. then there will be so many cen­ters of gravity, and each severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, perhaps all of them are [Page 179] so except the Sunne, though Cusanus thinks there is one also, and later times have discovered some lesser Planets moving round about him. But as for Saturne, he hath two Moones on each side. Jupiter hath foure, that incircle his body with their motion. Venus is observed to increase and decrease as the Moone. Mars, and all the rest, derive their light from the Sunne onely. Concerning Mercury, there hath beene little or no ob­servation, because for the most part, he lies hid under the Sunne beames, and seldome appeares by himselfe. So that if you consi­der their quantity, their opacity, or these other discoveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them may be a seve­rall world. But this would bee too much for to vent at the first: the chiefe thing at which I now ayme in this discourse, is to [Page 180] prove that there may bee one in the Moone.

It hath beene before confir­med, that there was a spheare of thicke vaporous ayer encompas­sing the Moone, as the first and second regions doe this earth. I have now shewed, that thence such exhalations may proceed as do produce the Comets: now from hence it may probably follow, that there may be winde also and raine, with such other meteors as are common amongst us. This consequence is so de­pendant, that Fromondus dares De meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6. not deny it, though hee would (as he confesses himselfe) for it the Sunne be able to exhale from them such fumes as may cause Comets, why not then such as may cause windes, and why not such also as may cause raine, since I have above shewed, that there is Sea and Land as with us. Now raine seemes to bee more especially requisite for them, [Page 181] since it may allay the heate and scorchings of the Sunne, when he is over their heads. And na­ture hath thus provided for those in Peru, with the other in­habitants under the line.

But if there be such great, and frequent alterations in the Hea­vens, why cannot we discerne them?

I answere:

1. There may be such, and we not able to perceive them, be­cause of the weakenes of our eye, and the distance of those places from us, they are the words of Fi [...]nus, as they are quoted by Fro­mondus in the above cited place) Possunt maximae permutationes in coelo fieri, etiam si a nobis non conspi­ [...]rantur, hoc visus nostri debilita [...] & immensa coeli distantia faciunt. And unto him assents Fromondus himselfe, when a little after hee saies, Si in sphaeris planetarum de­g [...]re [...]us, plurima forsan coelestium nebularum vellera toto athere passim [Page 182] dispersa videremus, quorum species jam evanescit nimia spatis inter­capedine. If we did live in the spheares of the Planets, wee might there perhaps discerne many great clouds dispersed through the whole Heavens, which are not now visible by reason of this great distance.

2. Maeslin and Keplaer affirme, that they have seene some of these alterations. The words of Maeslin are these (as I finde them Dissert. 2. cum nunc. Galil. cited.) In eclipsi lunari vesp [...]re Dominicae Palmarum A [...]ni 1605. in corpore lunae versus Boream, ni­gricans quaedam macula conspecta fuit, obscurior caetero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri figuram repreae­sentabat; dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tem­pestuosis imbribus gravida, cujus­modi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliora convallium loca vi­dere non rarò contingit. In that lunary eclipse which happe­ned in the even of Palme-sun­day [Page 183] in the yeere 1605 there was a certaine blackish spot discerned in the Northerly part of the Moone, being dar­ker than any other place of her body, and representing the co­lour of red hot iron; you might conjecture that it was some di­lated cloud, being pregnant with showers, for thus do such lower clouds appeare from the tops of high mountaines.

Vnto this I may ad another testimony of Bapt. Cisatus, as he is quoted by Nicrembergius, groun­ded Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 11. upon an observation taken 23. yeeres after this of Maeslin, and writ to this Euseb. Nicrem­berg. in a letter by that diligent and judicious Astronomer. The words of it runne thus: Et qui­dem in eclipsi nupra solari quae fuit ipso die natali Christi, observavi clare in luna soli supposita, quidpi­am quod valde probat id ipsum quod Cometae quo (que) & maculae so­lares urgent, nempe coelum non esse [Page 184] a tennitate & variationibus aeris exemptum, nam circa lunam ad­verti esse sphaeram seu orbem quen­dam vap [...]rosum, non secus at (que) cir­cum terram, adeo (que) sicut ex terra in aliquam us (que) spharam vapores & exhalationes expirant, ita quo (que) ex luna. In that late solary eclipse which happened on Christ­mas day, when the Moone was just under the Sunne, I plainly discerned that in her which may clearely confirme what the Comets and Sunnes spots doe seeme to prove, viz. that the heavens are not solid, nor freed from those changes which our aire is liable unto, for about the Moone I percei­ved such an orbe, of vaporous aire, as that is which doth en­compasse our earth, and as va­pours and exhalations are rai­sed from our earth into this aire, so are they also from the Moone.

