The first Proposition, by way of Preface.

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 [Page 2] capacity at first created in the heart of man. For this, since its depra­vation in Adam, perceiving it felfe 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 ene­mie the devill (who strives still to pervert our gifts, and beat 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 find so ready entertainment; but the same Novelty which is esteemed the com­mendation of errour, and makes that acceptable, is counted the fault of truth, and causes that to be rejected.

How did the incredulous World [Page 3] gaze at Columbus, when hee 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 dayes, especially our vulgar wits, but misbeliefe or derision.

It hath alwayes beene the unhappi­nesse of new truths in Philosophy, to be derided by those that are ignorant of the causes of things, and rejected by others, whose perversenesse ties them to the contrary 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 justly expect to be accused of a pragmaticall ignorance, & bold osten­tation; especially since for this opinion Xenophanes, a man whose authority was [Page 4] able to adde some credit to his asser­tion, could not escape the like censure from others. For Natales Comes speak­ing of that Philosopher,Mytholog. lib. 3 c. 17. and this his opinion, saith thus, Nonulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua nova monstra in Philosophiam introducunt, ut alicujus rei in­ventores fuisse appareant. ‘Some there are who lest they might seeme to know nothing, will bring up mon­strous absurdities in Philosophy, that so afterward they may be fa­med for the invention of somewhat.’ The same Author doth also in another place accuse Anaxagoras of folly for the same opinion.Lib. 7. c. 1. 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 knowes not what to say.’

If these men were thus censur'd, I may justly then expect to be derided by most, and to be beleeved by few or none; especially since this opinion seemes to carry in it so much strange­nesse, and contradiction to the gene­rall [Page 5] consent of others. But how ever, I am resolved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that it is not common opinion that can ei­ther adde or detract from the truth. For,

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

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,Vid. loseph. Acosta. de nat. novi orbis lib. 1. cap. 1. such as were Herodotus, Chryso­stome, Austine, Lactantius, the venerable Bede, Lucretius the Poet, Procopius, and the voluminous Abulensis, together with all those Fathers or other Au­thors [Page 6] who denied the roundnesse of the heavens. Herodotus counted it so horrible an absurdity, that hee could not forbeare laughing to think of it. [...]. ‘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 were S^t. Chrysostome, who in his 14 Ho­mily upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, dos make a chalenge to any man that shall dare to defend that the heavens are round, and not rather as a tent. Thus likewise S^t. Austine, who cen­sures that relation of the Antipodes to be an incredible fable;De civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 9. and with him agrees the eloquent Lactantius, Institut. l. 3. c. 24. Quid illi qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris An­tipodes [Page 7] 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 inversapendere? fruges & arbores de­orsum versus crescere, pluvias & nives, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in ter­ram? & miratur aliquis hortos pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum Philoso­phi, & agros & maria, & urbes & mon­tes pensiles faciunt, &c. ‘What (saith he) are they that think there are Anti­podes, such as walk with their feet against ours? doe they speake any likelihood? or is there any one so foolish as to beleeve 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 downwards, that the haile, and raine, and snow fall upwards to the earth? and doe we admire the hang­ing Orchards amongst the seven wonders, whereas here the Philo­sophers have made the Field and Seas, the Cities & mountains hang­ing?’ What shall we think (saith hee [Page 8] in Plutarch) that men doe cling to that place like wormes, or hang by their clawes as Cats? or if we 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 feet 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 fancie as possible. Vpon which considerations, Bede also denies the being of any Antipodes,De ratione temporum, Cap. 32. Neque enim Antipodarum ullatenus est Fabulis ac­commodandus assensus, ‘Nor should we any longer assent to the Fable of An­tipodes.’ So also Lucretius the Poet speaking of the same subject, sayes, ‘Sed vanus stolidis haec omnia finxerit error.De nat. re­rum, Lib. 1.’

That some idle fancie faigned these [Page 9] for fooles to beleeve. Of this opinion was Procopius Gazaeus, but hee was perswaded to it by another kinde of reason;Comen▪ ìn 1. Cap. Gen. for hee thought that all the earth under us was sunk in the water, according to the saying of the Psalmist, Psal. 24. 2. He hath founded the earth upon the Seas; and therefore hee accounted it not inhabited by any. Nay, Tostatus a man of later yeares and generall learning, doth also confidently deny that there are any such Antipodes, though the reason which hee urges for it, be not so absurd as the former; For the Apostles,Comment. in 1. Genes. saith hee, travelled through the whole 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; he replies, that this is not sufficient,1 Tim. 2. 4 since Christ would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth, and therefore 'tis requisite that they should have tra­velled thither also, if there had beene any Inhabitants; especially since hee did expresly command them to goe [Page 10] and teach all nations, and preach the Gospell through the whole world, and therefore hee thinks that as there are no men,Mat. 28. 19 so neither are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniencie for habitation. 'Tis commonly related of one Virgilius, Aventinus Annal. Boi­orum. lib. 3. that hee was excommu­nicated and condemned for a Here­tique by Zachary Bishop of Rome, be­cause hee was not of the same opinion. But Baronius sayes,Annal. Ec­cles. A. D. 748. it was because hee 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 plain, 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 remarkable [Page 11] 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 of the Ancients, In so much that from hence they stiled eclipses by the name of [...] passions, or in the phrase of the Poets, ‘Solis lunae (que) labores.’

And therefore Plutarch speaking of a Lunary eclipse, relates, that at such times 'twas a custome amongst the Ro­mans (the most civill and learned people in the world) to sound brasse Instruments,In vita Paul. Ae­n [...]il. and hold great torches toward the heaven. [...]. For by this meanes they sup­posed the Moone was much eased in her labours; and therefore Ovid calls such loud Instruments the auxiliaries or helps of the Moone,Metam. Lib. 4. ‘Cum frustra resonant aera auxiliaria Lunae.’

And therefore the Satyrist too, descri­bing a loud Scold, sayes, She was able [Page 12] 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 asleepe, when one of its eyes began to wink, 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 began to lose.

Some of them thought hereby to keepe the Moone in her orbe, where­as otherwise shee would have fallen downe upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights; for the credulous people beleeved, that Inchanters and Witches could bring the Moone downe, which made Vir­gil say, ‘Cantus & 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 shee began to [Page 13] looke red, they presently feared they should lose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a great noise that shee 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 sayes, 'tis because they would hasten the Moone out of the dark shade wherein she was involv'd, that so shee 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 Musick 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 ayre. But whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition, yet certainly 'twas a very ridiculous custome, and bewray­ed a great ignorance of those ancient [Page 14] times; especially since it was not only received by the vulgar, such as were men of lesse note and learning, but be­leeved also by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were those great Poets, Stesichorus and Pindar. And not onely amongst the more sottish Hea­thens, who might account that Pla­net to be one of their gods; but the Primitive Christians also were in this kind guilty, which made Saint Am­brose so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said, Tum turbatur car­minibus Globus Lunae, quando calicibus turbantur & oculì. ‘When your heads are troubled with cups, then you think the Moone to be troubled with charmes.’

And for this reason also did Maxi­mus a Bishop, write a Homily against it, wherein hee shewed the absurdity of that foolish superstition.Turinens. Episc. I remember that Ludovicus Vives 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 [Page 15] 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 thinks it not fit that their Towne should lose its Moone, but that rather the Asse should be 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, there is absurdity enough in that for­mer custome of the Ancients, that may confirme the truth to be proved, and plainely declare the insufficiencie 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 [Page 16] Schollars; and hence it will follow that every new thing which seemes to oppose common princi­ples is not presently to be rejected, but rather to be pry'd into with a diligent enquiry, since there are ma­ny things which are yet hid from us, and reserv'd for future disco­verie.

2. That it is not the commonnesse of an opinion that can priviledge it for a truth; the 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 wee should know that nothing is in it 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 [Page 17] perswade some Country Peasants that the Moone is made of greene Cheese (as wee 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 his senses. Nay suppose (saith Plutarch) a Philosopher should be educated in such a secret place, where hee might not see either Sea or River, and afterwards should be 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 forms living in it, which make use of the wa­ter as wee doe of the ayre, question­lesse hee would laugh at all 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 [Page 18] very hardly received which are alto­gether strange to our thoughts and our senses. The soule may with lesse dif­ficulty be brought to beleeve 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 his beleefe, without a great deale of reluctancie and triall. And besides, things that are not mani­fested to the senses, are not assented unto without some labour of minde, some travaile and discourse of the un­derstanding; and many lazie soules had rather quietly repose themselves in an easie errour, than 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 by reason it cannot be helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface, be­cause that prejudice which the meere title of the booke may beget, cannot [Page 19] 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 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 [Page 20] I first remove this scruple,LIB. 1. Cap. 2. 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.

TIs reported of Aristotle, that when he saw the Books of Moses, hee commended them for such a majestick 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 [Page 21] himselfe, but hee 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 be picked out of 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 hee 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 works, and from them you may guesse the force of the other.

The first is this,Ibid. since every heavie body doth naturally tend downwards, and every light body upwards, what a hudling and confusion must there be if there were two places for gravity, and two places for lightnesse: for it [Page 22] is probable that the earth of that other world would fall down to this Center, and so mutually the ayre 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 works. But ratio haec est minimè firma, De operi­bus Dei. part. 2. lib. 2. cap. 2. (saith Zanchy) And if you well 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 downwards towards its owne Center; so that for some of that earth to come hither, would not be said a fall but an ascension, since it moved from its own place, and this would be impossible (saith Ruvio) because against nature, and therefore no more to be feared than the falling of the Heavens.De Coelo l. 1. c. 9. q. 1.

If you reply that then according to this, there must be more Centers of gravity than one; I answer. 'Tis ve­ry probable there are, nor can we well conceive, what any piece of the Moon would doe being severed from the [Page 23] rest in the free and open ayre, but only returne unto it againe.

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

Infirma etiam est haec ratio (saith Zan­chy) and we may justly deny the con­sequence, since a plurality of worlds doth not take away the unity of the first mover. Vt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem solummodo multiplicitatem induìt per signatam mate­riam (saith a Country-man of ours.)Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. par­tic 379. As the substantiall forme, so the effici­ent cause hath only 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 strength in these con­sequences, and certainly then such [Page 24] weake arguments could not covince that wise Philosopher, who in his o­ther opinions was wont to be swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should rather think 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 that he wept to heare a dispu­tation of another world,Plutarch. de tranq. anim. 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, ‘Aestuat infoelix angusto limite mundi.Iuvenal.’

‘That he did vex himselfe and sweat in his desires, as being pend up in a narrow roome, when hee was con­fin'd but to one world.’ Before, he thought to seat himselfe next the Gods; but now, when hee had done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps superiour Kings.

[Page 25] It may be, that Aristotle was mo­ved to this opinion, that hee might thereby 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 he could not conquer. 'Tis likely that some such by-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments hee urges for it, are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very fleight 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 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 some of the Romish Divines;Apologia pro Ga­lilaeo. Cam­panella hath writ a Treatise in defence [Page 26] 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, we may say to him, as hee said to his Master Plato, [...].Ethic. l. 1. c. 6. ‘Though Plato were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to truth than him.’

I must needs 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 speak 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 sparks of er­rour, being forc'd out by opposition, [Page 27] as the sparks 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 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 fundamentals of our Religion.

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

Vpon these grounds both St. Vin­centius and Serafinus de firmo (as I have seene them quoted) think that Aristotle was the violl of Gods wrath, which was powred out upon the waters of wisedom by the third Angel;Rev. 16. 4. But for my part, I think the world is much beholden to him for all its sciences. But yet 'twere a shame for these later [Page 28] ages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, as if they had informed us of all things to be knowne; and when we are set upon their shoulders, not to see further than they themselves did. 'Twere a su­perstitious, a lazie opinion to think Aristotles works the bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could be no possibility of reaching. Certainly 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 been very imperfect, if God had made another.

2. Saint Iohn speaking of Gods works, says hee made the world, in the singular number, and therefore there is but one: 'tis the argument of Aquinas, Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3. and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with Demo­critus esteeme some blinde chance, and [Page 29] 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 Bishoprick, and excommunica­ted from the Church.Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748.

4. A fourth argument there is ur­ged by Aquinas; if there be 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;Ibid. for this were needlesse, and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection than the other; not of divers kindes, for then one of them could not be 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, De Phaenom in orbe Lu­nae. one that has purposely 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 answer; [Page 30] And (by the way) you may see this later Author in that place, where hee 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.

Vnto the two first it may be 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 answer, 'tis as probable that the [Page 31] Scripture should have informed us of the planets, they being very remark­able parts of the Creation; and yet neither Moses, nor Iob, nor the Psalmes (the places most frequent in Astrono­micall observations) nor any other Scripture mention any of them but the Sunne and Moone. Because the difference betwixt them and the other starres, was knowne onely to those who were learned men, and had skill in Astronomie. As for that expression in Iob [...] the starres of the mor­ning, Iob 38 7. it is in the plurall number, and therefore cannot properly be applied to Venus. And for that in Isaiah [...], 'tis confessed to be a word of obscure interpretation,Isai. 14. 12. and therefore is but by guesse translated in that sence. It be­ing a true and common rule,Fromond. Vesta. t. 3. cap. 2. that He­braei reisideralis minime curiosi coelestium nominum penuriâ laborant. The Jewes being but little skilled in Astronomie,So 2 Reg. 23. 5. their language dos want proper ex­pressions for the heavenly bodies, [...]. Which is interpre­ted both for the planets & for the 12 signes. and therefore they are faine some­times to attribute the same name unto divers constellations.

[Page 32] Now if the Holy Ghost had inten­ded to reveale unto us any naturall se­crets, certainly hee would never have omitted the mention of the planets, Quorum motu nihilest quod de Conditoris sapientiâ testatur evidentius apud eos qui capiunt. Keplar. in­troduct. in Mart. Which doe so evidently set forth the wisedome of the Creator. And therefore you must know that 'tis besides the scope of the old Te­stament or the new, to discover any thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; 'tis not his intent in the new Testament, since wee cannot conceive how it might any way be­long either to the Historical, 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.In Epist. ad Gilbert. Non Mosis 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, [Page 33] but rather to accommodate 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 certaine (saith Calvin) that his purpose is to treat only of the visible forme of the world,Calvin in 1 Gen. and those parts of it which might be most easily understood by the ignorant and ruder sort of people, and therefore we are not thence to expect the discovery of any naturall secret. Artes reconditas aliunde discat qui volet; hic spiritus Dei omnes simul sine exceptione docere voluit. As for more hidden Arts, they must be looked for else-where; the Holy Ghost did here intend to instruct all without exception. And therefore 'tis observed, that Moses does not any where meddle with such matters as were very hard to be conceived; for being to informe the common people as well as others, he does it after a vul­gar way, as it is commonly noted, de­claring the originall chiefely of those things which are obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things which [Page 34] then could not well be apprehended. And therefore Pererius proposing the question,Com. in 1 Gen. 11. why the Creation of plants & herbs is mentioned, but not of met­talls and mineralls?

Answers. Quia istarum rerum ge­neratio est vulgo occulta & ignota. Be­cause these things are not so com­monly knowne as the other; and hee adds, Moses non omnia, sed manifesta omnibus enarranda suscepit. Moses did not intend to relate unto us the begin­nings of all things, but those onely which were most evident unto all men.Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3. And therefore too, Aquinas ob­serves that hee writes nothing of the ayre, because that being invisible, the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason, S^t. Ierom also thinks that there is nothing exprest concer­ning the Creation of Angels,Epist. 139. ad Cypri. because the rude and ignorant vulgar were not so capable of apprehending their na­tures.So Pererius in 2 Gen. And yet notwithstanding, these are as remarkable parts of the Creati­on, and as fit to be knowne as another world. And therefore the Holy Ghost [Page 35] too uses such vulgar expressions, which set things forth rather as they appeare, than as they are, as when he calls the Moone one of the greater lights, Gen. 1. 16. whereas 'tis the least that wee can see in the whole heavens. So afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world;Gen. 11. hee sayes,Mala. 3. 10. The windowes of heaven were opened, be­cause it seemed to come with that vio­lence,Sir Walter Rawly c. 7. sect. 6. as if it were poured out from windowes in the Firmament.

And in reference to this, a drowth is described in sundry otherDeut. 11. 17. places by the heavens being shut up. 1 Reg. 3. 35 So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things,Luk. 4. 25. are not to be understood in a literall sense; but ra­ther as vulgar expressions; and this rule is set down by Saint Austin, l. 2. in Gen. Psal. 136. 6 where speaking concerning that in the Psalm, who stretched the earth upon the waters, he 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 [Page 36] this rule, some of the Ancients have fastned strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture.Hexamer. lib. 2. So Saint Am­brose esteemed it a heresie to think that the Sunne and Starres were not very hot,Item. Basil. Hom. 3. in Genes. as being against the words of Scripture,Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. Psalm. 19. 6. where the Psal­mist sayes,Ecclus. 43. 3. 4. that there is nothing that is hid from the heat of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to be round, out of that place, Psal. 104. 2. Hee stretched out the heavens like a curtaine. Com. in c. 1. Gen. 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. He 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 si­lence 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 [Page 37] 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 and undoubted parts of Mathematicks for hereticall, because they them­selves could not perceive a reason of it. And therefore their practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimonie 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 Vniuerse, as it implies in it the elemen­tarie 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, seem strange, that Moses, or S^t. Iohn should either not know, or not mention its creation. And Virgilius was condem­ned for this opinion, because hee held [Page 38] quòd sit alius mundus sub terrâ, aliusque 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 doe 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 contrary.

Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisedom (as Aquinas thinks) but rather advance 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 [Page 39] serve not onely for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conve­nience of the whole,Cusanus dc doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12. as the hand pro­tects the head as well as saves it selfe; so is it in the parts of the Vniverse, where each one may serve as well for the conservation of that which is with­in it, as the help of others without it.

Mersennus a late Jesuite,Comment. in Gen. Qu. 19. Art. 2. proposing the question whether or no the opini­on of more worlds than one, be hereti­call and against the faith? He answers it negatively, because it does not con­tradict any expresse place of Scripture, or determination of the Church. And though (saith he) it seemes to be a rash opinion, as being against the consent of the Fathers; yet if this controversie be chiefly Philosophicall, then their authorities are not of such weight. Vnto this it may be added, that the consent of the Fathers is prevalent onely in such points as were first con­troverted amongst them, and then ge­nerally decided one way, and not in such other particulars as never fell un­der their examination and dispute.

I have now in some measure, shewed [Page 40] that a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture,LIB. I. Cap. 3. 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 wee call the aethereall parts of the Vniverse; for if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged from any change or corruption, it will be in vain 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.

IT hath beene often questioned a­mongst the ancient Fathers & Phi­losophers, what kinde of matter that [Page 41] should be of which the heavens are framed. Some think that they consist of a fifth substance distinct from the foure elements,De Coelo li. 1. cap. 2. as Aristotle holds, and with him some of the late Schoole­men, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies but commonmateri­alls, and therefore they themselves had rather take pains 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 owneColleg. Connimb. de coeto. 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 spunne out new subjects from their own braines, to finde more work 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 books de Coelo.

[Page 42] 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. S^t. Ambrose is so confident of it,In Hexam. lib. 4. that he esteemes the contrary a heresie. True indeed, they differ much among them­selves, s [...]me thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, and others of both; but herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some ele­ment or other.Enarrat. in Genes. art. 10. Which Dionysius Car­thusianus collects from that place in Genesis, where the heavens are mentio­ned in their creation, as divided onely in distance from the elementary bo­dies, & not as being made of any new matter. To this purpose others cite the derivation of the Hebrew word [...], quasi [...] ibi & [...] aquae or quasi [...] ignis & [...] aquae. Because they are framed out of these elements. But concerning this, you may see sundry discourses more at large in Ludovicus Molina, Eusebius Nirembergius, with divers others.In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5. The venerable Bede thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements; and 'tis likely that [Page 43] the other parts are of an aereous sub­stance, as will be shewed afterward; however,In lib. de Mundi constit. I cannot now stand to recite the arguments for either; I have onely urged these Authorities to counter­vaile Aristotle, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proofe of their corruptibility.