You see what probable [Page 185] grounds and plaine testimonies I have brought for the confir­mation of this Proposition: ma­ny other things in this behalfe might be spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and passe uno the next.

Proposition 13. That tis probable there may be in­hubitants in this other World, but of what kinde they are is un­certaine.

I Have already handled the Seasons and Meteors belong­ing to this new World: tis re­quisite that in the next place I should come unto the third thing which I promised, and to say somewhat of the inhabi­tants, concerning whom there might be many difficult questi­ons raised, as whether that place be more inconvenient for habita­tion [Page 186] then our World (as Keplar thinkes) whether they are the seed of Adam, whether they are there in a blessed estate, or else what meanes there may be for their salvation, with many o­ther such uncertaine enquiries, which I shall willingly omit, leaving it to their examinati­on, who have more leisure and learning for the search of such particulars.

Being for mine own part con­tent only to setdowne such notes belonging unto these which I have observed in other Writers. Cum tota illa regio nobis ignota sit, remanent inhabitatores illi ignoti De doct. ig­norantia. l. 2. c. 12. penitus, (saith Cusanus) since we know not the regions of that place, wee must be altogether ignorant of the inhabitants. There hath not yet beene any such discovery concerning these, upon which wee may build a certainty, or good probability: well may we guesse at them, and [Page 187] that too very doubtfully, but we can know nothing, for if we doe hardly guesse aright at things which be upon earth, if with labour we doe finde the things Wisd. 9. 16. that are at hand, how then can we search out these things that are in heaven? What a little is that which we know, in re­spect of those many matters contained within this great Vniverse, this whole globe of earth and water? though it seeme to us to be of a large ex­tent, yet it beares not so great a proportion unto the whole frame of Nature, as a small sand doth unto it, and what can such little creatures as we discerne, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can they in the Moone know of us? If wee understand any thing (saith Esdras) tis nothing but 2 Esd. 4. 21 that which is upon the earth, and he that dwelleth above in the heavens, may onely under­stand [Page 188] the things that are above in the height of the heavens.

So that 'twere a very neede­lesse thing for us to search after any particulars, however we may guesse in the generall that there are some inhabitants in that Planet: for why else did providence furnish that place with all such conveniences of habitation as have beene above declared?

But you will say, perhaps, is there not too great and intol­lerable a heate, since the Sunne is in their Zenith every moneth, and doth tarry there so long be­fore he leaves it?

I answer, 1. This may, per­haps, be remedied (as it is under the line) by the frequency of mid-day showers, which may cloud their Sunne, and coole their earth: 2. The equality of their nights doth much temper the scorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes [Page 189] from the one, require some space before it can be dispelled by the other, so that the heate spen­ding a great while before it can have the victory, hath not af­terwards much time to rage in. Wherfore notwithstanding this, yet that place may remaine ha­bitable. And this was the opi­nion of the Cardinal de Cusa, when speaking of this Planet, he saies, Hic locus Mundi est ha­bitatio De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12. hominum & animalium at (que) vegetabilium. This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts and plants. To him assented Campanella, but he can­not determine whether there were men or rather some other kinde of creatures. If they were men, then he thinks they could not be infected with Adams sinne; yet perhaps, they had some of their owne, which might make them liable to the same misery with us, out of which, perhaps, they were de­livered [Page 190] by the same means as we, the death of Christ, and thus he thinks that place of the Ephe­sians may be interpreted, where the Apostle saies, God gathered all Ephes. 1. 10. things together in Christ, both which are in earth, and which are in the heavens: So also that of the same Apostle to the Colossians, where hee saies, that it pleased the Father to re­concile Col. 1. 20. all things unto himselfe by Christ, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

But I dare not jest with di­vine truths, or apply these pla­ces according as fancy directs. As I thinke this opinion doth not any where contradict Scrip­ture, so I thinke likewise, that it cannot be proved from it, wherefore Campanella's second conjecture may be more pro­bable, that the inhabitants of that world, are not men as we are, but some other kinde of creatures which beare some pro­portion [Page 193] and likenesse to our na­tures, and Cus [...]nus too thinks they differ from us in many re­spects; I will set downe his words as they may be found in the above cited place, Suspi­camus in regione solis magis esse so­lares, claros & illuminatos intel­lectuares habitatores, spiritualiores etiam quam in luna, ubi magis lu­natici, & in terra, magis materi­ales, & grossi, ut illi intellectualis naturae solares sint multum in actu & parum in potentia; terreni vero magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influen­tia ignili solis aqua [...]ica simul & aeria lunae, & gravedine materi­ali terrae, & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes, nullam habitatoribus carêre, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales unius universi, quot sunt stellae quarum non est numerus, nisi apud eum qui omnia in numero creavit.