The next thing then to be enquired after,2 Pet. 3. 12 is, whether they be of a corrup­tible nature, not whether 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.By Doctor Hakewill. Ap. l. lib. 2. But whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this inferi­our world is lyable unto?

The two chief 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, whilst Aristotle hath opposed the truth, as well as the Stoicks.

Some of the Ancients have thought, [Page 44] that the heavenly bodies have stood in need of nourishment from the ele­ments, by w^ch they were continually fed, & so had divers alterations by rea­son of their food; this is fathered on He­raclitus, Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17. followed by that great Natura­list Pliny, & in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see Seneca ex­presly to this purpose iu these words.Nat Hist. l 2. c. 9. Ex illâ alimenta omnibus animalibus, om­nibus satis, Nat. quaest. lib. 2. cap. 5 omnibus stellis dividuntur; hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sidera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctémque, ut in opere, ita in pastu. Speaking of the earth, he sayes, from thence it is that nourishment is divided to all 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 Phoebúmque po­lum (que) Credimus.’

Vnto these Ptolomie also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree,1. Apostcl. when hee affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than any of the other Planets, by reason of the earthly [Page 45] 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 were so farre from this,De caelo. l. 1. c. 3. 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 answer.

1. Supposing wee 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 difficult, by reason of the vast distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto them, are not either bigge enough, or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observa­tion [Page 46] of our senses; no wonder then if he himselfe be deceived in his asserti­ons concerning these particulars. But yet, in this hee implies, that if a man were nearer to these heavenly bodies, hee would be a fitter Judge to decide this controversie than himselfe. Now its our advantage, that by the help of Galileus his glasse, wee are advanced nearer unto them, and the heavens are made more present to us than they were before. However, as it is with us where there be many vicissitudes and successions of things, though the earth abideth for ever: So likewise may it be amongst the planets, in which though there should be divers alterations, yet they themselves may still continue of the same quantity and light.

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 heat. Diogenes the Philosopher was hence perswa­ded, that those scorching heats had [Page 47] burnt the Moone into the forme of a Pumice-stone.

3. I answer, that there have beene some alterations observed there; wit­nesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. As also those spots or clouds that encompasse the body of the Sun, amongst which, there is a frequent succession by a corrupti­on of the old, and a generation of new. So that though Aristotles consequence were sufficient, whē he proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes beene dis­covered in them; yet this by the same reason must be 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 speak af­terwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that work of Sheiner, a late Jesuite which he titles his Rosa Vrsina, Lib. 4. par. 2 cap 24. 35. where hee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavens largely handled, and suffi­ciently confirmed.

[Page 48] 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 immediatly belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shall therefore referre the Reader to their Authors, and omit any large proofe of them my selfe, 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 hers, why any of the other. I ra­ther think that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint Am­brose, Isa. 51. 6. and Saint Basil did endeavour to prove this out of that place in I say, Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4. where they are compared to smoak, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus. Eusebius Nicembergius doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and incorruptibility of the Heavens,Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13. and cites for the same interpretation the authority of Eustachius of Antioch; and Saint Austin, I am sure, in one place seemes to assent unto this opinion,In lib sup. [...]. Gen. ad lit. [Page 49] though hee does often in his other works contradict it.

If you esteeme the testimony of the ancient Fathers, to be of any great force or consequence in a Philosophi­call dispute, you may see them to this purpose in Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. The chiefe reasons, that are commonly urged for the confirmati­on of it, are briefly these three.

1 From the altitude of divers co­mets, which have beene observed to be above the planets, thorough whose Orbs (if they had beene solid) there would not have beene any passage. To these may be added those lesser pla­nets lately discovered about Iupiter and Saturne, for which Astronomers have not yet framed any Orbs.

2 From that uncertainty of all A­stronomicall observations, which will follow upon the supposition of such solid spheres. For then we should ne­ver discerne any Starre but by a mul­titude of refractions, and so conse­quently wee could not possibly finde their true situations either in respect of us, or in regard of one another: Since [Page 50] what ever the eye discernes by a re­fracted beame, it apprehends to be in some other place than wherein it is. But now this would be such an incon­venience, as would quite subvert the grounds & whole Art of Astronomy, and therefore is by no meanes to be admitted.

Vnto this it is commonly answered, that all those Orbs are equally dia­phanous, though nor of a continued quantity. Wee reply, that supposing they were, yet this cannot hinder them from being the causes of refraction, which is produced as well by the di­versity of superficies, as the different perspicuity of bodies. Two glasses put together, will cause a divers refraction from another single one that is but of equall thicknesse and perspicuity.

3 From the different height of the same planet at severall times. For if according to the usuall Hypothesis, there should be such distinct, solid Orbs, then it would be impossible that the planets should intrench upon one ano­thers Orbs, or that two of them at se­verall times should be above one ano­ther, [Page 51] which notwithstanding hath bin proved to be so by later experience. Tycho hath observed, that Venus is som­times nearer to us than the Sunne or Mercury, and somtimes farther off than both; which appearances Regiomonta­nus himselfe does acknowledge, and withall, does confesse that they can­not be reconciled to the common Hy­pothesis.

But for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you to the above named Scheiner, Lib. 4 p. 11. 2. cap 7. 26 30. in his Rosa Vrsina, in whom you may see both authorities and reason, very largely and distinctly set downe for this opinion. For the better confirmation of which hee 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 be onely ayre:De stella l. 15. 72. l. 1. c. 9. and though the noble Tycho doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds Quod pro­pius [Page 52] ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opi­nio, quàm Aristotelica vulgariter approba­ta, quae coelum pluribus realibus atque im­perviis orbibus citra 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 Orbs.’

2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will fol­low, that the sphere 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 Orbs, that by their swift motion might heat and enkindle the adjoyning ayre, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. The arguments that are commonly urged to this purpose, are these.

1 That which was before alledged concerning the refractions which will be caused by a different medium. For if the matter of the heavens be of one [Page 53] thicknesse, and the element of fire ano­ther, and the upper Region of ayre di­stinct from both these, and the lower Region severall from all the rest, there will then be such a multiplicity of re­fractions, as must necessarily destroy the certainty of all Astronomicall observations. All which inconveni­ences might be avoyded by suppo­sing (as wee doe) that there is one­ly one Orbe of vaporous ayre which encompasses our earth, all the rest be­ing Aethereall and of the same perspi­cuity.

2 The situation of this element does no way agree with Aristotles own prin­ciples, or that common providence of nature, which wee may discerne in or­dinary matters. For if the heavens be without all elementary qualities, as is usually supposed, then it would be a very incongruous thing for the ele­ment of fire to be placed immediatly next unto it: Since the heat of this is the most powerfull and vigorous qua­lity that is amongst all the rest; And Nature in her other works, does not joyne extreames, but by something of [Page 54] a middle disposition. So in the very frame of our bodies, the bones which are of a hard substance, and the flesh of a soft, are not joyned together but by the intercession of membranes and grissels, such as being of a middle na­ture may fitly come betwixt.

3 'Tis not conceiveable for what use or benefit there should be any such element in that place, and certaine it is that Nature does not doe any thing in vaine.

4 Betwixt two extreams there can be but one Medium, and therefore be­tweene those two opposite elements of earth and water, it may seeme more convenient to place onely the ayre, which shall partake of middle quali­ties different from both.

5 Fire does not seeme so properly and directly to be opposed to any thing as Ice, and if the one be not an element, why should the other?

If you object that the fire which we commonly use, does alwayes tend up­wards. I answer, This cannot prove that there is a naturall place for such an element, since our adversaries them­selves [Page 55] doe grant that culinary and ele­mentary fire are of different kinds. The one does burne, shine, and corrupt its subject; the other disagrees from it in all these respects. And therefore from the ascent of the one, wee cannot pro­perly inferre the being or situation of the other.

But for your farther satisfaction herein, you may peruse Cardan, Iohan­nes Pena that learned Frenchman, the noble Tycho, with divers others who have purposely handled this propo­sition.

3. I might adde a third, viz. that there is no Musick of the spheares; for if they be not solid, how can their mo­tion cause any such sound as is con­ceived? I doe the rather meddle 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 [Page 56] of this Musick, unlesse at somtimes we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeed Philo the Jew thinks it would save us the charges of dyet,De somniis. and wee might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare only, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (sayes he) was Moses enabled to tarry forty dayes and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, be­cause hee there heard the melody of the Heavens.—Risum teneatis. I know this Musick hath had great Patrons, both sacred & prophane Authors, such as Ambrose, Bede, Boetius, Anselme, Plato, Cicero, and others; but because it is not now, I think, 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 [Page 57] are wherein it more neerely agrees with our earth.LIB. 1. Cap. 4.

Proposition 4.

I Shall not need 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 ayre; for how otherwise could it beat back 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 Sun­beames from the superficies of her bo­dy, or else by her owne illumination? Some there are who affirme this latter part. SoDe coelo. l. 2. com. 49 Averroes, Ant. le­ction. li. 20. c. 4. Caelius Rhodiginus, De phae­nom. Lunae. c. 11. Iulius Caesar, &c. And their reason is, because this light is discerned in many places, whereas those bodies which [Page 58] give light by reflexion, can there only be perceived where the angle of re­flexion is equall to the angle of inci­dence, and this is only in one place; as in a looking-glasse, those beams which are reflected from it, cannot be 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 answer, That the argu­ment will not hold of such bodies whose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone is. Wherfore it is as wel the more proba­ble as the more common opinion, that her light proceeds frō both these cau­ses, from reflexion & illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth, since that also hath some light by illu­mination: for how otherwise would the parts about us in a Sunne-shine day appeare so bright, when as the rayes of reflexion cannot enter into our eye?

For the better illustration of this, we may consider the several wayes wher­by divers bodies are enlightned. Ei­ther as water by admitting the beams [Page 59] into its substance; or as ayre and thin clouds, by transmitting the rayes quite thorow their bodies; or as those things that are of an opacous nature and smooth superficies, which reflect the light only in one place; or else as those things which are of an opacous nature and rugged superficies, which by a kind of circumfluous reflexion, are at the same time discernable in many places, as our Earth and the Moone.

2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance▪ But this is de­nied byPlut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13. Diogenes, Opt. lib. 4. Vitellio, andCom. Pur­bac. Theo. p. 164. Rei­noldus, and some others, who held the Moone to be of the same kind of na­ture as a Pumice stone; & this, say they, is the reason why in the Suns 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 shee not appeare under the same forme when shee is about a Sextile Aspect, and the darkned part of her body is discern­able? [Page 60] for then also doe the same rayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelyhood should produce the same effect; and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a straight line, yet must the colour still remaine visible in her body. And be­sides, according to this opinion, the spots would not alwayes be the same, but divers as the various distance of the Sunne requires.Scaliger Exercit. 80 sect. 13. Againe, if the Sun beames did passe through her, why then hath she not a taile (saith Scaliger) as the Comets? why doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames, that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.

3. It is opacous, transparent or diaphanous like Crystall or glasse, as Empedocles thought,Plut. de fa­cie Lunae. who held the Moon to be a globe of pure congealed ayre, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire; for then,

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

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sunne,Thucid. Livij. or cause such great eclipses as have turned day into night,Plut. de fa­cis Lunae. that have discovered the starres, and frighted the birds with such a suddaine darknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is re­lated in divers Histories. And there­fore Herodotus telling of an eclipse which fell in Xerxes time, describes it thus:Herodot. l. 7 c 37. [...]. The Sun 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 hy­berbolicall expressions; and the noble Tycho thinks it naturally impossible that any eclipse should cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never totally cover the Sunne. However, in this he is singular, all other Astronomers (if I may be­leeve Keplar) being on the contrarie opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part ap­peare [Page 62] bigger to us than the Diameter of the Sunne.

But here Iulius Caesar once more,De phae­nom. Lunae. c. 11. puts in to hinder our passage. 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 thinks 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.

Wee may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our Earth doth the Moone. And besides, the mountains that are observed there, doe cast a dark shadow behind them,Prop. 9. as shall be shewed afterwards. Since 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 Aristotle affirmed the Moone to be of [Page 63] the Earths nature,In lib. de animalib. because of their a­greement in opacity,LIB. 1. Cap. 5. 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 Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light of its owne, and the other a grosse dark 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.

TWas the fancie of some of the Jewes, and more especially of Rabbi Simeon, Tostatus in 1 Gen. that the Moone was no­thing else but a contracted Sunne,Hyeron. de Sancta fide. Hebraeo­mast. l. 2. c. 4 and that both those planets at their first creation, were equall both in light and quantity. For, because God did then [Page 64] 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 Sunne, 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. Vpon this, God com­manded her to contract her selfe in­to a narrower compasse; but shee be­ing 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 great 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 than the Sunnes; he should appeare in the day time onely, shee both in the day and night; but her melancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replied againe, That, that alas was no benefit; for in [Page 65] the day time shee should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy dayes by a computation of her moneths; but this being not able to content her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however, she hath still reserved much light of her owne.

Others there were, that did think the Moone to be a round globe; the one halfe of whose body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being dark; and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was Berosus, as hee is cited by Lib. 9. Archite­cturae. Vitruvius; andNarratio Psalmorum. item. ep. 119. S^t. Austin thought it was probable enough. But this fancie is almost equally absurd with the for­mer, and both of them sound rather like fables, than 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 encrease, [Page 66] may be discern'd in the same place when she is in the full: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkned, is after inlightened, and that the one part is not alwayes dark, 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 therefore need no confutation.

'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sunne; but the cheife con­troversie is, whether or no shee hath any of her owne? The greater multi­tude affirme this. Cardan amongst the rest,De Subtil. lib. 3. is very confident of it, and hee thinks that if any of us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest e­clipse, Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac in­numeris cereis splendidissimis accensis, at­que in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus; ‘Wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would blinde us with the meere sight, and [Page 67] when she is enlightened by the Sun, then no Eagles eye (if there were any there) is able to look upon her.’ This Cardan sayes, 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 another glory of the Moone. Vlysses Albergettus urges that in Math. 24. 29. [...], The Moon shall not give her light: there­fore (sayes he) shee hath some of her owne.

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

The arguments from reason are ta­ken either.

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

[Page 68] 2. From the light which is discer­ned in the darker part of her body, when shee 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 Sun, since at such times ei­ther the earth or her own body shades her from the Sun-beames; therfore it must proceed from her owne light.

2. Two or three dayes after the new Moone, we 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, 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 Because then she would alwayes retaine it, but shee has beene some­times [Page 69] altogether invisible, when as notwithwanding some of the fixed Starres of the fourth or fifth magni­tude might easily have been discerned close by her,Keplar. epit. Astron. cop. l. 6. p. 5. sect. 2. As it was in the yeare 1620.

2 This may appeare likewise 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 many others.Opt. A­stron. c. 7. num. 3. 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 shee is in her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any enlightned [Page 70] 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,De nova stella. lib. 1. c. 10. and they are the very words of noble Ty­cho, Si Luna genuino gauderet lumine, uti (que) cum in umbra terrae esset, illud non amit­teret, sed eò evidentiùs exereret; omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepeditur. If the Moone had any light of her own, then would she not lose it in the earths sha­dow, but rather shine more clearely; since every light appeares greater in the dark, when it is not hindered by a more perspicuous brightnesse.

But now the event falls out cleane contrary,Reinhold Comment. in Purb. Theor pag. 164. (as observation doth mani­fest, and our opposites themselves doe grant) the Moone appearing with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed, being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish iron colour when shee is in her Perige or nearest to us, therefore she hath not any light of her owne. Nor may wee think that the earths shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moone from [Page 71] appearing, or take away any thing from her inherent brightnesse; for this were to think a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether misbecomming a Philosopher, as Tycho grants in the fore-cited place, Nec umbra terrae cor­poreum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia, ut Lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere, sed est quaedam pri­vatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opa­cum corpus terrae. Nor is the earths sha­dow any corporall thing, or thick 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.

3 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 shee 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 shee hath none of her owne.

[Page 72] 1 'Tis not such a ruddy light as ap­peares in eclipses; for then why can we not see the like rednesse, when wee 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 hee is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater brightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? 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 shee appeare red in the eclipses, since meere shade cannot cause 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 [Page 73] 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;Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20. such was Macrobius, who be­ing for this quoted of Rhodiginus, hee calls him vir reconditissimae scientiae, Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15. a man who knew more than ordinary Philosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Author. To him assents the venerable Bede, up­on whom the glosse hath this compa­rison.In lib. de natur. re­rum. As 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 Sunne. To these agreedDe 4. Coaevis. Q. 4 Art. 21. Albertus Magnus, Exercit. 62. Scali­ger, Epitom. Astron. l. 4. p. 2. Maeslin, Keplar, and more especi­ally Epit. A­stro. Cop. l. 6 part. 5. sect. 2. Mulapertius, whose words are more pat to the purpose than others, and therefore I shall set them down as you may finde them in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the Austriaca sydera; Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, ter­restris & humidae sunt substantiae, ideoque [Page 74] de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra. The Moone, Venus, and Mercury (saith he) are of an earthly and moyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, then the earth hath. Nay, some there are, who think, (though without ground) that all the other Starres doe receive that light, where­by they appeare visible to us, from the Sunne: so Ptolomie, Originum l. 3. c. 60. Isidore Hispalensis, De Coelo. l. 2. Albertus Magnus, andDe ratio­ne tempor. c. 4. 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,Item Plinie lib. 2. ca. 6. that this light is not proper to the Moone.Hugo de Sancto Vi­ctore. It remaines in the next place, that I tell you the true reason of it.Annot. in Gen. 6. And here, I think '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 crepusculinum, the Aurora of the Moon, [Page 75] 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 we see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and the reflexion grow­ing weak, how his beames make the waters appeare very red.

The Moabites in Iehorams time,2 King. 3. 22. when they rose early in the morning, and beheld the waters afarre off, mi­stooke them for blood. Et causa hu­jus est quia radius solaris in Aurora con­trahit quandam rubedinem, 2. Quaest. in hoc cap. propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem terrae, per quos radij transeunt, & ideo cum reper­cutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, tra­hunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt ap­parere locū aquarum, in quo est repercussio, esse rubrum, saith Tostatus. The reason is, because of his rayes, which being in the lower vapours, those doe con­vay an imperfect mixed light upon the waters. Thus the Moone 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 rayes there are, which [Page 76] passing through the shadow, make her appeare in that ruddy colour: So that shee 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, shee must be represented under a more dark and obscure forme when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige or neerest to the earth, because then shee 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 ask now, what the reason may be of that light which wee discerne 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 [Page 77] implied in the opinion;LIB. 1. Cap. 6. I shall in the next place proceed to a more di­rect treating of the chiefe matter in hand.

Proposition 6.

SInce this opinion may be suspe­cted of singularity, I shall there­fore first confirme it by sufficient au­thority of divers Authors, both anci­ent and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the prejudice ei­ther of an upstart fancie, or an absolute errour. This is by some attributed to Orpheus, one of the most ancient Greek Poets. Who speaking of the Moone, sayes thus,Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13. [...], That it hath many mountaines, and ci­ties, and houses in it. To him assented Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Heraclides, Ibid. c. 25. [Page 78] all who, thought it to have firme so­lid ground, like to our earth, contain­ing in it many large fields,Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9. champion grounds, and divers Inhabitants.

Of this opinion likewise was Xeno­phanes, Divin Inst. lib. 3. c. 23. as he is cited for it by Lactantius; though that Father (perhaps) did mi­stake his meaning whilst hee relates it thus Dixit Xenophanes, intra concavum Lunae esse aliam terram, & ibi aliud genus hominum simili modo vivere sicut nos in hac terra, &c. As if hee had conceived the Moone to be a great hollow body, in the midst of whose concavity, there should be another globe of sea and land, inhabited by men, as our earth is. Whereas it seemes to be more likely by the relation of others, that this Philosophers opinion is to be under­stood in the same sence, as it is here to be proved. True indeed, the Father condemnes this assertion as an equall absurdity to that of Anaxagoras, who affirmed the snow to be black: but no wonder, for in the very next Chapter it is that hee does so much deride the opinion of those who thought there were Antipodes. So that his ignorance [Page 79] in that particular may perhaps disable him from being a competent Judge in any other the like point of Philosophy. Vnto these agreed Pythagoras, who thought that our earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sun,De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13. (as Aristotle relates it of him) and the Pythagoreans in generall did af­firme that the Moone also was terre­striall, & that she was inhabited as this lower world; That those living crea­tures and plants which are in her, ex­ceed any of the like kind with us in the same proportion, as their dayes are longer than ours: viz. by 15 times. This Pythagoras was esteemed by all,Plut. ibid. cap. 30. of a most divine wit, as appeares espe­cially by his valuation amongst the Romans, who being commanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest Graecian, the Senate determined Pythagoras to be meant,Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6. preferring him in their judgements before the divine Socrates, whom their Gods pronounc'd the wisest. Some think him a Iew by birth; but most agree that hee was much conversant amongst the lear­neder sort and Priests of that Nation, [Page 80] by whom hee was informed of many secrets, and (perhaps) this opinion which 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 did Plato also assent, when he considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth; and this, that it had no light of its owne, that it was so full of spots.Plat. de conviviis. And therefore wee may often reade in him and his followers, of an aetherea terra, Macrob. and lunares populi, An aethe­reall earth,Somn. Scip. lib. 1. c. 11. & inhabiters in the Moon; 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 Moon, whose element of water is represented by the spheare of Mercury, the ayre by Venus, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Vniverse might the better end in earth as it began, they have con­trived it, that Mars shall be a spheare [Page 81] of the fire, Iupiter of ayre, Saturne of water; and above all these, the Elysi­an fields, spacious and pleasant places appointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that either never were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any commerce with the body.Exercit. 62. Scaliger speaking of this Platonick fancy, quae in tres 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 grosnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called quasi terra coelestis, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those purer bodies;De facie Lunae. you may see this proved by Plutarch, in that delightfull work which he pro­perly made for the confirmation of this particular.Iustit. ad discip. Plat. Coel. Rho­dig. l. 1. c. 4. With him agreed Al­cinous and Plotinus, later Writers.

Thus Lucian also in his discourse of a journey to the Moon, where though hee does speake many things out of mirth & in a jesting manner: yet in the beginning of it he does intimate that [Page 82] it did contain some serious truths con­cerning the real frame of the Vniverse.

The Cardinall Cusanus and Iornan­dus Brunus, Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2 cap. 12. held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he sayes, it is stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calo­rem & influentiam habet aliam, & diver­sam ab omnibus aliis stellis; ‘A noble Starre having a distinct light, heat, & influence frō all the rest.’ Vnto this Nichol. Hill, a Country man of ours, was enclined,Philos. Epi­cur. part. 434. whē he said Astrea terrae natura probabilis est: ‘That 'tis pro­bable the earth hath a starry nature.’

But the opinion which I have here delivered, was more directly proved byIn Thesi­bus. Maeslin, Disserta­tio cum Nunc. Keplar, andNuncius Sydereus. Galilaeus, each of them late Writers, and famous men for their singular skill in Astro­nomy. Keplar calls this World by the name of Levania from the Hebrew word [...] which signifies the Moon,Somn. Astr. and our earth by the name of Volva à volvendo, because it does by reason of its diurnall revolution appeare unto them constantly to turne round, and therefore hee stiles those who live in [Page 83] that Hemisphere which is towards us, by the title of Subvolvani, because they enjoy the sight of this earth; and the others Privolvani, quia sunt privati con­spectu volvae, because they are deprived of this priviledge. But Iulius Caesar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I cite for this opinion, viz. Keplar and Galilaeus, affirmes that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this,Dephaenom. lunae. c. 4. and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather beleeve their owne words, than his pretended knowledge.

'Tis true indeed, in some 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; As for Galilaeus, 'tis evident that hee did set downe his owne judgement and opinion in these things; 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 [Page 84] 'tis very likely if it had beene but a jest, Galilaeus would never have suffe­red so much for it as report saith af­terwards he did.

And as for Keplar, I will onely re­ferre the Reader to his owne words as they are set downe in the Preface to the fourth book of his Epitome, where his purpose is to make an Apologie for the strangenesse of those truths that he was there to deliver, amongst which there are divers things to this purpose concerning the nature of the Moone. Hee professes that he did not publish them either out of a humor of contradiction, or a desire of vaine­glory, or in a jesting way, to make him­selfe or others merry, but after a con­siderate and solemne manner for the discovery of the truth.

Now as for the knowledge which Caesar pretends to the contrary, you may guesse what it was by his strange confidence in other assertions,Cap. 7. and his boldnesse in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of Ptolome's Hypothesis, hee pronounces this verdict, Impossibile est excentricorum [Page 85] & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet. ‘The position of Excen­trickes and Epicycles is altogether im­possible, nor is there any Mathema­tician such a foole as to think it true.’ I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any other Hypothesis, who was so ignorant in Mathematicks 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 fained Orbs supplied; if so, Caesar la Galla was much mistaken. I think his assertions are equally true, that Galilaeus and Ke­plar did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other. Thus much for the testimony of those who were directly of this opinion.

But, in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of Galilaeus, the inventor of that famous Perspective, whereby we may discern the Heavens hard by us; whereby those things which others have for­merly [Page 86] 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 hee might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its nature; had hee lived in these dayes, he 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 dextrâ tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei? De macula in sole ob­ser. And Iohannes Fabricius 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 demissam [Page 87] representâsse putantur, nos non tantum inno­center demittamus, sed etiam familiari 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, we 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 question the truth of those experiments, which I shall afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set downe the testimony of an enemie, and such a witnesse hath alwayes beene accounted prevalent: you may see it in the above-named Caesar la Galla, whose words are these: Mercurium caduceum gestantem, De phae­nom. cap. 1. coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilae­um verò novum Iovis interpretem Telesco­pio caduceo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas videt & admira­tur. ‘Wise antiquity fabled Mercury carrying a rod in his hand to relate [Page 88] newes from Heaven, and call back the soules of the dead; but it hath beene 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 & high­ly did these men esteeme of this excel­lent invention.

Now, if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of such things as were neerer at hand, the same Author will tell you, when he sayes,Ibid. c. 6. that by it those things which could scarce at all be discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a half, might plainly and distinctly be perceived for 16 Italian miles, & that as they were really in thēselves, 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 wee may discerne as farre with these eyes which Galilaeus hath be­stowed upon us, as Lynceus could with [Page 89] those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the same Author may confirme you, when hee sayes they were shewed Non uni aut alteri, Cap. 1. sed quamplurimis, ne (que) gregariis ho­minibus, sed praecipuis at (que) disciplinis om­nibus, necnon 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 Mathematicks 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 think 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 adds that it was shewed Viris qui ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant. Cap. 5. ‘To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction.’ Thus you may see the certainty of those ex­periments which were taken by this [Page 90] glasse. I have spoken the more con­cerning it, because I shall borrow ma­ny things in my farther discourse, from thsoe 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, See the second book. 1. Prop. Philolaeus, and Copernicus, with many other later Writers who assented to their hypothesis; so Ioach. Rhelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert, and (if I may beleeve Campanella) Innumeri alij Angli & Galli, Apologia pro Gali­laeo. Very many others, both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to be the Center of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move. And how horrid 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 [Page 91] 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 proceed farther, 'tis requisite that I enforme 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 Aristotle uses in his book De mundo (if that book were his.)

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

Proposition 7.

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 think those spots doe not arise from any deformi­ty 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 only say it, and shew not any reason for the proofe of their [Page 93] opinion: Others think that there are some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone,So Bede in l. de Mund. constit. which keeping off the light in some parts, doe by their shadow pro­duce these spots which we there dis­cerne.

Others would have them to be the figure of the seas or mountaines here below, represented 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 be conveyed so farre as there to be represented unto us at such a distance.De subtil. lib. 3. But 'tis commonly related of Pythagoras, that he by writing what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexion of the same species, would 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. 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 Bishop [Page 94] Godwine did by the like meanes per­form those strange conclusions, which he professes in his Nuncius inanimatus, where he pretends, that he can inform his friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant, forte etiam, vel milliare millesimum, (they are his owne words) and, perhaps, a thou­sand, and all this in a little space, 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, than which wee know not any thing quicker; But of this on­ly by the way; however, whether those images can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are not such representations. Some think that when God had at first created too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow the rest, hee placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkned it in some parts; but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation, since it so much detracts from the divine power and wisedome.

[Page 95] ThePlut. de placit. phil. l. 2. c. 25. Stoicks held that Planet to be mixed of fire and ayre, and in their opinion, the variety of its compositi­on caused her spots: Being not asha­med to stile the same body a God­desse, calling it Diana, Minerva, &c. and yet affirme it be an impure mixture of flame, and smoke, and fuliginous ayre.

—But this Planet cannot consist of fire (saith Plutarch) because there is not any fewell to maintaine it. And the Poets have therefore fained Vulcan to be lame, because hee can no more subsist without wood or other fewell than a lame man without a staffe.

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 sentenc'd him to death;Iosephus l. 2. con. those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy to make their God a stone,App. Au­gust. de Ci­vit. Dei. l 18. c 41. 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 than the other [Page 96] Planets, but of a greater purity than anything here below, and the spots he thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with the light w^ch belonged to that Planet; but I have above destroyed the supposition on which this fancy is grounded.Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9. Pli­nie thinks they arise from some dros­sie stuffe, mixed with that moysture which the Moone attracts unto her selfe; but he 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 books de Coelo.

Vitellio & Reinoldus affirme the spots to be the thicker parts of the Moone,Opt. lib. 9. Comment. in Purb. pag. 164. into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light; and this (say they) is the reason why in the Sunnes eclipses the spots and brighter parts are still in som measure distinguished, because the Sun 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 [Page 97] clearest, where she is transpi­cuous, not onely through the super­ficies,Ex qua parte luna est transpi­cua non so­lum secundum superficiem, sed etiam secundum substanti­am, eatenus clara, ex qua autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura vi­detur. De Phaenom. cap. 11. but the substance also, and there shee 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 Sun-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 the thin­ner parts of the Moone,Albert. mag. de Coaevis. Q. 4. Art. 21. which are lesse able to reflect the beames that they receive from the Sunne, and this is most aggreeable to reason; for if the starres are therefore brightest,Colleg. Con. because they are thicker and more solid than their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts of the Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thicknesse. It was the providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to have these spots within it, for since [Page 98] 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,De Somniis must be the least pure, and there­fore Philo the Jew interpreting 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 he) 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 meerely to reflect the Sunne-beames and give light, the spots then had not so much argued her providence, as her [Page 99] unskilfulnesse and oversight, as if in the haste of her worke shee could not tell how to make that body exactly fit for that office to which shee intended it.Scalig. ex­ercit. 62.

Tis likely then that she had some 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.

If wee consider the Moone as ano­ther habitable earth, then the appea­rances of it will be altogether exact, and beautifull, and may argue unto us that it is fully accomplished for all those ends to which Providence did [Page 100] appoint it. But consider it barely as a starre or light, and then there will ap­peare in it much imperfection and de­formitie, as being of an impure darke substance, and so unfit for the office of that nature.

As for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke they repre­sent a man, and the Poëts guesse tis the boy Endymion, whose company shee 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, that it represents a Lyon with his taile towards the East, and his head the West, andEusebius Nicremb. Hist. Nat. l. 8. c. 15. some others have thought it to be very much like a Fox, and certainly 'tis, as much like a Lyon as that in the Zodiake, or as Vrsa 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 usually doe in the markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such simili­tude [Page 101] in the spots themselves,LIB. 1. Cap. 8. which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land, appeares under a rugged and con­fused figure, and doth 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 the distinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world.

Proposition 8.

WHen 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.Opt. Astro. c. 6 num 9 D [...]t cum nuncio Gal. But my second thoughts, and the reading of others, have now con­vinced me (as after he was) of the truth of that proposition which I have [Page 102] now set downe. Before I come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which at first made mee doubt the truth of this opinion.

1. It may be objected, 'tis pro­bable, if there bee any such sea and land as ours, that it beares some pro­portion and similitude with ours: but now this proposition takes away all likenesse betwixt them. For whereas the superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in the globe,Exercit. 38 two parts being overspread with the water (as Scaliger observes) yet here, according to this opinion, the Sea should be lesse than the land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as there is of the enlightened parts, wherefore 'tis probable, that 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 than the earth, which in most places is so full of ruggednesse of grasse and trees, and such like impediments of reflexion; and besides, common expe­rience [Page 103] shewes, that the water shines with a greater & more glorious bright­nesse than the earth; therfore 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 Scaliger is not by all granted for a truth.De Metco­ris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1. 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 aire which incōpasses the Moone, makes the brighter parts of that Pla­net appeare bigger than in them­selves they are; as I shall shew after­wards.

To the second it may be answered, that, that though the water be of a smooth superficies, and so may seeme [Page 104] most fit to reverberate the light, yet because 'tis of a perspicuous nature,LIB. 1. Cap. 6 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 off, and nothing left behind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe through and not back 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 back from the superficies, and therefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land than upon the water. Now as for that experiment where it is sayd, that the waters have a greater brightnesse than the Land: I answer, 'tis true onely there where they repre­sent the image of the Sunne or some bright cloud, and not in other places, especially if wee looke upon them at any great distance, as is very plaine by common observation.

And 'tis certaine that from any high [Page 105] mountaine the land dos appeare a great deale brighter than any lake or river.LIB. 1. Cap. 8

This may yet be farther illustrated by the similitude of a looking glasse hanging upon a wall in the Sun-shine, where, if the eye be not placed in the just line of reflexion from the glasse, tis manifest that the wall will bee of a brighter appearance than the glasse. True indeed in the line of reflexion, the light of the glasse is equall almost unto that which comes immediately from the Sunne it selfe; but now this is onely in one particular place and so is not like that brightnesse which wee discerne in the Moone, because this dos appeare equally in severall situati­ons, like that of the wall which doe seeme bright as well from every place as from any one. And therefore the ruffnesse of the wall, or (as it is in the objection) the ruggednesse of our earth is so farre from being an hinde­rance of such a reflexion as there is from the Moone, that it is rather re­quired as a necessary condition unto it. We may conceive that in every rough [Page 106] body there are, as it were innumerable superficies, disposed unto an innume­rable diversitie of inclinations. Ita ut nullus sit locus, Galilaeus System. coll. 1. ad quem non pertingant plurimi radii reflexi a plurimis superficie­culis, per omnem corporis scabri radiis lu­minosis percussi superficiem dispersis. ‘So that there is not any place unto which there are not some beams re­flected from these diverse superfi­cies, in the severall parts of such a rugged body.’ But yet (as I said before) the earth dos receive a great part of its light by illumination, as wel as by reflexion.

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: De facio lun. unto him assented Keplar and Galilaeus, Dissertatio. Nunc. Syd. whose words are these, Si quis veterum Py­thagoreorum sententiam exuscitare 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, at­que [Page 107] a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem, obscuriorem vero a­queam sese in conspectum daturam. ‘If any man have a mind to renue the opinion of the Phythagoreans, 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 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 therefore must give lesse light.

Since the Starres and Planets, by reason of their brightnesse, are usually concluded to bee the thicker parts of their orbe.

2. Water is in it selfe of a blacker colour (saith Aristotle) and therefore more remote from light than the earth.In lib. de coloribus. Any parts of the ground being moist­ned with raine, dos looke much more [Page 108] darkely than when it is dry.

3. 'Tis observed that the seconda­ry light of the Moone (which after­wards is proved to proceede from our earth) is sensibly brighter unto us, for two or three dayes before the conjun­junction, in the morning when she ap­peares Eastward, than about the same time after the conjunction, when shee is seene in the West. The reason of which must be this, because that part of the earth which is opposite to the Moone in the East, has more land in it than Sea. Whereas on the contrary, the Moone when she is in the West, is shined upon by that part of our earth where there is more Sea than Land, from whence it will follow with good probabilitie that the earth dos cast a greater light than the water.

4. Because observation tels us, that the spotted parts are alwayes 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.

[Page 109] That in this Planet there must bee Seas, Campanella indeavours to prove out of Scripture interpreting the wa­ters above the Firmament spoken in Genesis, Apologia pro Galilaeo. to bee meant of the Sea in this world. For (saith he) 'tis not likely that there are any such waters above the Orbes to moderate that heate which they receive from their swift motion (as some of the Fathers think.) Nor did Moses meane the Angels which may be called spirituall waters, as Origen and Austin would have it,Vide Ieron. epist. ad Pammachi­um. for both these are rejected by the generall consent: Nor could he meane any waters in the second region,Confession. l. 13. c. 32. Retracted. lib. 2. Retr. cap. 6. as most Commentators interpret it. For first there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwards turned in­to water, yet while they remayne there, they are onely the matter of that element, which may as well bee 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 and Land, with such Rivers & Springs as we [Page 110] have here below: Especially since Esdras speakes of the springs above the Firmament.2 Esdr 4. 7. But I cannot agree with him in this, nor doe I thinke that any such thing can bee 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 she not shake something out by the ce­lerity of her revolution? I answer, 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 than there is feare of our falling into the Moone.

But yet there are many fabulous re­lations of such things as have dropped [Page 111] 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, Vide Guli: Nubrigens. de rebus Anglica: lib. 1. the credulous peo­ple thought hee was sent from their Goddesse the Moone. And if a whirle­winde did chance to snatch any thing up, and afterwards raine it downe a­gaine, the ignorant multitude were 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 Moone-calfe, and that it fell thence. So Car­dan travelling upon the Apennine Moū ­taines, a sudden blast tooke off his hat, which if it had been 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 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 [Page 112] many sacred reliques preserved by the Papists might drop 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 far 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 heavie body a great height in that ayre, yet would the motion of its center belong by an attractive vertue still hold 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 far. That I may the plainer expresse my meaning, I will set downe this Diagramme.

[Page 113]

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 still or move swiftly towards D, yet the bullet would still keepe at the same distance by reason of that Magnetick vertue of the cen­ter (if I may so speake) whereby all things within its spheare are attracted with it. So that the violence to the [Page 114] bullet,LIB. 1. Cap. 9. 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 this earth where its center is, dos 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.

THough there are some, who think Mountaines to be a deformitie to the earth, as if they 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 [Page 115] bee found as much to conduce to the beauty and conveniency of the uni­verse, as any of the other parts. Na­ture (saith Pliny) purposely framed them for many excellent uses:Nat. hist. l. 36. c. 1. 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 testifies,Psal. 104. v. 18. The highest hils are a refuge for the wild goates, and the rocks for conies. The Kingly Pro­phet had likewise learned the safety of these by his owne experience, when he 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 [Page 116] Countrey, so fortified with Moun­taines, that these have alwayes beene unto them sure retraites from the vio­lence and oppression of others. Wher­fore a good Author doth rightly call them natures bulwarks, 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 be, but could Alexander fly too? Over the Seas hee 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 retired. Certainly then such usefull parts were not the effect of mans sin, or produced by the Worlds curse, the Flood, but rather at the first created by the goodnesse and pro­vidence [Page 117] of the Almightie.

This truth is usually concluded from these and the like arguments.

1. Because the Scripture it selfe, in the description of that generall deluge, tells us, it overflowed the highest mountaines.

2. Because Moses who writ long after the Flood, dos yet give the same description of places and rivers, as they had before; which could not well have been if this had made so strange an al­teration.

3. 'Tis evident that the trees did stand as before. For otherwise Noah could not so well have concluded, that the waters were abated, from this rea­son, because the Dove brought an O­live leafe in her mouth, when she was sent forth the second time: whereas had the trees been rooted up, she might have taken it the first time, from one of them as it was floating on the top of the waters. Now if the motion of the water was not so violent as to sub­vert the trees, much lesse was it able to cast up such vast heapes as the moun­taines.

[Page 118] 4. When the Scripture doth set forth unto us the power and immensi­sitie of God by the varietie or useful­nesse of the creatures which hee hath made, amongst the rest it doth often mention the mountaines. Psal. 104. 8. item. 148. 9. Isai. 40. 12. And there­fore 'tis probable they were created at the first. Unto this I might adde that in other places Divine Wisdome in shewing of its owne antiquitie,Prov. 8. 25. saith that he was From the beginning, before the earth or the mountains were brought forth. Psal. 90. 2.

5. If we may trust the relations of Antiquitie,Ioseph. Ant. lib. [...]. c. 3. there were many monu­ments left undefaced after the Flood.