We may conjecture (saith he) the inhabiters of the Sunne are like to the nature of that Planet, more cleare and bright, more intellectuall and spiri­tuall than those in the Moone where they are neerer to the nature of that duller Planet, and those of the earth being more grosse and materiall than either, so that these in­tellectuall natures in the Sun, are more forme than matter, those in the earth more mat­ter than forme, and those in the Moone betwixt both. This we may guesse from the fierie influence of the Sunne, the watery and aereous influ­ence of the Moone, as also the materiall heavinesse of the earth. In some such manner likewise is it with the regions of the other starres, for wee conjecture that none of them are without inhabitants, but that there are so many particu­lar [Page 195] worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are stars which are innumerable, un­lesse it be to him who created all things in number.

For he held that the stars were not all in one equall orbe as wee commonly suppose, but that some were farre higher than o­thers which made them appeare lesse, and that many others were so farre above any of these, that they were altogether invisible unto us. An opinion (which as I conceive) hath not any great probability for it, nor certainty against it.

The Priest of Saturne relating to Pluiarch (as he faignes it) the nature of these Selenites, told him they were of divers dispo­sitions, some desiring to live in the lower parts of the Moone, where they might looke downe­wards upon us, while others were more surely mounted aloft, all of them shining like the rayes of [Page 196] the Sunne, and as being victo­rious are crowned with gar­lands made with the wings of Eustathia or Constancie.

It hath beene the opinion a­mongst some of the Ancients, that their heavens and Elysian fields were in the Moone where the aire is most quiet and pure. Thus Socrates, thus Plato, with his followers, did esteeme this to Nat. Com. l. 3. c. 19. be the place where those purer soules inhabite, who are freed from the Sepulchre, and con­tagion of the body. And by the Fable of Ceres, continual­ly wandring in search of her daughter Proserpina, is meant no­thing else but the longing desire of men, who live upon Ceres earth, to attaine a place in Pro­serpina, the Moone or heaven.

Plutarch also seemes to assent unto this, but he thinkes more­over, that there are two places of happinesse answerable to those two parts which he fancies to [Page 197] remaine of a man when hee is dead, the soule and the under­standing; the soule he thinkes is made of the Moone, and as our bodies doe so proceede from the dust of this earth, that they shall returne to it hereafter, so our soules were generated out of that Planet, and shall be resolved in­to it againe, whereas the under­standing shall ascend unto the Sun, out of which it was made, where it shall possesse an eternity of well being, and farre greater happinesse than that which is enjoyed in the Moone. So that when a man dies, if his soule be much polluted, then must it wan­der up and downe in the middle regions of the aire where hell is, and there suffer unspeakbale tor­ments for those sinnes whereof it is guilty. Whereas the soules of better men, when they have in some space of time beene pur­ged from that impurity which they did derive from the body, [Page 198] then doe they returne into the Moone, where they are possest with such a joy, as those men feele who professe holy myste­ries, from which place (saith he) some are sent downe to have the superintendance of oracles, be­ing diligent either in the preser­vation of the good, either from or in all perills, and the preven­tion or punishment of all wicked actions, but if in these imploy­ments they mis-behave them­selves, then are they againe to be imprisoned in a body, otherwise they remaine in the Moone till their body be resolved into it, and the understanding being cleared from all impediments, as­cends to the Sun which is its pro­per place. But this requires a di­verse space of time, according to the divers affections of the soule. As for those who have beene re­tired and honest, addicting them­selves to a studious and quiet life, these are quickly preferred to a [Page 199] higher happinesse. But as for such who have busied themselves in many broyles, or have beene vehement in the prosecution of any lust, as the ambitious, the a­morous, the wrathfull man, these still retaine the glimpses and dreames of such things as they have performed in their bodies, which makes them either altoge­ther unfit to remaine there where they are, or else keepes them long ere they can put off their soules. Thus you see Plutarchs opi­nion concerning the inhabitants and neighbours of the Moone, which (according to the man­ner of the Academickes) hee delivers in a third person; you see he makes that Planet an infe­riour kind of heaven, and though he differ in many circumstances, yet doth hee describe it to be some such place, as wee sup­pose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concer­ning the place of damned spi­rits, [Page 200] that it is in the middle regi­on of the aire, and in neither of these is hee singular, but some more late and Orthodox Wri­ters have agreed with him. As for the place of hell, many think it may be in the aire, as well as any where else.