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 speakes of the ancient mountaines and lasting hills, Deut. 33. [...] for [Page 119] having immediately before mentioned those blessings which should happen unto Ioseph 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 bee too bold with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronize any fancy of our owne, though, perhaps, it be a truth. I am not of their mind who think it a good course to confirme Phi­losophicall secrets from the letter of the Scripture, or by abusing some ob­scure text in it. Mee thinks it savors too much of that Melancholly humor of the Chymicks, who, aiming in all their studies at the making of gold, doe perswade themselves, that the most learned and subtile of the antient Authors, in all their obscure places doe meane some such sence as may make to their purpose. And hence it is that they derive such strange mysteries [Page 120] from the fables of the Poëts, and can tell you what great secret it was that antiquitie did hide under the fiction of Iupiter being turned into a shower of gold: of Mercuries being made the in­terpreter of th [...] gods: of the Moones descending to the earth for the love of Endymion: with such ridiculous in­terpretations of these and the like fables, which any reasonable conside­ring man cannot conceive to proceed from any but such as are distracted. No lesse fantasticall in this kind are the Jewish Rabbies, amongst whom is not any opinion, whether in nature or policy, whether true or false, but some of them, by a Cabalisticall in­terpretation can father it upon a darke place of Scripture, or (if need bee) upon a text that is cleane contrary. There being not any absurditie so grosse and incredible, for which these abusers of the text, will not find out an argument. Whereas, 'tis the more naturall way, and should be observed in all controversies, to apply unto eve­ry thing, the proper proofes of it; and when wee deale with Philosophicall [Page 121] truths, to keepe our selves within the bounds of humane reason and autho­rity.

But this by the way. For the better proofe of this proposition, I might here cite the testimony of Diodorus, who thought the Moone to bee full of rugged places, velut terrestribus tumulis superciliosam; but hee erred much in some circumstances of this opinion, especially where he sayes, there is an Iland amongst the Hyperboreans, where­in those hills may to the eye bee plain­ly discovered; and for this reasonLect. aut. l. 1. c. 15. 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, Plut. de plac. l. 2. c. 25. who held that this Planet was full of cham­pion▪ grounds, mountains and vallies. And this seemed likewise probable unto Augustinus Nifus, De Coelo. l. 2. part. 49. 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 po­test facies illa lunae; nec est rationi disso­num, nam luna est corpus imperfectè Sphae­ricum, [Page 122] 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 Planet cannot be per­fecty sphericall, since 'tis so remote a body from the first orbe, as Ari­stotle had said before.’ You may see this truth assented unto by Blancanus the Jesuit,De Mundi fab. pars 3. c. 4. and by him confirmed with divers reasons. Keplar hath observed in the Moones eclipses,Astron. Opt. c. 6. num. 9. that the divisi­on of her inlightned part from the shaded, was made by a crooked une­quall line, of which there cannot bee any probable cause conceived, unlesse it did arise from the ruggednes of that Planet; for it cannot at all be produc'd from the shade of any mountaines here upon earth, because these would bee so lessened before they could reach so high in a conicall shadow, that they would not be at all sensible unto us (as [Page 123] might easily bee demonstrated) nor can it be conceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sun. Wherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to doe in eclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a variety of parts in the Moone it selfe, and what can these be but its gibbosi [...]ties? Now if you should aske a reason why there should bee such a multitude of these in that Planet, the same Keplar shall jest you out an answer. Supposing (saith hee) that those inhabitants are bigger than any of us in the same proportion, as their dayes are longer than ours, viz. 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,Kep append. Selenogra. 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 thinke that those thirsty nations [Page 124] cast up so many and so great heaps of earth in digging of their wine cellars; but this onely by the way.

I shall next produce the eye-witnesse of Galilaeus, Nuncius Sydereus. on which I 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 and spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and en­lightned parts divided by a tortuous line, having some parcels 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.

[Page 125]

Suppose A B C D to represent the appearance 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 Sun beames upon some parts that are higher than the rest, and those obscure gibbosities [Page 126] 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 & land. And if you doe consider how any rug­ged body would appeare being en­lightned, you would easily conceive that it must necessarily seeme under some such gibbous unequall forme, as the Moone is here represented. Now for the infallibility of these appea­rances, I shall referre the reader to that which hath been said in the sixth Pro­position.

But Caesar la Galla affirmes, that all these appearances may consist with a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to be some of them Diaphanous, and some Opacous; and if you object that the light which is con­vayd to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficies, must bee by a continued [Page 127] line, whereas here there appeare many brighter parts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this he answers, it may arise from some se­cret conveyances 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 break 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 breaks out againe. But because this is one of the chiefest fancies, whereby hee thinks hee hath fully answered the argument of this opini­on; I will therefore set downe his an­swer in his owne words, least the Rea­der might suspect more in them than I have expressed.Cap. 11. Non est impossibile coe­cos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opacâ superficie protendi, usque in dia­phanam aliquam ex profundo in superfici­em emergentem partem, per quos ductus lume nlongo postmodum interstitio erum­pat, &c. But I reply, if the superficies [Page 128] betwixt these two enlightened parts remaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwayes be darke, and the Sunne could not make it partake of light more than it could of perspi­cuity: But this contradicts all experi­ence, as you may see in Galilaeus, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes neerer 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. Hee had said before, that he came to see those strange sights dis­covered by Galilaeus his glasse, with an intent of contradiction, and you may reade that confirmed in the weak­nesse of this answer, which rather be­wrayes an obstinate, than a perswaded will; for otherwise sure he would ne­ver have undertooke to have destroyed such certaine proofes with so ground­lesse a fancy.

That instance of Galilaeus, Syst. mundi coll. 1. would have beene a better evasion had this Author been acquainted with it; who might then have compared the Moone [Page 129] to that which wee call mother of pearle, which though it bee most exactly polished in the superficies of it; yet will seeme unto the eye as if there were divers swellings and risings in its severall parts. But yet, this nei­ther would not well have shifted the experiment of the perspective. For these rugged parts doe not only ap­peare upon one side of the Moone, but as the Sunne dos turne about in divers places, so doe they also cast their sha­dow. When the Moone is in her in­crease, then doe they cast their sha­dowes to the East. When she is in the decrease, and the Sunne on the other side of her, then likewise may we dis­cover these brighter parts casting their shadowes Westward. Whereas in the full Moone there are none of all these to be seene.

But it may be objected, that 'tis al­most impossible, and altogether un­likely, that in the Moone there should bee any mountaines so high, as those observations make them. For doe but suppose according to the common principles, that the Moones diameter [Page 130] 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 beene enlightned, when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant from the com­mon terme of illumination. From whence, 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 answer:

1. You must consider the height of the Mountaines is but very little, if you compare them to the length of their shadowes.Hist. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 11. Sir Walter Rawleigh observes that the Mount Athos now [Page 131] called Lacas, cast its shadow 300 fur­longs, which is above 37 miles; and yet that Mount is none of the highest. Nay Solinus (whom I should rather be­lieve in this kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his shadow quite over the Sea,Poly. histor. c. 21. from 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, Atlus, Tauras and Emus, with many others, are much a­bove this height. Tenariffa in the Ca­nary Ilands, is commonly related to bee above 8 miles perpendicular, and [Page 132] bout this height (say some) is the mount Perjacaca in America. Hist. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 11. Sir Wal­ter Rawleigh seemes to thinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles up­right: nay,Meteor. l. 1. c. 11. Aristotle speaking 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,Comparatio Arist. cum. Platone. Sect. 3. c. 5. as you may see con­firmed by Iacobus Mazonius, and out of him in Blancanus the Jesuite. But this deviates from the truth more in excesse,Expost. in loc. Math. Arlis loc. 148. than the other 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 to the senses a proofe beyond exception; and certainly that man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not be­lieve his own eye.

By that perspective you may plain­ly discerne some enlightned parts (which are the mountaines) to bee [Page 133] 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 B D E F be the body of the Moone, A B C will be a ray or beame of the Sunne, which enlightens a mountaine at A, and B is the point of contingency; the distance betwixt A and B, must bee supposed to bee the twentieth part of the diameter, which is an 100 miles, for so far are some en­lightened [Page 134] 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 be 1010000; unto which the quadrate a­rising from A G must be equall; ac­cording to the 47 proposition in the first booke of elements. Therfore 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 we dis­cerne them at this distance? why doth the Moone appeare unto us so exactly round, and not rather as a wheele with teeth?

I answer, 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 bee sensible.

But it may be replied, if there were any such remarkeable hils, why does not the limbe of the Moone appeare [Page 135] 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 shee 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 answer 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 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 bee lesse remarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.

[Page 136] 2. Though there be mountains in that part which apeares unto us to be the limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the bright vapors 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 represent the body of the Moone under a greater forme, and hinders our sight, from a distinct view of her true circumference. But of this in the next Chapter.

3. Keplar hath observed,Somn. Astr. not. 207. that in the solary Eclipses, when the rays may passe thorough this vaporous ayre, there are some gibbosities to be dis­cerned in the limbe of the Moone.

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 works, certainly then these mountaines were not pro­duced in vaine; and what more proba­ble meaning can wee conceive there [Page 137] should be,LIB. 1. Cap. 10. than to make that place con­venient for habitation?

Proposition 10.

AS that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thick­er substance than the other, by rea­son 'tis alwayes mixed with 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, Vide Euseb. Nicrem. de Nat. and since by Baptista Cisacus, Sheiner with others, all of them confirming it by the same ar­guments which I shall onely cite,Hist. l. 2. c. 11. and then leave this Proposition.

[Page 138] 1. 'Tis not improbable that there should be a sphere of grosser aire about the Moone; because 'tis observed, that there are such kind of evaporations which proceed from the Sun it selfe. For there are discovered divers move­able spots, like clouds, that doe en­compasse his body: which those Au­thors, who have been most frequently versed in these kind of experiments and studies, doe conclude to be no­thing else but evaporations from it. The probabilitie and truth of which observations may also bee inferred from some other appearances. As,

1. It hath been observed that the Sunne hath sometimes for the space of foure days together,So. A. D. 1547. April 24. to the 28. appeared as dull and ruddy almost as the Moone in her Ecclipses; In so much that the Starrs have been seene at midday. Nay, he hath been constantly darkned for al­most a whole yeare, and never shined, but with a kind of heavy and duskish light, so that there was scarse heate enough to ripen the fruits. As it was about the time when Caesar was killed. Which was recorded by some of the [Page 139] Poëts. Thus Virgil, speaking of the Sunne.

Ovid likewise speaking of his death

Now these appearances could not arise from any lower vapor. For then 1. They would not have been so uni­versall as they were, being seene through all Europe; or else 2. that vapor must have covered the starres as well as the Sunne, which yet notwith­standing [Page 140] were then plainly discerned in the day time. You may see this argument illustrated in another the like case. Chap. 12. Hence then it will follow, that this fuliginous matter, which did thus obscure the Sunne, must needs bee very neere his bo­dy; and if so, then, what can we more probably guesse it to be, than evaporations from it?

2. 'Tis observed, that in the Suns totall Ecclipses, when there is no part of his body discernable, yet there dos not always follow so great a darknesse, as might bee expected from his totall absence. Now 'tis pro­bable, that the reason is, because these thicker vapors, being enlightned by his beames, doe convey some light unto us, notwithstanding the inter­position of the Moone betwixt his bo­dy and our earth.

3. This likewise is by some guest to be the reason of the crepusculum or that light which wee have before the Suns rising.

Now, if there be such evaporations from the Sunne, much more then [Page 141] from the moone, which does consist of a more grosse and impure substance. The other arguments are taken from severall observations in the Moon her­selfe, and doe more directly tend to the proofe of this proposition.

2. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightned, is al­wayes part of a bigger circle, than that which is darker. The frequent experience of others hath proved this, and an easie observation may quick­ly 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 send forth any such rayes as may make her appearance bigger than her body.

3. When the Moone being halfe en­lightned, begins to cover any Starre, if the Starre bee towards the obscurer part, then may it by the perspective be discerned, to bee neerer unto the center of the moone, than the out­ward circumference of the enlightned part. But the moone being in the [Page 142] full; then dos it seeme to receive these starres, within its limbe.

4. Though the Moone doe some­time appeare the first day of her change when so much as appeares enlightned, cannot be above the 80 part of her diameter, yet then will the hornes seeme at least to be of a fingers breadth in extension. Which could not bee, unlesse the ayre about it were illumi­nated.

5. 'Tis observed in the Solary ec­clipses, that there is sometimes a great trepidation about the body of the Moone, from which wee 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 in­tercis [...], Scheiner. Ros. Vis. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27. that the Sunne-beames were broken and refracted by the vapours that encompassed the Moone.

6. I may adde the like argument taken from another observation which will be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, we discerne the Moone as shee is in her owne naturall [Page 143] bignesse; but then she appeares some­what lesse than when she is in the full, though she be in the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle; and therfore Tycho 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 orbe of thicker aire, neere the body of that Planet, which may bee enlightned by the reflected beames, and through which the direct rayes 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 bee as right as any of the others parts, when as tis the thinnest of all?

I answer, if the light be received by reflection only, then the thickest body hath most, because it is best able to beate backe the rayes; but if the light be received by illumination (e­specially if there be an opacous body behinde, which may double the [Page 144] beames by reflexion) as it is here,LIB. 1. Cap. 11. 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 enlightned; So that probable it is, there may be such aire without the Moone; & hence it comes to passe, that the greater spots are on­ly visible towards her middle parts, and none neere the circumference; not but that there are some as well in those parts as elsewhere, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of those brighter vapours which hide them.

Proposition 11.

I Have already handled the first thing that I promised, according to the Method which Aristotle uses in his Book de Mundo, and shew'd you the necessary parts that belong to this [Page 145] 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 bee some way corres­pondent unto ours, that they should have Winter and Summer, night and day, as we have.

Now that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and Sum­mer, is affirmed by Aristotle himselfe,De gen ani­mal. l. 4. 12. since there is one hemispheare that hath alwayes heate and light, and the other that hath darknesse and cold. True indeed, their dayes and yeares are always of one and the same length (unlesse we make one of their yeares to be 19 of ours,Golden Number. in which space all the Starres doe arise after the same order.) 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 [Page 146] manner as it is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about her purposes. We have no reason then to thinke it necessary that both these worlds should be altogether alike, but it may suffice if they be correspondent in something only. However, it may bee questioned whether it doth not seeme to bee 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 answer, 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 speed of a clearer pro­gresse.

Plutarch one of the chiefe patrons of this world in the Moone,Plut. de fac. lunae. doth dire­ctly contradict this proposition; affirm­ing, that those who live there, may dis­cerne our world, as the dreggs and [Page 147] 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 bee 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 answer, 'tis probable that Plutarch spake this inconsiderately, and without a reason; which makes him likewise fall into another absurditie, when hee says 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 that of the Poët: ‘Provehimur portu, terrae (que) urbes (que) rece­dunt.’

And I doubt not but that ingenuous Author 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.

[Page 148] 2. Unto him assents Macrobius, whose words are these; Terra accepto solis lumine clarescit tantummodò, Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 19. 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 thick 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; for polished steele (whose opacity will not give any admittance to the rayes) re­flects a stronger heate than 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 aire, which contra­dicts the proved and received opinion.

[Page 149] 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. Thus Plotinus is cited by Caelius, Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4. Si concipias te in subli­mi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis subji­ciatur terrae moles aquis circumfusa, & solis syderum (que) radiis illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis modo visatur lunaris globi species. ‘If you 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 it would then appeare to you in the same shape as the Moone doth now unto us.’ In epist. ad Sebast. Fan­tonum. So Paulus Fosca­rinus. Terra nihil aliud est quàm altera Luna, vel Stella, talis (que) nobis appareret, si ex convenienti elongatione eminus conspici­retur, in ipsa (que) observari possent eaedem aspe­ctuum varietates, quae in Lunâ apparent. The earth is nothing else but another Moone or Starre, and would appeare [Page 150] so unto us if it were beheld at a conve­nient distance with the same changes and varieties as there are in the Moon. Thus also Carolus Malapertius, Praefat. ad Austriaca syd. whose 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.’ Meteor. l. 1. c. 2. Art. 2. Unto these doth Fromondus assent, when he sayes, Credo equidem quod si oculus quispiam in orbe lunari foret, globum terrae & aquae instar ingentis syde­ris à sole illustrem conspiceret. ‘I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like some great Star to any one, who should looke upon it from the Moone.’ Now this could not bee, 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 [Page 151] great way further. The chiefe argu­ment which doth most plainely mani­fest this truth, is taken from a common observation which may bee 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 duskish light; but if you chuse out such a situation, 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 remarkable 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,De mundi fab. p. 3. c. 3. Haec experientia ita me aliquando fefellit, 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 [Page 152] 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 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, Ant. Lect. l. 20. c. 5. Quod si in 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 of this light attributes it to the Planet Venus; Progym. 1. 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 Venus is sometimes over the [Page 153] Moone, when as shee cannot convey any light to that part which is turned from her.

It doth not proceed from the fixed starres; for then it would retaine the same light in ecclipses, 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.

In briefe, this is neither proper to the Moone, nor does it proceed from any penetration of the Suns rays, or the shining of Venus, or the other Planets, or the fixed starrs. 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 [Page 154] darkenesse from the eclipses, being al­lo severally helped by one another in their greatest wants: For when the Moone is in conjunction with the Sun, & 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 shee 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 alwayes 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 you can neither dis­cerne this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, and that for a double rea­son.

[Page 155] 1. Because the neerer it comes to the full, the lesse light dos it receive from the earth, whose illumination dos al­ways decrease in the same proportion as the Moone dos increase.

2. Because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. Quippe illustratum medium speciem recipit va­lentiorem, Scal. exerc. 62. 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 drowns the lesse, so the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But as they do always 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 darkned; and when our Sun is eclipsed, thē is their Moon deprived of its light, as you may see affirmed by Meslin. Quod si terram nobis ex alto liceret intueri, Epit. Astro. l. 4. part. 2. quemadmodum deficientem lunam ex lon­ginquo spectare possumus, videremus tempo­re eclipsis solis terrae aliquam partem lumi­ne solis deficere, eodem planè modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit. ‘If we might be­hold [Page 156] this globe of earth at the same distance, as we doe the Moon in her defect, 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.

[Page]

[Page 158] Where A represents the Sunne, 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 darkned, 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 appearance of the same spots, which could not thus come to passe, if the Moone had such a diur­nall motion about its owne axis as per­haps our earth hath. And though some [Page 159] suppose her to move in an epicycle, yet this doth not so turne her body round, that wee may discerne both Hemi­spheares; for according to that hypo­thesis (say they) 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 unto mee this seemes a probable conjecture.

That the upper Hemispheare of the Moone doth receive a sufficient light from those Planets about it; and a­mongst these, Venus (it may bee) be­stowes a more especiall brightnesse, since Galilaeus hath plainly discerned that she suffers the same increases and decreases; as the Moone hath, and 'tis probable that this may bee 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 [Page 160] Epicycle, then is she in conjun­ction with her husband the Sunne, from whom after shee 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, and the line. And be­sides, 'tis considerable, that there are two kinde of Planets.

1. Primarie, such whose proper cir­cles doe encompasse the body of the Sunne, whereof there are six. Saturne, Iupiter, Mars, Ceres or the Earth, Ve­nus, Mercury. As in the Frontispice.

2. Secondary, such whose proper circles are not about the Sunne, but some of the other primarie Planets. Thus are there two about Saturne, foure about Iupiter, and thus likewise [Page 161] dos the Moone encompasse our earth. Now tis probable that these lesser, se­condary Planets, are not so accommo­dated with all conveniences of habi­tation, as the others that are more prin­cipall.

But it may seeme a very difficult thing to conceive, how so grosse and darke a body as our earth, should yeeld such a cleere light as proceeds from the Moone; and therefore the Cardi­nall de Cusa (who thinks every Starre to be a severall wo [...]ld) is of opinion that the light of the Sunne is not able to make them appeare so bright;De doct. ig. l. 2. c. 12. but the reason 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 be freed from such [Page 162] increases and decreases as shee is now lyable unto.

Keplar thinks that our earth receives that light whereby it shines, from the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended cleare brightnes as the Moon is capable of, and therefore he guesses, that the earth there, is of a more chokie soyle, like the Ile of Crete, and so is better able to reflect a stronger light, whereas our earth must supply this in­tention with the quantity of its body. But this I conceive to bee a needlesse conjecture, since our earth, if all things were well considered, will bee found 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 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 [Page 163] cleerely 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 we may discerne reflected 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. 'Tis considerable that though the Moon dos in the night time seeme to be of so cleere a brightnesse, yet when wee looke upon it in the day, it appeares like some little whitish cloud: Not but that at both times, she is of an equall light in her selfe. The reason of this difference is, because in the night wee looke upon it through a darke and obscure medium, there being no other enlightned body, whose brightnesse may abate from this: Whereas in the day time, the whole heavens round about it, are of an equall clearenesse, and so make it to appeare with a weak­er light. Now because wee cannot see [Page 164] how the enlightned parts of our earth doe looke in the night, therefore in comparing it with the Moone, wee must not consider her, as she is beheld through the advantage of a darke me­dium, but as she seemes in the day-time: Now, in any cleere Sun-shine-day, our earth does appeare as bright as the Moone, which at the same time does seeme like some duskish cloud (as any little observation may easily manifest.) Therefore we need not doubt but that the earth is as well able to give light, as the Moone. To this, it may be ad­ded that those very clouds, which in the day-time seeme to be of an equall light to the moone, doe in the evening become as darke as our earth; and as for those of them, which are looked upon at any great distance, they are often mistaken for the mountaines.

4. Tis considerable, that though the moone seeme to bee of so great a brightnesse in the night, by reason of its neerenesse unto those severall sha­dowes which it casts, yet is it of it selfe weaker than that part of twilight, which usually wee have for halfe an [Page 165] houre after Sunne-set, because wee cannot till after that time discerne any shadow to be made by it.

5. Consider the great distance at which we behold the Planets, for this must needs adde much to their shining; and therefore Cusanus (in the above ci­ted place) thinks that if a man were in the Sunne, that Planet would not ap­peare so bright to him, as now it doth to us, because then his eye could dis­cerne but little, whereas here, we 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 brightnes, where­as then he could onely see some small parts of it; 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 we 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 see the whole earth hang­ing [Page 166] 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 we doe well consider this, wee may easily conceive that our earth appeares as bright to those other inhabitants in the Moone, as theirs doth to us.

But here it may bee objected, that with us, for many days in the yeare, the heavens are so overclowded, that wee cannot see the Sunne at all, and for the most part, in our brightest dayes, there are many scattered clouds which shade the earth in sundry places; so that in this respect, it must needs be unlike the Moon and will not be able to yeeld so cleare, unintermitted a light, as it re­ceives from that planet.

To this I answer.

1. As for those lesser brighter clouds which for the most part are scattered up and down in the clearest days, these can be no reason why our earth should be of a darker appearāce, because these clouds being neere unto the earth, and so not distinguishable at so great a di­stance from it, and likewise being illu­minated [Page 167] on their back parts by the Sunne that shines upon them,LIB. 1. Cap. 12. must seeme as bright to those in the Moone, as if the beames were immediately re­flected from our earth.

2. When these clouds that are in­terposed, are of any large extension or great opacity, as it is in extraordinary lasting and great rains, then there must be some discernable alteration in the light of our earth; But yet this dos not make it to differ from the Moone: since it is so also with that Planet, as is shew­ed in the later part of the next chapter.

Proposition. 12.

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 wayes than one how to bring [Page 168] 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 ayre, pleasant dewes, and gentle moisture, which might serve for 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 ayre encompassing both, I should ra­ther therefore thinke that nature there should use the same way of producing meteors as shee 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 shee bee driven thence.

One argument whereby I shall ma­nifest this truth, may bee taken from those new Stars which have appeared in divers ages of the world, and by their paralax have been discerned to have been above the Moone, such as [Page 169] was that in Cassiopeia, that in Sagittarius, with many others betwixt the Planets. Hipparchus in his time tooke especiall notice of such as these,Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 26. and therefore fancied out such cōstellations in which to place the Starrs, shewing how many there were in every asterisme, 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 likelyhood are nothing else 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 be proved. Hee endeavouring to confirme the incor­ruptibility of the Heavens, and being there to satisfie the argument which is taken from these Comets, He answers [Page 170] 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 & Iovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant. ‘Either the argument from the para­lax is not efficacious, or if it bee, yet the use of the instruments might deceive, either in regard of the star, or the medium, or the distance, and so this comet might be in the upper regions of the ayre; or if it were in the heavens, there it might be pro­duced by the reflexion of the rayes from Saturne and Iupiter, who were then in conjunction.’ You see what shifts hee is driven to, how he runnes up and downe to many starting holes, that he may find 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. Nihil turpius (saithEpist. 95. Seneca) du­bio & incerto, pedem modo referente, modo [Page 171] producente. ‘What can there be more unseemely in one that should bee a faire disputant, than to be now here, now there, and so uncertaine, that one cannot tell where to find him?’ Hee thinks that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there may bee many other reasons of such appearan­ces; but what he knowes not; perhaps (hee sayes) that argument from the pa­ralax is not sufficient,Vide Gali­laeum. Syst. mundi. Col­loq 3. or if it be, then there may bee some deceit in the ob­servation. To this I may safely say, that he may justly bee accounted a weake Mathematician who mistrusts the strength of this argument; nor can hee know much in Astronomy, who understands not the paralax, which is a 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 all deceive the beholder; but I would have him shew which of all these was likely to cause an error in [Page 172] 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 bee de­ceived in their observing 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 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 brightnesle, by reason of the interposition of such va­pors, which doe multiply their light; and so the alteration will be here only, and not in the heavens. Thus Aristotle thought the appearance of the milkie way was produced. For hee held that there were many little starres, which by their influence did constantly at­tract [Page 173] such a vapour towards that place of heaven, so that it alwayes appeared white. Now by the same reason may a brighter vapor bee the cause of these appearances.

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

1. These starres were never 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 bee 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 bigge as that; this ar­gument is the same in effect with that of the paralax, as you may see in this Figure.

[Page 174]

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 with this brightnesse, but perhaps another at L, betwixt which [Page 175] 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 bee perceived with the same brightnesse.

'Tis necessary therfore that the cause of this appearance should be in the hea­vens. And this is granted by the most & 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 Anaxagoras 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 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 [Page 176] 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 bee dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see it confuted by many other arguments.Clavius in sphaeram. cap. 1. Others there are, who affirme these to bee some new created starres, 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; wher­fore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a great injury to nature, and to derogate from her skill; an in­dignity much mis-becoming a man who professes himselfe to be 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, if being but an idle way to shift off the labour of any further search. But here's the misery of it, we first tye our selves unto Aristotles [Page 177] principles, and then conclude that no­thing could contradict them, but a mi­racle; whereas 'twould be much bet­ter for the Common-wealth of learn­ing, if wee would ground our princi­ples rather upon the frequent experi­ences of our owne, than 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 Peno, Tycho Pro­gym. l. 1. c. 9. Rothmannus & Galilaeus. But this 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 Sunne, and that that Planet only is Cometarum officinae, 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 [Page 178] have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble Tycho therefore thinks 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 some space of time rarifyed againe into its wonted nature. But this is not likely; because the appearance of the milky way dos not arise from some fluider parts of the heaven (as he supposes) but from the light of many lesser starrs which are thereabouts.Fromond. Meteor. l. 2. c. 5. art. 2. And therefore it is usually thus described.Item Vesta tract. 5. c. 2. Via lactea nihil aliud est quàm innumerabiles stella­rum fixarum greges qui confuso & pallenti lumine tractum illum inalbant. The milky way is nothing else but the pale and confused light of many leser starres, whereby some parts of the heaven are made to appeare white.

And beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this condensation, un­lesse there bee such qualities there, as there are in our ayre, and then why may not the Planets have the like qua­lities as our earth? and if so, then 'tis [Page 179] more probable that they are made by the ordinary way of nature, as they are with us, and consist of such exhalati­ons from the bodies of the Planets, as being very much rarified, may bee drawne up, through the orbe of grosse vaporous ayre that incompasses them. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed most likely to Camillus Glorio­sus. De Comet. l. 5. c. 4. Apol. pro Galil. Th. Campanella, Fromondus, with some others. But if you aske, whither shall all these exhalations returne?Meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6. I answer every one into his own Planet. If it be againe objected, that then there will be so many centers of gravity, and each severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, wee have not like pro­babilitie concerning the rest; but yet, perhaps all of them are so, except the Sunne,La [...]tant. Inst. l. 3. c 23. though Cusanus and some o­thers think there is one also; and la­ter times have discovered some lesser clouds moving round about him. But as for Saturne, he hath two Moones on each side. Iupiter hath foure, that incircle him with their motion. Which are lik­wise ecclipsed by the interposition of his body, as the Moone is by our earth. [Page 180] Venus is observed to increase and de­crease as the Moone.LIB. 1. Cap. 11. And this perhaps hath been noted by former ages, as may be guest by that relation of Saint Austin out of Varro. De Civit. Mars, and all the rest,Dei l. 21. cap. 8. derive their light from the Sunne. Concerning Mercury, there hath been little or no observation, because for the most part, hee lies hid under the Sunne-beames, and seldome appeares by himselfe. But when he dos, yet the compasse of his body is so little, and his light of so cleare a brightnesse, by reason of his neerenesse to the Sunne, that the perspective cannot make the same discoveries upon him, as from the rest.

So that if you consider their quanti­ty, their opacity, or these others dis­coveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them may bee a severall world. Especially, since every one of them is allotted to a severall orbe, and not altogether in one, as the fixed starres seeme to bee. 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 prove that [Page 181] there may bee one in the Moone.LIB. 1. Cap. 12.

It hath been before confirmed, that there was a spheare of thick vaporous ayre encompassing the Moone, as the first and second regions doe this earth. I have now shewed, that thence such exhalations may proceed as doe 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 not deny it, though hee would (as he confesses himselfe;)De meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6. for if the Sunne be able to exhale from them such fumes as may cause Co­mets, why not then such as may cause winds, 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 be more espe­cially requisite for them, since it may allay the heate and scorchings of the Sunne, when hee is over their heads. And nature hath thus provided for those in Peru, with the other inhabi­tants under the line.

But if there bee such great, and fre­quent [Page 182] alterations in the Heavens, why cannot we discerne them?

I answer:

1. There may be such, and wee not able to perceive them, because of the weaknesse of our eye, and the di­stance of those places from us; they are the words of Fienus (as they are quoted by Fromondus in the above ci­ted place) Possunt maximae permutatio­nes in coelo fieri, etiamsi a nobis non conspi­ciantur; hoc visus nostri debilitas & im­mensa coeli distantia faciunt. And unto him assents Fromondus himselfe, when a little after he sayes, Si in sphaeris plane­tarum degeremus, plurima forsan coelestium nebularum vellera toto aethere passim dis­persa videremus, quorum species jam eva­nescit nimiâ spatii intercapedine. ‘If we did live in the spheares of the Pla­nets, we 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 Keplar affirme, that they have seene some of these altera­tions. The words of Maeslin are these [Page 183] (as I find them cited.) In eclipsi Lunari vespere Dominicae Palmarum Anni 1605.LIB. 1. Cap. 11. in corpore Lunae versus Boream, nigricans quaedam macula conspecta fuit, Dissert. 2. cum nunc. Galil. item. Somn. Astron. nota ultima obscurior caetero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri fi­guram repraesentabat; dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tem­pestuosis imbribus gravida, cujusmodi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliorae con­vallium loca videre non rarò contingit. ‘In that lunary eclipse which happened in the even of Palme-sunday, 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 doe such lower clouds appeare from the tops of high mountaines.’

And a little before this passage, the same Author speaking of that vapo­rous ayre about the Moone, tells us. Quod circumfluus ille splendor diversis tem­poribus apparet limpidior plus minusve. That it dos at divers times appeare of a diffe­rent [Page 184] clearnesse, sometimes more, and sometimes lesse; which he guesses to arise from the clouds and vapors that are in it.

Unto this I may adde another testi­mony of Bapt. Cisatus, as he is quoted by Nicrembergius, grounded upon an observation taken 23 yeeres after this of Maeslin, and writ to this Euseb. Ni­cremberg. in a letter by that diligent & judicious Astronomer.Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. The words of it runne thus; Et quidem in eclipsi nupera solari quae fuit ipso die natali Christi, obser­vavi clarè in luna soli supposita, quidpiam quod valde probat id ipsum quod Cometae quo (que) & maculae solares urgent, nempe coe­lum non esse à tenuitate & variationibus aeris exemptum; nam circa lunam adverti esse sphaeram seu orbem quendam vaporo­sum, non secus atque circum terram, adeo (que) sicut ex terra in aliquam usque sphaeram va­pores & exhalationes expirant, it a quoque ex luna. ‘In that solary eclipse which happened on Christmas day, when the Moone was just under the Sun, I plainly discerned that in her, which may clearely confirme what the Comets and Suns spots doe seeme [Page 185] to prove,LIB. 1. Cap. 13. viz. that the heavens are not so solid, nor freed from those changes which our aire is liable un­to; for, about the Moon I perceived such an orbe, or 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 grounds, and plaine testimonies I have brought for the confirmation of this Propositi­on: many other things in this behalfe might bee spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and passe unto the next.

Proposition 13.

I Have already handled the Seasons, and Meteors belonging to this new [Page 186] World: tis requisite that in the next place I should come unto the third thing which I promised, and say somewhat of the inhabitants; Con­cerning whom there might bee many difficult questions raised; as; whether that place bee more inconvenient for habitation than our World (as Keplar thinks;) 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 owne part content only to set downe such notes belong­ing unto these, which I have observed in other Writers.De doct. ig­norantia. l. 2. c. 12. Cum tot a illa regio no­bis ignota sit, remanent inhabitatores illi ignoti penitus (saith Cusanus) since wee know not the regions of that place, we must be altogether ignorant of the in­habitants. There hath not yet beene any such discovery concerning these, upon which we may build a certainty, [Page 187] or good probability: well may wee guesse at them, & that too very doubt­fully, but wee can know nothing; for, if wee doe hardly guesse aright at things which bee upon earth, Wisd. 9. 16. if with labour wee doe find the things that are at hand, how then can wee search out those things that are in heaven? What a little is that which wee know, in respect of those many matters contained within this great Universe? This whole globe of earth and water, though it seeme to us to bee 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 we understand any thing (saith Esdras) tis nothing but that which is upon the earth; 2 Esd. 4. 21. and hee that dwelleth above in the heavens, may onely understand 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 [Page 188] 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 intolerable 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 from the one, requires some space before it can bee dispelled by the other, so that the heat spending a great while before it can have the vi­ctory, hath not afterwards much time to rage in. Wherfore notwithstanding this doubt, yet that place may remaine habitable. And this was the opinion of the Cardinal de Cusa, when speaking of this Planet, he sayes,De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12. Hic locus Mun­di est habitatio hominum & animalium at­que vegetabilium. ‘This part of the [Page 189] world is inhabited by men, & beasts, and plants.’ To him assented Campa­nella; but he cannot determine whe­ther they 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, it may bee, they were delivered 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 sayes,Ephes. 1. 10. God gathered all 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 he sayes,Col. 1. 20. that it pleased the Father to reconcile 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 bee proved from it. Wherefore [Page 190] 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, and likenesse to our natures. Or it may be, they are of a quite different nature from any thing here below, such as no imagina­tion can describe; our understandings being capable only of such things as have entered by our senses, or else such mixed natures as may bee composed from them. Now, there may be many other species of creatures beside those that are already knowne in the world; there is a great chasme betwixt the na­ture of men and Angels; It may bee the inhabitants of the Planets are of a middle nature between both these. Tis not improbable that God might create some of all kindes, that so he might more compleatly glorifie himselfe in the works of his Power and Wise­dome.

Cusanus 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, Suspicamur in regione [Page 191] solis magis esse solares, claros & illumi­natos intellectuales habitatores, spiritua­liores etiam quàm in lunâ, ubi magis lu­natici, & in terra magis materiales & crassi, ut illi intellectualis naturae so­lares sint multum in actu & parum in potentia, terreni verò magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares in medio flu­ctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influ­entia ignili solis, aquatica simul & aerea lunae, & gravedine materiali terrae, & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regioni­bus, suspicantes nullam habitationibus ca­rere, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales unius universi, quot sunt stellae quarum non est numerus, nisi apud eum qui omnia in numero creavit.

‘Wee may conjecture (saith hee) the inhabitants of the Sunne are like to the nature of that Planet, more cleare and bright, more intellectu­all 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 Sunne, are more forme than matter, those in the earth [Page 192] 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, we conjecture that none of them are without inhabi­tants, but that there are so many particular worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are starres, which are innumerable, unlesse it be to him who created all things in number.’

For hee 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 Plutarch (as hee faignes it) the nature [Page 193] 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 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 ayre is most quiet and pure.Nat. Com. l. 3. c. 19. Thus Socrates, thus Plato, with his followers, did esteeme this to bee the place where those purer soules in­habite, who are freed from the Sepul­cher, 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 thinks moreover, that there are two places of happines answerable [Page 194] to those two parts which he fancies to remaine of a man when he is dead, the soule and the understanding; the soule hee thinks 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 Sunne, 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 region of the ayre where hell is, and there suffer unspeakable torments for those sins 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, 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 [Page 195] 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 bee imprisoned in a body, o­therwise they remaine in the Moone, till their souls bee resolved into it, and the understanding being cleared from all impediments, ascends to the Sunne 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 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, [Page 196] or else keepes them long ere they can put off their souls. Thus you see Plu­tarchs opinion concerning the inhabi­tants and neighbours of the Moone, which (according to the manner of the Academicks) hee delivers in a third person; you see hee makes that Planet an inferior kind of heaven, and though hee differ in many circumstances, yet doth hee describe it to bee some such place, as wee suppose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concern­ing the place of the damned spirits, 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 indeed,De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 16. S. Austin affirmes that this place cannot bee discovered; But others there are who can shew the situ­ation of it out of Scripture; Some hold­ing it to be in another world without this,Mat. 25. 30. because our Saviour calls it [...] outward darknesse.Eph. 4. 9. But the most will have it placed towards the center [Page 197] of our earth, because 'tis 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 in his Comment on the Revelations, speaking of those words, where 'tis said,Rev. 14. 20. that the blood went out of the wine­presse, even unto the horses-bridles by the space of one thousand and six hundred fur­longs, interprets them to be meant of hell, and that that number expresses the diameter of its concavity, which is 200 Italian miles;De Morib. div. l. 13. c. 24. But Lessius thinkes that this opinion 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 six foot in the square; whereas (sayes he) tis certaine, that there shall not bee one hundred thousand millions in all that shall bee damned. You see the bold Iesuit was carefull that every one should have but roome enough in hell, and by the [Page 198] strangenesse of the conjecture, you may guesse that hee had rather bee 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 bee in the regions of the ayre, as well as in the center: And therefore perhaps it is that the Divell is stiled the prince of the ayre. But of this only 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 bee a lower kind of heaven,Cu [...]silent oracula. and therefore in another place he calls it a terrestriall starre, and an [Page 199] 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 likelyhood) from the assertion of Plato, and perhaps, this of Plutarch. Tostatus layes this opinion upon Isiodor. Sir W. Raw. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 7. Hispalensis, and the vene­rable Bede; and Pererius fathers it upon Strabus and Rabanus his Master.In Genes. Some would have it to bee situated in such a place as could not bee discovered, which caused the penman of Esdras to make it a harder matter to know the out­goings of Paradise, 2 Esdr. 4. 7. than to weigh the weight of the fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call againe a day that is past. But notwith­standing this, there bee some others, who think, that it is on the top of some high mountaine under the line; and these interpreted the torrid Zone to be the flaming sword whereby Pa­radise was guarded. 'Tis the consent of divers others, that Paradise is situ­ated in some high and eminet place. So Tostatus: Est etiam Paradisus situ altissi­ma, In Genes. supra omnem terrae altitudinem, ‘Pa­radise [Page 200] is situated in some high place above the earth:’ and therefore in his Comment upon the 49 of Genesis, he understands the blessing of Iacob concerning the everlasting hills to bee meant of Paradise, and the blessing it selfe to bee nothing else but a promise of Christs comming, by whose Pas­sion the gates of Paradise should bee opened. Unto him assented Rupertus, Scotus, and most of the other Schoole­men, as I find them cited by Pererius, and out of him in Sir Walter Rawleigh. Comment. in 2. Gen. v. 8. Their reason was this: because in pro­bability,L. 1. c. 3. sect. 6. 7. this place was not overflowed by the Flood, since there were no sin­ners there, which might draw that curse upon it. Nay Tostatus thinks, that the body of Enoch was kept there; and some of the Fathers, as Tertullian and Austin, have affirmed, that the bles­sed soules were reserved in that place till the day of Judgement; and there­ford 'tis likely that it was not over­flowed by the Flood, It were easie to produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers, to prove that Paradise is yet really existent. Any diligent peruser of [Page 201] them, may easily observe how they doe generally interpret the Paradise whereto Saint Paul was wrapt,2 Cor. 12. 4. Luke 23. 43. and that wherein our Saviour promised the Thiefe should be with him, to bee lo­cally the same from whence our first parents were banished. Now there cannot be any place on earth designed where this should bee: And therefore it is not altogether improbable that it was in this other world.