True indeede, S^t. Austin af­firmes De Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 16. that this place cannot be discovered; But others there are who can shew the situation of it out of Scripture; Some holding it to be in some other world without this, because our Saviour calls [...], out­ward Mat. 25. 30. darkenesse. But the most will have it placed towards the center of our earth, because 'tis Eph. 4. 9. said, Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, and some of these are so confident, that this is its situation, that they can describe you its bignesse also, and of what capacity it is. Francis Ribera in his Cōment on the Revelations, speaking of those [Page 201] words, where tis said, that the blood went out of the wine­presse, Rev. 14. 20 even unto the horses bridles by the space of one thou­sand and sixe hundred furlongs, interprets them to be meant of hell, and that that number ex­presses the diameter of its conca­vity, which is 200 Italian miles; but Lessius thinkes that this opi­on De Morib. div. l. 13. c. 24. gives them too much roome in hell, and therefore he guesses that 'tis not so wide; for (saith hee) the diameter of one league being cubically multiplyed, will make a spheare capable of 800000 millions of damned bo­dies, allowing to each sixe foot in the square, whereas (saies he) tis certaine that there shall not be one hundred thousand milli­ons in all that shall be damned. You see the bold Iesuit was care­full that every one should have but roome enough in hell, and by the strangenesse of the conje­cture, you may guesse that he had [Page 202] rather be absurd, than seeme ei­ther uncharitable or ignorant. I remember there is a relation in Pliny, how that Dionysiodorus a Mathematician, being dead, did send a letter from this place to some of his friends upon earth, to certifie them what distance there was betwixt the center and superficies: hee might have done well to have prevented this con­troversie, and enformed them the utmost capacity of that place. However, certaine it is, that that number cannot be knowne, and probable it is, that the place is not yet determined, but that hell is there where there is any tor­mented soule, which may be in the regions of the aire as well as in the center; but of this onely occasionally, and by rea­son of Plutarchs opinion con­cerning those that are round a­bout the Moone; as for the Moone it selfe, hee esteemes it to be a lower kind of heaven, and [Page 203] therefore in another place hee Cursilent oracula. calls it a terrestriall starre, and an Olympian or celestiall earth an­swerable, as I conceive, to the paradise of the Schoolemen, and that paradise was either in or neere the Moone, is the opinion of some later Writers, who de­rived it (in all likelihood) from the assertion of Plato, and per­haps, this of Plutarch. Tostatus laies this opinion upon Isiodor. Sr. W. Raw. l. 1. c. 3. § 7. in Gen. Hispalensis, and the venerable Bede; and Pererius fathers it up­on Strabus and Rabanus his Ma­ster. Some would have it to be situated in such a place as could not be discovered, which caused the penman of Esdras to make it a harder matter to know the out­goings of Paradise, then to weigh the weight of the fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call againe a day that is past. But notwith­standing 2 Esd. 4. 7. this, there be some o­thers who thinke that it is on the top of some high mountaine un­der [Page 204] the line, and these interpre­ted the torrid Zone to be the fla­ming sword whereby Paradise was guarded. 'Tis the consent of divers others, who agree in this, that Paradise is situated in some high and eminent place. So To­status: In Genes. Est etiam Paradisus situ al­tissima, supra omnem terrae altitudi­nem, Paradise is situated in some high place above the earth: and therefore in his Cōment upon the 49. of Genesis, he understands the blessing of Ja­cob concerning the everlasting hills to be meant of Paradise, and the blessing it selfe to be no­thing else but a promise of Christs comming, by whose pas­sion the gates of Paradise should be opened. Vnto him assented Rupertus, Scotus, and most of the other Schoolemen, as I find them Comment. in 2 Gen. v. 8. l. 1. c. 3. § 6. 7. cited by Pererius, and out of him in S^t W. Rawleigh. Their reason was this: because in probabili­ty this place was not overflowed [Page 205] by the flood, since there were no sinners there which might draw that curse upon it. Nay Tosta­tus thinkes that the body of Enoch was kept there, and some of the Fathers, as Tertullion and Austin have affirmed, that the blessed soules were reserved in that place till the day of judge­ment, and therefore 'tis likely that it was not overflowed by the flood; and besides, since all men should have went naked if Adam had not fell, 'tis requisite therefore that it should be situa­ted in some such place where it might be priviledged from the extremities of heat and cold. But now this could not be (they (thought) so conveniently in any lower, as it might in some higher aire. For these and such like considerations have so many affirmed that Paradise was in a high elevated place, which some have conceived could be no where but in the Moone: For [Page 206] it could not be in the top of any mountaine, nor can we thinke of any other body separated from this earth which can be a more convenient place for habitation than this Planet, therefore they concluded that it was there.

It could not be on the top of any mountaine.

1. Because wee have expresse Gen. 7. 19. Scripture, that the highest of them was overflowed.

2. Because it must be of a greater extension, and not some small patch of ground, since tis likely all men should have lived there, if Adam had not fell. But for a satisfaction of these argu­ments, together with a farther discourse of Paradise, I shall re­ferre you to those who have written purposely upon this subject. Being content for my owne part to have spoken so much of it, as may conduce to shew the opinion of others con­cerning the inhabitants of the [Page 207] Moone, I dare not my selfe af­firme any thing of these Sele­nites, because I know not any ground whereon to build any probable opinion. But I thinke that future ages will discover more; and our posterity, per­haps, may invent some meanes for our better acquaintance with these inhabitants. Tis the me­thod of providence not present­ly to shew us all, but to lead us a long from the knowledge of one thing to another. 'Twas a great while ere the Planets were di­stinguished from the fixed stars, and some time after that ere the morning and evening starre were found to be the same, and in greater space I doubt not but this also, and farre greater mysteries will be discovered. In the first ages of the world the Islanders either thought themselves to be the onely dwellers upon the earth, or else if there were any other, yet they could not pos­sibly [Page 208] conceive how they might have any commerce with them, being severed by the deepe and broad sea, but the aftertimes found out the invention of ships, in which notwithstanding none but some bold daring men durst venture, there being few so re­solute as to commit themselves unto the vast Ocean, and yet now how easie a thing is this, even to a timorous and cowardly nature? So, perhaps, there may be some other meanes invented for a conveyance to the Moone, and though it may seeme a terrible and impossible thing ever to passe through the vast spaces of the aire, yet no question there would be some men who durst venture this as well as the other. True indeed, I cannot conceive any possible meanes for the like dis­covery of this conjecture, since there can be no sailing to the Moone, unlesse that were true which the Poets doe but feigne, [Page 107] that shee made her bed in the Sea. Wee have not now any Drake or Columbus to undertake this voiage, or any D [...]alus to invent a conveyance through the aire. However, I doubt not but that time who is still the fa­ther of new truths, and hath re­vealed unto us many things which our Ancestours were ig­norant of, will also manifest to our posterity, that which we now desire, but cannot know. Nat. Quast. l. 7. c. 25. Veniet tempus (saith Seneca) quo ista quae nunc latent, in lucem dies extrahet, & longioris aevi diligentia. Time will come when the indea­vours of after ages shall bring such things to light, as now lie hid in obscurity. Arts are not yet come to their Solstice, but the industry of future times as­sisted with the labours of their forefathers, may reach unto that height which wee could not at­taine to. Veniet tempus quo poste­ri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse [Page 208] mirentur. As wee now won­der at the blindnesse of our Ancestors, who were not a­ble to discerne such things as seeme plaine and obvious unto us. So will our posterity ad­mire our ignorance in as per­spicuous matters. Keplar doubts not, but that as soone as the art of flying is found out, some of their Nation will make one of the first colonies that shall inhabite that other world. But I leave this and the like con­jectures to the fancie of the reader; Desiring now to finish this Discourse, wherein I have in some measure proved what at the first I promised, a world in the Moone. However, I am not so resolute in this, that I thinke tis necessary there must be one, but my opinion is, that tis possible there may be, and tis probable there is ano­ther habitable world in that Planet. And this was that I [Page 209] undertooke to prove. In the pursuit whereof, if I have shew­ed much weaknesse or indiscre­tion; I shall willingly submit my selfe to the reason and censure of the more judicious.