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 ayre. For these and such like considerations, have so many af­firmed, that Paradise was in a high ele­vated place. Which some have con­ceived could bee nowhere but in the Moone: For it could not b [...] in the top of any mountaine; nor can wee thinke of any other body separated from this earth, which can be a more convenient [Page 202] place for habitation than this Planet; therefore they concluded that it was there.

It could not bee on the top of any mountaine.

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

2. Because it must be 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 the argu­m̄ets, 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 Moone; I dare not my selfe affirme any thing of these Selenites, because I know not any ground wheron 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.

Proposition 14.

ALL that hath been said, concern­ing the people of the new world, is but conjecturall, and full of uncer­tainties; nor can we ever looke for any evident or more probable discoveries in this kind, unlesse there bee some hopes of inventing means for our con­veyance thither. The possibilitie of which, shall bee the subject of our en­quiry in this last Proposition.

And, if we doe but consider by what steps and leasure, all arts doe usually rise to their growth, we shall have no cause to doubt why this also may not hereafter be found out amongst other secrets. It hath constantly yet been the method of providence, not present­ly to shew us all, but to leade us on by [Page 204] degrees, 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 other as excellent mysteries will be discovered. Time, who hath alwayes been the fa­ther of new truths, and hath revealed unto us many things, which our Ance­stors were ignorant of, will also mani­fest to our posteritie,Nat. Qu. l. 7. cap. 25. that which wee now desire, but cannot know. Veniet tempus (saith Seneca) quo ista quae nunc latent, in lucem dies extrahet, & longio­ris aevi diligentia. Time will come, when the indeavors of after ages, shall bring such things to light as now lie hid in obscuritie. Arts are not yet come to their solstice. But the indu­strie of future times, assisted with the labors of their forefathers, may reach that height which wee could not at­taine to. Veniet tempus quo posteri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse mirentur. As wee now wonder at the blindnesse of our [Page 205] 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.

In the first ages of the world the I­landers thought themselves either to bee the only dwellers upon earth, or else if there were any other, they could not possibly conceive how they might have any commerce with them, being severed by the deepe and broade Sea. But after times found out the inventi­on of ships, in which notwithstanding, none but some bold, daring men durst venture, according to that of the Tra­goedian.Sen. Med. act. 1.

And yet now, how easie a thing is this even to a timorous and cowardly nature? And questionlesse, the inven­tion of some other means for our con­veiance to the Moone, cannot seeme more incredible to us, than this did at [Page 206] first to them, and therefore we have no just reason to bee discouraged in our hopes of the like successe.

Yea, but (you will say) there can be no sayling thither, unlesse that were true which the Poëts doe but faine, that she made her bed in the Sea. Wee have not now any Drake, or Columbus, to undertake this voyage, or any Dae­dalus to invent a conveiance through the ayre.

I answer, Though wee have not, yet why may not succeeding times, rayse up some spirits as eminent for new at­tempts and strange inventions, as any that were before them? Tis the opi­nion of Keplar, Disserta. cum Nun. Syder. that as soone as the art of flying is found out, some of their nation will make one of the first Colo­nies, that shall transplant into that o­ther world. I suppose, his appropriat­ing this preheminence to his owne Countreymen, may arise from an o­verpartiall affection to them. But yet thus far I agree with him, That when ever that Art is invented, or any other, wherby a man may be conveyed some twenty miles high, or thereabouts, [Page 207] then, tis not altogether improbable that some or other may be successefull in this attempt.

For the better clearing of which I shall first lay downe, and then answer those doubts that may make it seeme utterly impossible.

These are chiefly three.

The first, taken from the naturall heavinesse of a mans body, whereby it is made unfit for the motion of a­scent, together with the vast distance of that place from us.

2. From the extreme coldnes of the aethereall ayre.

3. The extreme thinnesse of it. Both which must needs make it impas­sible, though it were but as many single miles thither, as it is thousands.

For the first. Though it were suppo­sed that a man could flie, yet wee may well think hee would be very slow in it, since hee hath so heavy a body, and such a one too, as nature did not prin­cipally intend, for that kind of motion. Tis usually observed, that amongst the varietie of birds, those which doe most converse upon the earth, and are swift­est [Page 208] in their running, as a Pheasant, Par­tridge, &c. together with all domesti­call fowle, are lesse able for flight, than othhrs which are for the most part up­on the wing, as a Swallow, swift, &c. And therefore wee may well think, that man being not naturally endowed with any such condition as may inable him for this motion; and being necessa­rily tied to a more especiall residence on the earth, must needs be slower than any fowle, and lesse able to hold out. Thus is it also in swimming; which Art though it bee growne to a good emi­nence, yet he that is best skilled in it, is not able either for continuance, or swiftnesse, to equall a fish; Because he is not naturally appointed to it. So that though a man could fly, yet hee would be so slow in it, and so quickly weary, that hee could never think to reach so great a journey as it is to the Moone.

But suppose withall that hee could fly as fast, and long, as the swiftest bird: yet it cannot possibly bee con­ceived, how he should ever be able to passe through so vast a distance, as there [Page 209] is betwixt the Moone and our earth. For this Planet, according to the com­mon grounds, is usually granted to bee at the least, 52 semidiameters of the earth from us. Reckoning for each se­midiameter 3456 English miles, of which the whole space will be about 179712.

So that though a man could con­stantly keep on in his journey thither by a straite line, though he could fly a thousand miles in a day; yet he would not arrive thither under 180 dayes, or halfe a yeare.

And how were it possible for any to tarry so long without dyet or sleep?

1. For Diet. I suppose there could be no trusting to that fancy of Philo the Iew (mentioned before,Prop. 3.) who thinks that the musick of the spheares should supply the strength of food.

Nor can wee well conceive how a man should be able to carry so much luggage with him, as might serve for his Viaticum in so tedious a jour­ney.

2. But if he could: yet he must have some time to rest and sleep in. And I [...] [Page 212] yet they have not any present inclina­tion or pronesse to one another. And so consequently, cannot bee styled hea­vy.

The meaning of this will bee more clearely illustrated by a similitude. As any light body (suppose the Sunne) dos send forth his beames in an orbicu­lar forme; So likewise any magneticall body, for instance a round loadstone dos cast abroad his magneticall vigor in a spheare.Gilbert. de Mganete. l. 2. cap. 7. Thus.

Where suppose the inward circle at A to represent the Loadstone, and the [Page 213] outward one betwixt B C, the orbe that dos terminate its vertue.

Now any other body that is like af­fected comming within this sphere, as B, will presently descend towards the center of it, and in that respect may be styled heavy. But place it without this sphere as C, and then the desire of u­nion ceaseth, and so consequently the motion also.

To apply then what hath been said. This great globe of earth and water, hath been proved by many observati­ons, to participate of Magneticall pro­perties. And as the Loadstone dos cast forth its owne vigor round about its body, in a magneticall compasse: So likewise dos our earth. The difference is, that it is another kind of affection which causes the union betwixt the Iron and Loadstone, from that which makes bodies move unto the earth. The former is some kind of neerenesse and similitude in their natures, for which, Philosophie as yet has not found a particular name. The latter dos arise from that peculiar qualitie, where­by the earth is properly distinguished [Page 214] from the other elements, which is its Condensitie. Of which the more any thing dos participate, by so much the stronger will bee the desire of union to it. So gold and others metalls which are most close in their composition, are likewise most swift in their motion of discent.

And though this may seeme to bee contradicted by the instance of me­talls, which are of the same weight, when they are melted, and when they are hard: As also of water, which dos not differ in respect of gravitie, when it is frozen and when it is fluid: yet we must know that metalls are not rari­fied by melting, but mollified. And so too for frozen waters, they are not pro­perly condensed, but congealed into a harder substance, the parts being not contracted closer together, but still possessing the same extension. But yet (I say) tis very probable, that there is such a spheare about the earth, which dos terminate its power of attracting other things unto it. So that suppose a body to bee placed within the limits of this sphere, and then it must needs [Page 215] tend downewards, towards the center of it. But on the contrary, if it be be­yond this compasse, then there can bee no such mutuall attraction; & so conse­quently, it must rest immoveable from any such motion.

For the farther confirmation of this, I shall propose two pertinent observa­tions.

The first taken in the presence of many Physitians, and related by an e­minent man in that profession,Lib. de Sympath. & Antip. cap. 7. Hieron. Fracastorius. There being divers needles provided of severall kindes, like those in a Mariners Chart, they found, that there was an attractive power, not on­ly in the magnet; But that iron also and steele, and silver did each of them draw its owne mettle. Whence hee concludes,Vid. Bapt. Masul. ex­er. Acad. de attract. exer. 4. Omne trahit quod sibi simile est. And as these peculiar likenesses, have such a mutuall efficacy; so tis pro­bable, that this more generall qua­lification of condensitie, may bee the cause, why things so affected desire union to the earth. And though 'tis likely that this would appeare betwixt two lesser condensed bodies, (as sup­pose [Page 216] two peeces of earth) if they were both placed at libertie in the aethereall ayre, yet being neere the earth, the stronger species of this great globe dos as it were drownd the lesse.

'Tis a common experiment, that such a lump of ore or stone, as being on the ground, cannot be moved by lesse than six men, being in the bottom of a deep mine, may be stirred by two. The rea­son is, because then tis compassed with attractive beams, there being many a­bove it,Nat. Hist. Cent. 1. exper. 33. as well as below it. Whence we may probably inferre (saith the learned Verulam) ‘that the nature of gravitie, dos worke but weakly al­so far from the earth; Because the appetite of union in dense bodies, must bee more dull in respect of di­stance.’ As we may also conclude from the motion of birds, which rise from the ground but heavily, though with much labor; Whereas being on high, they can keep themselves up, and soare about by the meere extension of their wings. Now the reason of this diffe­rence, is not (as some falsly conceive) the depth of ayre under them. For a [Page 217] bird is not heavier when there is but a foote of ayre under him, than when there is a furlong. As appeares by a ship in the water, (an instance of the same nature) which dos not sinke deep­er, and so consequently is not heavier, when it has but five fatham depth, than when it has fifty. But the true reason is, the weaknesse of the desire of union in dense bodies at a distance.

So that from hence, there might be just occasion to taxe Aristotle and his followers, for teaching that heavines is an absolute qualitie of it selfe, and really distinct from condensitie: where­as it is onely a modification of it, or ra­ther, another name given to a conden­sed body in reference to its motion.

For if it were absolute, then it should alwayes be inherent in its subject, and not have its essence depend upon the bodies being here or there. But it is not so. For,

1. Nothing is heavy in its proper place, according to his owne principle, Nihil grave est in suo loco. And then

2. Nothing is heavy, which is so farre distant from that proper orbe to [Page 218] which it dos belong, that it is not within the reach of its vertue. As was before confirmed.

But unto this it may be objected. Though a body being so placed, be not heavy in actu secundo; yet it is in actu primo: because it retaines in it an inward proness to move downewards, being once severed from its proper place. And this were reason enough why the quality of heavinesse should have an absolute being.

I answer, this distinction is only appliable to such naturall powers as can suspend their acts; and will not hold in Elementary qualities, whose very essence dos necessarily require an exercise of the second act, as you may easily discerne by an induction of all the rest. I cannot say, that body has in it the quality of heate, cold­nesse, drinesse, moisture, hardnesse, softnesse, &c. which for the present, has not the second act of these quali­ties. And if you meane by the essence of them, a power unto them: why, there is not any naturall body but has a power to them all.

[Page 219] From that which hath beene said concerning the nature of gravity, it will follow; That if a man were above the sphere of this magneticall vertue, which proceeds from the earth, hee might there stand as firmely as in the open aire, as he can now upon the ground: And not only so, but he may also move with a farre greater swift­nesse, than any living creatures here below, because then hee is without all gravity, being not attracted any way, and so consequently will not be liable to such impediments, as may in the least manner resist that kinde of mo­tion which hee shall apply himselfe unto.

If you yet enquire, how wee may conceive it possible, that a conden­sed body should not be heavy in such a place?

I answer, by the same reason as a body is not heavy in its proper place. Of this I will set down two instances.

When a man is in the bottome of a deepe river, though hee have over him a multitude of heavy waters, yet he is not burdened with the weight of [Page 220] them. And though another body, that should be but of an equall gravity, with these waters, when they are ta­ken out, would be heavy enough to presse him to death; yet notwithstan­ding whilst they are in the channell, they doe not in the least manner, crush him with their load. The reason is, because they are both in their right places; and tis proper for the man be­ing the more condensed body, to be lower than the waters. Or rather thus, Because the body of the man, dos more nearely agree with the earth, in this affection, which is the ground of its attraction, and therefore doth that more strongly attract it, than the wa­ters that are over it. Now, as in such a case, a body may lose the operati­on of its gravity, which is, to move, or to presse downewards: So may it likewise, when it is so far out of its place, that this attractive power can­not reach unto it.

Tis a pretty notion to this purpose, mentioned byPhys. l. 3. Q. 6. art. 2. Albertus de Saxonia, and out of him byViridar. l. 4 prob. 47. Francis Mendoca; That the aire is in some part of it [Page 221] navigable. And that upon this Staticke principle;Vide. Arch. l. de insi­dentibus humido. any brasse or iron vessell (suppose a kettle) whose substance is much heavier than that of the water, yet being filled with the lighter aire, it will swimme upon it, and not sinke. So suppose a cup, or wooden vessel, upon the outward borders of this ele­mentary aire, the cavity of it being filled with fire, or rather aethereall aire, it must necessarily upon the same ground remaine swimming there, and of it selfe can no more fall, than an empty ship can sinke.

Tis commonly granted, that if there were a hole quite through the center of the earth, though any heavy body (as suppose a milstone) were let fall into it, yet when it came unto the place of the center, it would there rest im­moveable in the aire. Now, as in this case, its owne condensity, cannot hin­der, but that it may rest in the open aire, when there is no other place, to which it should be attracted: So nei­ther could it be any impediment unto it, if it were placed without the sphere of the earths magneticall vigor, [Page 222] where there should be no attraction at all.

From hence then (I say) you may conceive, that if a man were beyond this sphere, hee might there stand as firmely in the open aire, as now upon the earth. And if he might stand there, why might hee not also goe there? And if so; then there is a possibility likewise of having other conveniences for travelling.

And here tis considerable, that since our bodies will then bee devoide of gravity, and other impediments of motion; wee shall not at all spend our selves in any labour, and so conse­quently not much need the reparation of diet: But may perhaps live altoge­ther without it, as those creatures have done, who by reason of their sleeping for many dayes together, have not spent any spirits, and so not wan­ted any foode: which is commonly related of Serpents, Crocodiles, Beares, Cuckoes, Swallowes, and such like. To this purpose,Viridar. lib. 4. prob. 24. Mendoca rec­kons up divers strange relations. As that of Epimenides, who is storied to [Page 223] have slept 75 yeeares. And another of a rusticke in Germany, who being ac­cidentally covered with a hay-ricke, slept there for all autumne, and the winter following, without any nourish­ment.

Or, if this will not serve: yet why may not a Papist fast so long, as well as Ignatius or Xaverius? Or if there be such a strange efficacy in the bread of the Eucharist, as their miraculous relations doe attribute to it: why then, that may serve well enough, for their viaticum.

Or, if wee must needs feed upon something else, why may not smells nourish us?De facie in Luna. Plutrach, andNat. hist. lib. 7. ca. 2. Pliny and divers other ancients, tell us of a na­tion in India that lived only upon plea­sing odors. And tis the common opi­nion of Physitians, that these doe strangely both strengthen and repaire the spirits.Diog. Laert. lib. 1. ca. 9. Hence was it that Democri­tus was able for divers dayes together, to feede himselfe with the meere smel of hot bread.

Or if it bee necessary that our sto­macks must receive the food: why [Page 224] then tis not impossible that the purity of the aethereall aire, being not mixed with any improper vapors, may be so agreeable to our bodies, as to yeeld us sufficient nourishment; According to that of the Poet;Virgil.

Twas an old Platonicke principle, that there is in some part of the world such a place where men might be plentiful­ly nourished, by the aire they breath: Which cannot more properly be as­signed to any one particular, than to the aethereall aire above this.

I know tis the common opinion that no Element can prove Aliment, Arist. de Sens. cap. 5. be­cause tis not proportionate to the bo­dies of living creatures which are compounded. But,

1. This aethereall aire is not an ele­ment; and though it be purer, yet tis perhaps of a greater agreeablenesse to mans nature and constitution.

2. If we consult experience and the credible relations of others, wee shall finde it probable enough that many things receive nourishment from meer elements.

[Page 225] First, for the earth;Hist. Ani­mal. lib. 8. cap. 5. Aristotle and Hist. l. 10. cap. 72. Pliny, those two great naturalists, tell us of some creatures,The earth that are fed only with this. And it was the curse of the serpent, Gen. 3. 14. Vpon thy belly shalt thou goe, and dust shalt thou eate all the dayes of thy life.

So likewise for the water.The water De Anim. lib. 7. Albertus Magnus speaks of a man who lived se­ven weeks together by the meere drin­king of water.De P [...]sc. l. 1. cap. 12. Rondoletius (to whose diligence these later times are much beholding for sundry observations concerning the nature of Aquatils) af­firmes that his wife did keep a fish in a glasse of water, without any other food for three yeares: In which space it was constantly augmented, till at first it could not come out of the place at which it was put in, and at length was too big for the glasse it selfe, though that were of a large capacity.Subtil. l. 9. Cardan tells us of some wormes, that are bred & nourished by the snow, from which being once separated, they dye.

Thus also is it with the aire,The aire which wee may well conceive dos chiefly concurre to the nourishing of all vege­tables. [Page 226] For if their food were all suck­ed out from the earth, there must needs be then, some sensible decay in the ground by them; especially since they do every yeare renew their leaves, and fruits: which being so many, and so of­ten, could not be produced without a­bundance of nourishment. To this pur­pose is the experimēt of trees cut down which will of themselves put forth sproutes. As also that of Onyons, & the Semper-vive, which will strangely shoot forth, and grow as they hang in the open aire.Polyhistor. cap. 53. Thus likewise is it with some sensible creatures; the Camelion (saithHist. li. 8. cap. 33. Pliny andLop hist. Ind. Occid. cap 96. Solinus) is meerely nourished by this: And so are the birds of Paradise,Maiolus Colloq. 3. treated of by * many; which reside constantly in the aire,Tis likely that these birds doe chiefly re­side in the aethereall aire, wher [...] they are nourished and up­held. Na­ture having not bestowed upon them any legs, and therefore they are never seene upon the ground but being dead. If you aske, how they multiply? Tis answered, they lay their egges on the backes of one another, upon which they sit til their young ones be fledg'd. De Pis­cibus. lib. 1. cap. 13. Rondoletius from the history of Her­molaus Barbarus, tels us of a Priest (of [Page 227] whom one of the Popes had the custo­dy) that lived forty yeares upon meer aire. As also of a maide in France, and another in Germany, that for diverse yeares together did feed on nothing but this: Nay, hee affirmes that hee himselfe had seene one, who lived till ten yeares of age without any other nourishment. You may find most of these, and some other examples to this purpose, gathered together by Mendo­ca Viridar. lib. 4. Prob. 23, 24. Now, if this elementary aire which is mixed with such improper vapors, may acci­dentally nourish some persons; perhaps then, that pure aethereall aire may of it selfe be more naturall to our tempers.

But if none of these conjectures may satisfie; yet there may happily be some possible meanes for the convei­ance of other foode, as shall be shewed afterwards.

Againe, seeing we do not then spend our selves in any labour, we shall not, it may bee, neede the refreshment of sleepe. But if we doe, we cannot desire a softer bed than the aire, where wee may repose our selves firmely and [Page 228] safely as in our chambers.

But here you may aske, whether there be any meanes for us to know, how far this sphere of the earths vertue dos ex­tend it selfe?

I answer, tis probable that it dos not reach much farther than that orbe of thick vaporous aire, that incompasseth the earth; because tis likely the Sunne may exhale some earthly vapors, near unto the utmost bounds of the sphere alloted to them.

Now there are divers wayes used by Astronomers, to take the altitude of this vaporous aire. As,

1. By observing the height of that aire which causeth the Crepusculum, or twilight; For the finding of which, the Antients used this meanes: As soone as ever they could discerne the aire in the east to be altered with the least light, they would by the situation of the starres find out how many degrees the Sun was below the Horizon, which was usually about 18. From whence they would easily conclude, how high that aire must be above us, which the Sun could shine upon, when hee was 18 de­grees [Page 229] below us. And from this obser­vation, it was concluded to bee about 52 miles high.Vitell. l. 10. Theo. 7.

But in this Conclusion, the Antients were much deceived, because they proceeded upon a wrong ground, whilst they supposed that the shining of the Suns direct rayes upon the aire, was the only reason of the Crepusculum; Keplar. Ep. Coper. l. 1. part. 3. Whereas tis certain that there are ma­ny other things which may also con­curre to the causing of it. As,

1. Some bright clouds below the Horizon, which being illuminated by the Sunne, may be the meanes of con­veying some light to our aire, before the direct rayes can touch it.

2. The often refraction of the rayes, which suffer a frequent repercussion from the cavitie of this sphere, may likewise yeeld us some light.

3. And so may the orbe of enlight­ned aire compassing the Sunne, part of which must rise before his body.

2. The second way whereby we may more surely find the altitude of this grosser aire, is by taking the highth of the highest cloud: which may be done, [Page 230] 1 Either as they use to measure the al­titude of things that cannot be approa­ched unto, viz. by two stations, when two persons shall at the same time, in severall places, observe the declinati­on of any cloud from the vertical point.Stevinnius. Geog. l. 3. prop. 3. Or, 2. which is the more easie way, when a man shall choose such a station, where he may at some di­stance, discerne the place on which the cloud dos cast its shadow, and withall dos observe, how much both the cloud and the Sun decline from the vertical point. From which he may easily con­clude the true altitude of it, as you may more plainely conceive, by this fol­lowing Diagram.

[Page 231] Where A B is a perpendicular from the cloud, C the station of him that measures, D the place where the sha­dow of the cloud dos fall.

The instrument being directed from the station C, to the cloud at A, the per­pendicular will shew the Angle B A C. Then letting the Sun shine through the sights of your instrument, the per­pendicular of it will give the angle B A D. Afterwards having measured the distance C D by paces,Pitisc. Tri­gon. you may ac­cording to the common rules, find the heigth B A.

But if without making the observa­tion, you would know of what altitude the highest of these are found by ob­servation; Subt. l. 17. Cardan answers, not above two miles;Epit. Co­per. l. 1. p. 3. Keplar, not above 1600 paces, or thereabouts.

3. Another way to finde the height of this vaporous aire, is, by knowing the difference of altitude, which it cau­seth, in refracting the beames of any star neere the Horizon. And from this observation also, it is usually conclu­ded to bee about two or three miles high.

[Page 232] But now you must not conceive, as if the orbe of magneticall vigor, were bounded in an exact superficies, or as if it did equally hold out just to such a determinate line, and no farther. But as it hath bin said of the first region, which is there terminated where the heat of reflexion dos begin to languish: So likewise is it probable, that this magneticall vigor dos remit of its de­grees proportionally to its distance from the earth, which is the cause of it: And therefore though the thicker clouds may be elevated no higher, yet this orbe may be continued in weaker degrees a little beyond them. We will suppose it (which in all likelyhood is the most) to bee about twenty miles high. So that you see the former The­sis remaines probable; that if a man could but fly, or by any other meanes get twenty miles upwards, it were possible for him to reach unto the Moone.

But it may bee againe objected: Though all this were true; though there were such an orbe of aire which did terminate the earths vigor: And [Page 233] though the heavinesse of our bodies could not hinder our passage, through the vast spaces of the aetheriall aire; yet those two other impediments may seeme to deny the possibility of any such voyage.

1. The extreme coldnesse of that aire. If some of our higher mountaines for this reason bee not habitable; much more then will those places bee so, which are farther from any cause of heate.

2. The extreme thinnesse of it, which may make it unfit for expiration. For if in some mountaines (as Aristotle tells us of Olympus, and out himIn Gen. ad literam. li. 3. cap 2. S. Austine) the aire bee so thin that men cannot draw their breath, unlesse it were through some moistned spunges; much more then must that aire be thin, which is more remotely situated from the causes of impurity and mixture. And then beside, the refraction that is made by the vaporous aire incompassing our earth, may sufficiently prove that there is a great difference betwixt the aethereall aire and this, in respect of rarity.

[Page 234] To the first of these I answer, that though the second region, be natural­ly endowed with so much coldnesse as may make it fit for the production of meteors; yet it will not hence fol­low, that all that aire above it, which is not appointed for the like purpose, should partake of the same condition: But, it may seeme more probable that this aethereal aire, is freed from having any quality in the extremes. And this may be confirmed, from those com­mon arguments, which are usually brought to prove the warmnesse of the third region. As you may see inMeteor. lib. 1. ca. 2. art. 1, Fro­mundus, and others who treate of that subject.

Tis the assertion of Pererius, Comment. in Gen. 1. 8. that the second region, is not cold meerly for this reason, because it is distant from the ordinary causes of heat, but be­cause it was actually made so at the first, for the condensing of the clouds, and the production of other meteors that were there to be generated; which (as I conceive) might bee sufficiently confirmed from that order of the cre­ation observed by Moses, who tells us [Page 235] that the waters above the firmament (by which, in the greatest probability, we are to understand the clouds in the second region) were made the second day, Gen. 1. 7, 8. whereas the Sunne itselfe (whose reflection is the cause of heate) was not created till the fourth day, ver. 16. 19.

To the other objection I answer, that though the aire in the second re­gion (where by reason of its coldnesse there are many thicke vapors) doe cause a great refraction; yet tis pro­bable that the aire which is next the earth, is sometimes, & in some places, of a farre greater thinnesse, nay as thin as the aethereall aire it selfe; since sometimes there is such a speciall heat of the Sun, as may rarifie it in an emi­nent degree; And in some dry places, there are no grosse impure exhalations to mixe with it.

But here it may be objected. If the aire in the second region were more condensed and heavy than this where­in wee breath, then that must necessari­ly tend downewards and possesse the lower place.

[Page 236] To this some answer, that the hang­ing of the clouds in the open aire, is no lesse than a miracle. They are the words of Pliny. Quid mirabilius aquis in caelo stantibus? Hist. l. 31. cap. 1. what more wonderfull thing is there than that the waters should stand in the heavens? Others prove this from the derivation of the word [...] from [...] stupescere and [...] aquae: Because the waters do hang there after such a stupendous incon­ceivable manner; Which seems like­wise to bee favoured by Scripture, where tis mentioned as a great argu­ment of Gods omnipotency, that hee holds up the clouds from falling. He binds up the waters in his thicke clouds, Iob 26. 8. and the cloud is not rent under them.

But that which unto me seemes full satisfaction against this doubt, is this consideration; that the naturall vigor whereby the earth dos attract dense bodies unto it, is lesse efficacious at a distance: and therefore a body of lesse density, which is neare unto it, as sup­pose this thin aire wherein we breath, may naturally bee lower in its situati­on, than another of a greater condensity [Page 237] that is farther of; as suppose the clouds in the second region. And though the one bee absolutely and in it selfe more fit for this motion of descent; yet by reason of its distance, the earths mag­neticall vertue cannot so powerfully worke upon it.

As for that relation of Aristotle; If it were true; yet it dos not prove this aire to be altogether impassible, since moistned spunges might helpe us a­gainst its thinnesse: But tis more likely that hee tooke it upon trust, as hee did some other relations concerning the height of the mountaines, wherein tis evident that he was grossely mistaken. As where he tells us of Caucasus, Meteor. l. 1. c. 11. that it casts its shadow 560 miles. And this relation being of the same nature, wee cannot safely trust unto him for the truth of it.

If it be here enquired, what meanes there may bee conjectured, for our a­scending beyond the sphere of the earths magneticall vigor.

I answer. 1. Tis not perhaps impos­sible that a man may be able to flye, by the application of wings to his owne [Page 238] body; As Angels are pictured, as Mercury and Daedaelus are fained, and as hath bin attempted by divers, particu­lary by a Turke in Constantinople, as Busbequius relates.Mr. Burton. Melanch. pa. 2. sect. 2 mem. 3.

2. If there bee such a great Ruck in Madagascar, asLib. 3. c. 40. Marcus Polus the Ve­netian mentions, the feathers in whose wings are twelve foot long, which can soope up a horse and his rider, or an e­lephant, as our kites doe a mouse; why then tis but teaching one of these to car­ry a man, and he may ride up thither, as Ganymed dos upon an eagle.

3. Or if neither of these wayes will serve: Yet I doe seriously, and upon good grounds, affirme it possible to make a flying Chariot. In which a man may sit, and give such a motion unto it, as shall convey him through the aire. And this perhaps might bee made large enough to carry divers men at the same time, together with foode for their viaticum, and commo­dities for traffique. It is not the big­nesse of any thing in this kind, that can hinder its motion, if the motive facul­ty be answerable thereunto. We see a [Page 239] great ship swimmes as well as a small corke, and an Eagle flies in the aire as well as a little gnat.

This engine may be contrived from the same principles by which Archytas made a wooden dove, and Regiomonta­nus a wooden eagle.

I conceive it were no difficult matter (if a man had leisure) to shew more particularly, the meanes of compo­sing it.

The perfecting of such an invention, would be of such excellent use, that it were enough, not only to make a man famous, but the age also wherein hee lives. For besides the strange discove­ries that it might occasion in this other world, it would be also of inconceive­able advantage for travelling, above a­ny other conveiance that is now in use.

So that notwithstanding all these seeming impossibilities, tis likely e­nough, that there may be a meanes in­vented of journying to the Moone; And how happy shall they be, that are first successefull in this attempt?

Having thus finished this discourse, I chanced upon a late fancy to this purpose under the fained name of Domingo Gonsales, written by a late reverend and learned Bishop: In which (besides sundry particulars wherein this later Chapter did unwit­tingly agree with it) there is delive­red a very pleasant and well contrived fancy concerning a voyage to this o­ther world.

Hee supposeth that there is a na­turall and usuall passage for many creatures betwixt our earth and this planet. Thus hee saies; those great multitudes of locusts, wherewith di­verse countries have bin destroyed, do proceed from thence. And if we per­use the authors who treat of them, wee shall finde that many times they fly in numberlesse troopes, or swarmes, and for sundry dayes together before they fall, are seene over those places in great high clouds, such as com­ming nearer, are of extension enough to obscure the day, & hinder the light of the Sunne. From which, together [Page 241] with diverse other such relations, he concludes, that tis not altogether im­probable, they should proceed from the Moone. Thus likewise he suppo­seth the Swallowes, Cuckoes, Nigh­tingales, with divers other fowle, which are with us only halfe the year, to flye up thither, when they goe from us. Amongst which kinde, there is a wilde Swan in the East Indies, which at certain seasons of the year doe con­stantly take their flight thither. Now this bird being of great strength, able to continue for a long flight, as also going usually in flocks, like our wilde­geese; he supposeth that many of them together, might be taught to carry the weight of a man; especially if an en­gine were so contrived (as he thinks it might) that each of them should beare an equall share in the burden. So that by this means, tis easily conceiveable, how once every yeare a man might fi­nish such a voyage; going along with these birds at the beginning of winter, and againe returning with them at the Spring.

And here, one that had a strong [Page 242] fancy, were better able to set forth the great benefit and pleasure to be had by such a journey. And that whether you consider the strangenesse of the per­sons, language, arts, policy, religion of those inhabitants, together with the new traffique that might be brought thence. In briefe, doe but consider the pleasure and profit, of those later dis­coveries in America, and wee must needs conclude this to be inconceive­ably beyond it.

But such imaginations as these, I shall leave to the fancy of the Reader.

PROP. I.

IN the search of Theologicall Truths, it is the safest method, first of all to looke unto Di­vine Authority; because that carryes with it as cleer an evidence to our Faith, as any thing else can be to [Page 2] our reason. But on the contrary, in the examination of Philosophicall points, it were a preposterous course to begin at the testimony and opinion of others, and then afterwards to descend unto the reasons that may bee drawne from the Nature and Essence of the things themselves: because these inartificiall Arguments (as the Logicians cal them) doe not carry with them any cleere and convincing evidence; and therefore should come after those that are of more necessary dependance, as serving rather to confirme, than resolve the Iudgement.

But yet, so it is, that in those points which are besides the common opinion, men are carried away at the first by the generall cry, and seldome or never come so farre as to examine the reasons that may bee urged for them. And therfore, since it is the purpose of this discourse to remove those prejudices which may hinder our judgement in the like case, 'tis requisite that in the first place there bee some satisfaction given to those Arguments that may bee ta­ken [Page 3] from the Authoritie of others.

Which Arguments are insisted on by our adversaries with much heate and violence.

What (say they) shall an upstart No­veltie thrust out such a Truth as hath passed by successive tradition through all Ages of the World? and hath bin generally entertained, not onely in the opinion of the vulgar, but also of the greatest Philosophers and most learned men?Alex. Ross. de Terrae motu, con­tra Lansb. lib. 1. sect. 1. cap. 10. Shall wee thinke that amongst the multitude of those who in severall times have been eminent for new inven­tions and strange discoveries, there was none able to finde out such a Secret as this, besides some fabulous Pithagori­ans, and of late Copernicus? Is it possi­ble that the World should last for above five thousand yeares together, and yet the Inhabitants of it be so dull and stupid, as to be unacquainted with it's motion? Nay, shall wee thinke that those excellent men, whom the Holy Ghost made use of in the penning of Scripture, who were extraordinarily inspired with supernaturall Truths, [Page 4] should notwithstanding be so grossely ignorant of so common a matter as this? Can wee beleeve, if there were any such thing, that Iosuah, and Iob, and David, and Solomon, &c. should know nothing of it? Certainly it must needs argue a strong affectation of Singulari­tie, for a man to take up any groundlesse fancy against such antient and generall Authority.

I answer: As wee should not bee so fondly conceited of our selves, and the extraordinary Abilities of these pre­sent ages, as to thinke every thing that is antient to be absolute: Or, as if it must needs bee with opinions, as it is with cloths, where the newest is for the most part best. So neither should we be so superstitiously devoted to Antiqui­tie, as to take up every thing for Cano­nicall, which drops from the pen of a Fa­ther, or was approved by the consent of the Antients. 'Tis an excellent saying, Alcinous. [...]. It behoves every one in the search of Truth, alwaies to preserve a Philosophi­call liberty: not to be so inslaved to the [Page 5] opinion of any man, as to thinke what ever he sayes to be infallible. We must labour to find out what things are in themselves by our owne experience, and a through examination of their natures, not what another sayes of them. And if in such an impartiall enquiry, we chance to light upon a new way, and that which is besides the common rode, this is neither our fault, nor our unhappi­nesse.

Not our fault, because it did not arise from Singularity or Affectation. Not our unhappinesse, because it is rather a Priviledge to be the first in finding out such Truths, as are not discernable to every common eye. If Noveltie should alwaies be rejected, neither would Arts have arrived to that perfection wherein now wee enjoy them, nor could we euer hope for any future reformation: though all Truth be in it self Eternall; yet in re­spect of mens opinions, there is scarse any so antient, but had a beginning, and was once counted a Noveltie; and if for this reason it had been condemned as an errour, what a generall darknesse [Page 6] and ignorance would then have been in the World, in comparison of that light which now abounds; according to that of the Poet:

But for more full satisfaction of all those scruples that may arise from the seeming Novelty or Singularity of this opinion, I shall propose these following considerations.

Suppose it were a Noveltie:Consid. 1. Yet 'tis in Philosophy, and that is made up of nothing else; but receives addition from every dayes experiment. True indeed, for Divinity wee have an infallible rule that do's plainly inform us of all neces­sary Truths; and therfore the Primitive Times are of greater Authority, because they were neerer to those holy Men who [Page 7] were the pen-men of Scripture. But now for Philosophy, there is no such reason: what ever the Schoole-men may talke; yet Aristotles works are not necessarily true, and hee himselfe hath by sufficient Arguments proved himselfe to be lia­ble unto errour. Now in this case, if wee should speake properly, Antiquity do's consist in the old age of the World, not in the youth of it. In such Learning as may be increased by fresh experiments and new discoveries: 'tis we are the Fa­thers, and of more Authority than for­mer Ages; because wee have the advan­tage of more time than they had, and Truth (wee say) is the Daughter of Time. However, there is nothing in this opinion so Magisterially proposed, but the Reader may use his owne liber­ty; and if all the reasons considered to­gether, doe not seeme convincing unto him, he may freely reject it.

In those naturall points which carry with them any doubt or obscurity, it is the safest way to suspend our assents: and though we may dispute pro or con; yet not to settle our opinion on either side.

[Page 8] In weighing the Authority of others, 'tis not their multitude that should prevaile,Consid. 2. or their skill in some things that should make them of credit in eve­ry thing, but wee should examine what particular insight and experience they had in those times for which they are cited. Now 'tis plaine, that common people judge by their senses; and there­fore, their voices are altogether unfit to decide any Philosophicall doubt, which cannot well be examined or explained without discourse and reason. And as for the antient Fathers, though they were men very eminent for their holy lives and extraordinary skill in Divini­tie; yet they were most of them very ignorant in that part of Learning which concernes this opinion, as appeares by many of their grosse mistakes in this kinde, as that concerning the Antipodes, &c. and therefore it is not their opini­on neither, in this businesse, that to an indifferent seeker of Truth will bee of any strong Authority.

But against this it isAlex. R [...]ss. l. 1. sect. c. 8. objected, That the instance of the Antipodes do's not [Page 9] argue any speciall ignorance in these learned Men: Or, that they had lesse skil in such humane Arts than others; since Aristotle himself, and Pliny, did deny this as well as they.

I answer:

1 If they did, yet this do's make more to the present purpose: For if such great Schollers, who were so eminent for their knowledge in naturall things, might yet notwithstanding be grossely mistaken in such matters as are now evi­dent and certaine: Why then wee have no reason to depend upon their asserti­ons or Authorities, as if they were in­fallible.

2 Though these great Naturalists, for want of some experience were mi­staken in that opinion, whilest they thought no place was habitable but the temperate Zones; yet it cannot be from hence inferred, that they denied the pos­sibilitie of Antipodes: since these are such Inhabitants as live opposite unto us in the other temperate Zone; and 'twere an absurd thing to imagine that those who lived in different Zones, can [Page 10] be Antipodes to one another; and argues that a man did not understand, or else had forgotten that common distinction in Geography, wherein the relation of the Worlds Inhabitants unto one another, are reckoned up under these three heads; Antaeci, Periaeci, and Antipodes. But to let this passe: 'Tis certaine, that some of the Fathers did deny the being of any such, upon other more absurd grounds. Now if such as Chrisostome, Lactantius, &c. who were noted for great Schollers, and such too as flourished in these latter times, when all humane Learning was more generally profest, should notwithstanding be so much mi­staken in so obvious a matter: Why then may wee not think that those Primitive Saints, who were the pen-men of Scrip­ture, and eminent above others in their time for holinesse and knowledge, might yet be utterly ignorant of many Philosophicall Truths, which are com­monly knowne in these dayes? 'Tis probable, that the Holy Ghost did in­forme them onely with the knowledge of those things whereof they were to [Page 11] be the pen-men, and that they were not better skilled in points of Philosophy than others. There were indeed some of them who were supernaturally indowed with humane Learning; yet this was, because they might thereby bee fitted for some particular ends, which all the rest were not appointed unto: thus Solo­mon was strangely gifted with all kinde of knowledge, in a great measure, be­cause he was to teach us by his owne ex­perience the extreme vanity of it,Eccl. 1. 18. that we might not so settle our desires upon it, as if it were able to yeeld us content­ment. So too the Apostles were extra­ordinarily inspired with the knowledge of Languages, because they were to preach unto all Nations. But it will not hence follow, that therfore the other ho­ly pen-men were greater Schollers than others. 'Tis likely that Iob had as much humane Learning as most of them, be­cause his Booke is more especially re­markable for lofty expressions, and dis­courses of Nature; and yet 'tis not like­ly that he was acquainted with all those mysteries which later Ages have disco­vered; [Page 12] because when God would con­vince him of his owne folly and igno­rance, he proposes to him such questi­ons, as being altogether unanswerable; which notwithstanding, any ordinary Philosopher in these dayes might have resolued. As you may see at large in the thirty eighth Chapter of that Booke.

The occasion was this: Iob having Cap. 13. 3. before desired that he might dispute with the Almighty concerning the up­rightnesse of his owne wayes, and the unreasonablenesse of those afflictions which he underwent, do's at length ob­taine his desire in this kinde; and God vouchsafes in this thirty eighth chapter, to argue the case with him. Where he do's shew Iob how unfit he was to judge of the wayes of Providence, in disposing of Blessings and Afflictions, when as he was so ignorant in ordinary matters, be­ing not able to discerne the reason of naturall and common events. AsV. 8. 10, 11. why the Sea should bee so bounded from overflowing the land? What is the Ver. 18. bredth of the Earth? what is theVer. 22. rea­son of the Snow or Hayle? what was [Page 13] theV. 28. 29. cause of the Raine or Dewe, of Ice and Frost, and the like. By which questi­ons, it seemes Iob was so utterly pusled, that hee is faine afterwards to humble himselfe in this acknowledgement: Cap. 42. 3. I have uttered that I understood not, things too wonderfull for me, which I knew not: wherefore I abhorre my selfe, and repent in dust and ashes.

So that 'tis likely these holy Men had not these humane Arts by any spe­ciall inspiration, but by instruction and study, and other ordinary meanes; and therefore Moses his skill in this kinde is called the Learning of the Egyptians.Acts 7. 22. Now because in those times all Scien­ces were taughr onely in a rude and im­perfect manner; therefore 'tis likely that they also had but a darke and confuse apprehension of things, and were liable to the common errours. And for this reason is it, whyIosh ca. 10. Quaest. 19. Tostatus (speaking of Iosuahs bidding the Moone stand still as well as the Sun) sayes, Quod forte er at im­peritus circa Astrorum doctrinam, sentiens ut vulgares sentiunt: That perhaps hee was unskilfull in Astronomy, having [Page 14] the same grosse conceit of the Heavens, as the vulgar had. From all which it may be inferred, that the ignorance of such good Men and great Schollers concerning these Philosophical points, can bee no sufficient reason, why after examination we should deny them, or doubt of their Truth.

'Tis considerable,Consid. 3. that in the rudi­ments and first beginnings of Astronomy, and so in severall Ages after, this opini­on hath sound many Patrons, and those too Men of eminent note and learning. Such was more especially Pythagoras, who was generally and highly esteemed for his divine wit, and rare inventions; under whose mysterious sayings, there be many excellent Truths to bee disco­vered.

But against his testimony, it is againe Alex. Ross. l. 2. s [...]. 2. c. 10. objected; If Pythagoras were of this opinion, yet his Authority should not be of any credit, because he was the au­thor of many other monstrous absur­dities.

To this I answer: If a mans errour in some particulars should take away his [Page 15] credit for every thing else, this would abolish the force of all humane Autho­rity; for humanum est errane. Secondly, 'tis probable that many of Pythagora's say­ings which seeme so absurd, are not to be understood according to their letter, but in a mysticall sense.

2 But he objects again, that Pythago­ras was not of this opinion; and that for two reasons: First, because no antient au­thor that he had read ascribes it unto him. Secondly, it is contradictory to his other opinions, concerning the Harmo­ny that was made by the motion of the Heavens; which could not consist with this other of the Earth's motion.

To the first I answer: The Objector could not chuse but know that this as­sertion is by many antient authors ascri­bed to that sect, whereof Pythagoras was the chief. He might have seene it expre­sly inDe Coelo, lib. 2. ca. 13. Aristotle himselfe: [...].

In which the Philosopher do's com­pendiously reckon up the three chiefe particulars implyed in the opinion of [Page 16] the Pythagorians. First, the Suns being in the centre of the World. Secondly, the earth's annuall motion about it, as being one of the planets: thirdly, it's diurnal re­volution, wherby it caused day & night.

To his second reason I answer: First, that Pythagoras thought the Earth to be one of the Planets (as appeares by Ari­stotles testimony concerning him) and to move amongst them the rest. So that his opinion concerning the motion of the heavens, is not inconsistent with that of the earth. Secondly, but as for the coele­stiall harmony, he might perhaps under this mysticall expression, according to his usuall custome, shadow forth unto us that mutuall proportion & harmoni­cal consent, which he did conceive in the severall bignes, distance, motions of the orbs. So that notwithstanding these ob­jections, it is evident that Pythagoras was of this opinion, and that his Authority may adde somwhat for the confirmation of it. Vnto him assentedArchime des de arae­nae numero. Aristarchus Sa­mius, who flourished about 280 yeares before the Birth of our Saviour, and was by reason of this opinion, arraigned for [Page 17] prophanes and sacriledge by the Ariopa­gites, because he had blasphemed the de­ity of Vesta, affirming the earth to move. To them agreed Philaus, Heraclides, Pon­tius, Nicetas, Syracusanus, Ecphantus, Lu­cippus, and Plato himself, (as some think.) So likewise Numa Pompilius, as Plutarch relates it in his life; who in reference to this opinion, built the temple of Vesta round, like the universe: in the middle of it was placed the perpetuall vest all fire; by which he did represent the Sunne in the centre of the world. All these men were in their severall times of speciall Note, as well for their extraordinarie learning, as for this opinion.

'Tis considerable,4. Consid. that since this Sci­ence of Astronomy hath bin raised to any perfection, there have been many of the best skill in it, that have assented unto that assertion which is here defended. Amongst whom was the Cardinall Cu­sanus, De docta ignor. lib. 2. cap. 12. but more especially Copernicus, who was a man very exact and diligent in these studies for above 30 yeres toge­ther, from the yeare 1500 to 1530, and upwards: and since him, most of the best [Page 18] Astronomers have been of this side. So that now, there is scarce any of note and skil, who are not Copernicus his followers, and if we should goe to most voices, this opinion would carry it from any other. It would be too tedious to reckon up the names of those that may be cited for it; I wil only mention some of the chief: Such were Ioachinus Rheticus, an elegant writer, Christopherus Rothman, Mestilin, a man very eminent for his singular skill in this Science; who though at the first he were a follower of Ptolomy, yet upon his second and more exact thoughts, he concluded Copernicus to be in the right, & that the usual Hypothesis, Praef. ad Narrat. Rhetici. praescriptione potiùs quàm ratione valet, do's prevaile more by prescription then reason. So likewise Erasmus Reinholdus, who was the man that calculated the Pratenicall Ta­bles from Copernicus his observations, and did intend to write a Commentarie upon his other Works,Ibid. but that he was taken out of this life before hee could finish those resolutions. Vnto these also I might adde the Names of Gilbert, Kep­lar, Gallilaeus, with sundry others, who [Page 19] have much beautified and confirmed this Hypothesis, with their new inventi­ons. Nay I may safely affirme, that a­mongst the varietie of those opinions that are in Astronomy, there are more (of those which have skill in it) that are of this opinion, not only than any other side, but than all the rest put together. So that now it is a greater Argument of Singularitie to oppose it.

'Tis probable,5 Consid. that many other of the Antients would have assented unto this opinion, if they had been acquainted with those experiments which later times have found out for the confirma­tion of it: And thereforein Narra­tione. Rheticus and Myst. Cos­mogr. cap. 1. Item praef. ad 4. l. Astr. Copern. Keplar doe so oten wish that Aristotle were now alive againe. Questionlesse he was so rational & ingenious a man (not halfe so obstinate as many of his fol­lowers) that upon such probabilities as these, he would quickly have renounced his owne Principles, and have come over to this side: for in one place, having proposed some questions about the hea­vens,de Coel. l. 2. c. 12. which were not easie to bee resol­ved: He sets downe this rule, That in dif­ficulties, [Page 20] a man may take a liberty to speake that which seems most likely to him: and in such cases, an aptnesse to guesse at some resolution, for the satis­fying of our Philosophicall thirst, do's deserve rather to bestiled by the name of Modestie, than Boldnes. And in ano­ther place,Met. lib. 12. cap. 8. he referres the Reader to the different opinions of Astronomers, ad­vising him to examine their severall te­nents, as well Eudoxus as Calippus; and to entertaine that (not which is most anti­ent, but) which is most exact and agree­able to reason.Alm. lib. 13. cap. 2. And as for Ptolomy, 'tis his counsell, that wee should endeavour to frame such suppositions of the Heavens, as might be more simple, being void of all superfluities: and he confesses, that his Hypothesis had many implications in it, together with sundry intricate and unlikely turnings; and therefore in the same place, hee seems to admonish us, that wee should not bee too confi­dent the Heavens were really in the same Forme, wherein Astronomers did supposethem. So that 'tis likely, 'twas his chief intent to propose unto us such [Page 21] a frame of the coelestiall bodies, from which wee might, in some measure, conceive of their different appearan­ces; and according to which, wee might be able to calculate their mo­tions. But now, 'tis Copernicus his en­deavour, to propound unto us, the true naturall Causes of these severall Motions, and Appearances: It was the intent of the one, to settle the Imagination; and of the other, to satisfie the judgement. So, that wee have no reason to doubt of his assent unto this Opinion, if hee had but clearely understood all the grounds of it.

'Tis reported of Clavius, that when lying upon his Death-bed, he heard the first Newes of those Discoveries which were made by Gallilaeus his Glasse, he brake forth into these words: Videre Astronomos, quo pacto constituendi sunt orbes Coelestes, ut haec Phaenomena salvari possint: That it did behoove A­stronomers, to consider of some other Hypothesis, beside that of Ptolomy, where­by they might salve all those new ap­pearances. [Page 22] Intimating that this old one, which formerly he had defended, would not now serve the turne: and doubtlesse, if it had been informed how congruous all these might have been unto the opi­nion of Copernicus, hee would quickly have turned on that side. 'Tis conside­rable, that amongst the followers of Co­pernicus, there are scarce any, who were not formerly against him; and such, as at first, had been throughly seasoned with the Principles of Aristotle; in which, for the most part, they have no lesse skil, than those who are so violent in the defence of them. Whereas on the contrary, there are very few to bee found amongst the followers of Aristotle and Ptolomy, that have read any thing in Copernicus, or doe fully understand the Grounds of his opinion; and I thinke, not any, who having been once setled with any strong assent on this side, that have afterwards revolted from it. Now if we do but seri­ously weigh with our selves, that so ma­ny ingenious, considering men, should reject that opinion which they were nursed up in, and which is generally ap­proved [Page 23] as the truth; and that, for the em­bracing of such a Paradox as is condem­ned in Schooles, and commonly cryed downe, as being absurd and ridiculous; I say, if a man doe but well consider all this, he must needs conclude, that there is some strong evidence for it to bee found out by examination; and that in all probabilitie, this is the righter side.

'Tis probable,7 Consid. that most of those Au­thors who have opposed this opinion, since it hath bin confirmed by new dis­coveries, were stirred up thereunto by some of these 3 insufficient grounds.

1 An over-fond and partial conceit of their proper inventions. Every man is naturally more affected to his owne brood, than to that of which another is the Author; though perhaps, it may bee more agreeable to reason. 'Tis very diffi­cult for any one, in the search of Truth, to find in himselfe such an indifferencie, as that his judgement is not at all swayd by an overweening affection unto that which is proper unto himselfe. And this perhaps might bee the first reason that moved the noble Tycho with so much [Page 24] heat to oppose Copernicus, that so hee might the better make way for the spre­ding of that Hypothesis, which was of his owne invention. To this I might like­wise refer that opinion of Origanus and M^r. Carpenter, who attribute to the earth only a diurnall revolution. It do's more especially concerne those men that are Leaders of severall sides, to beat downe any that should oppose them.

2 A servile and superstitious feare of derogating from the authoritie of the antients, or opposing that meaning of Scripture phrases; wherein the sup­posed infallible Church, hath for a long time understood them. 'Tis made part of the new Creed, set forth by Pius the fourth, 1564, That no man should assent unto any interpretation of Scripture, which is not approved of by the autho­ritie of the Fathers. And this is the rea­son why the Iesuites, who are otherwise the greatest affectors of those opinions, which seeme to be new and subtill, doe yet forbeare to say any thing in defence of this; but rather take all occasions to inveigh against it.Serrarius Commen. in Ios. cap. 10. Quaest. 14. So Lipfius Phisiol. l. 2. One of them do's [Page 25] expressely condemn it for a heresie. And since him, it hath bin called in byAnn. Dom. 1616. item 1633. two Sessions of the Cardinals, as being an opinion both absurd and dangerous. And therefore likewise doe they punish it, by casting the Defenders of it into the Popes truest Purgatorie, the Inqui­sition: but yet neither these Councels, nor any (that I know of) since them, have proceeded to such a peremptorie cen­sure of it, as to conclude it a heresie: fea­ring perhaps, lest a more exact examina­nation, and the discoverie of future times, finding it to bee an undeniable Truth, it might redound to the preju­dice of their Church, and it's infallibi­litie. And therefore he that is most bit­ter against it, in the heat and violence of opposition, will not call it a heresie: the worst that he dares say of it, is, That it is opinio temeraria quae altero saltem pede in­travit haeresios limen; Fromondus Antarist. cap. 6. A rash opinion, and bordering upon heresie. Though unto this likewise he was incited by the ea­gernesse of disputation, and a desire of victorie, for it seemes many eminent men of that Church before him, were a [Page 26] great deale more milde and moderate in their censures of it.

Paul the third, was not so much offen­ded at Copernicus, when he dedicated his Worke unto him.

The Cardinall of Cusa, do's expresly maintaine this opinion.

Scombergius, the Cardinall of Capua, did with much importunitie and great approbation, beg of Copernicus the com­mentaries that he writ in this kind. And it seems the Fathers of the Councell of Trent, were not such confident defenders of Ptolomy's hypothesis against Copernicus, as many now are. For speaking of those intricate subtilties, which the Fancies of men had framed, to maintain the pra­ctice of the Church, they compared them to Astronomers, who (say they) do faine Excentricks and Epicijcles, and such engines of Orbes, to save the Phenomena; though they know there are no such things. But now, because this opinion of Copernicus in later times hath been so strictly forbidden, and punished, it will concerne those of that Religion, to take heed of medling in the defence of it, but [Page 27] rather to submit the liberty of their rea­son, unto the command of their Superi­ors, and (which is very absurd) even in naturall Questions, not to assent unto any thing, but what authoritie shall al­low of.

3. A iudging of things by sence, ra­ther than by discourse and reason: a ty­ing of the meaning of Scripture, to the letter of it; and from thence concluding Philosophicall points, together with an ignorance of all those grounds and pro­babilities in Astronomie, upon which this opinion is bottomed. And this in all likelihood, is the reason why some men, who in other things perhaps are able Schollers, doe write so vehemently against it: and why the common people in generall doe cry it downe, as being absurd and ridiculous. Vnder this head I might referre the opposition of M^r. Fuller, Al. Ross. &c.

But now, no prejudice that may arise from the bare authoritie of such ene­mies as these, will be liable to sway the judgement of an indifferent considering man; and I doubt not but that hee, who [Page 28] will throughly weigh with himselfe these particulars that are here propoun­ded, may find some satisfaction for these Arguments, which are taken from the seeming Noveltie and Singularitie of this Opinion.

PROP. II.

IT were happy for us, if we could exempt Scrip­ture from Philosophi­call controversies: if we could bee content to let it bee perfect for that end unto which it was intended, for a rule of our Faith and Obedience; and not stretch it also to be a Iudge of such naturall truths, as are to be found out by [Page 29] our owne industry and experience. Though the Holy Ghost could easily have given us a full resolution of all such particulars;Eccles. 3. 10, 11. yet hee hath left this travell to the sonnes of men to bee exer­cised therewith, Mundum reliquit disputa­tionibus hominum: that being busied for the most part in an inquisition after the creatures, we might find the lesse leisure to wait upon our lusts, or serve our more sinfull inclinations.

But however, because our Adversaries generally doe so much insult in those Arguments that may be drawne from hence;Comment. in Eccles. c. 1. v. 4. and more especially, because Pi­neda doth for this reason with so many bitter and empty reproaches, revile our learned countryman D^r. Gilbert. In that renewing of this opinion, he omitted an answer to the scripture expressions: ther­fore 'tis requisite, That in the prosecu­ting of this discourse, wee should lay down such satisfaction as may cleere all doubts that may be taken thence: Espe­cially since the prejudice that may arise from the misapprehension of those Scripture phrases, may much disable [Page 30] the Reader from looking on any other Argument, with an equall and indiffe­rent minde.

The places that seem to oppose this, are of two kinds. First, such as imply a motion in the Heavens: or secondly, such as seeme to expresse a rest and im­mobilitie in the Earth.

Those of the first kind seem to beare in them the cleerest evidence, and ther­fore are more insisted on by our Adver­saries. They may be referred unto these three heads.

1 All those Scriptures where there is any mention made of the rising, or setting of the Sunne or Starres.

2 That story in Iosuah, where the Sunne standing still, is reckoned for a miracle.

3 That other wonder in the dayes of Hezekiah, when the Sunne went back ten degrees in the Diall of Ahaz. All which places doe seeme to conclude, That the diurnall motion is caused by the Heavens.

To this I answer in generall;

That the Holy Ghost in these Scrip­ture [Page 31] expressions, is pleased to accommo­date himselfe unto the conceit of the vulgar, and the usuall opinion: whereas, if in the more proper phrase it had been said, That the Earth did rise and set; or, that the earth stood still, &c. the people who had been unacquainted with that secret in Philosophy, would not have understood the meaning of it, and ther­fore it was convenient, that they should be spoken unto in their own Language.

I but you will reply, It should seeme more likely, if there had been any such thing, that the Holy Ghost should use the truest expressions: for then he would at the same time have informed them of the thing, and reformed them in an er­rour: since his authoritie alone had been sufficient to have rectified the mistake.

I answer:

1 Though it were, yet 'tis beside the chiefe scope of those places, to in­struct us in any Philosophicall points, as hath been proved in the former book; especially when these things are neither necessary in themselves, nor do necessa­rily induce to a more ful understanding [Page 32] of that which is the maine businesse of those Scriptures. But now the people might better conceive the meaning of the Holy Ghost, when he do's conforme himselfe unto their capacities and opi­nions, than when hee talks exactly of things in such a proper phrase, as is be­yond their reach: And therefore 'tis said in Isaiah, I am the Lord which teacheth thee utilia, profitable things: where the glosse ha's it, non subtilia, not such curiosities of Nature as are not easily apprehended.

2 'Tis not only besides that which is the chiefe purpose of those places, but it might happen also to be somwhat op­posite unto it. For men being naturally unapt to beleeve any thing that seemes contrary to their senses, might upon this begin to question the authoritie of that Booke which affirmed it, or at least to retch Scripture some wrong way, to force it to some other sence which might be more agreeable to their owne false imagination.Praescript. cap. 17. Tertullian tels us of some Hereticks, who when they were plainly confuted out of any Scripture, would presently accuse those texts or Books to [Page 33] be fallible; and of no authority; and ra­ther yeeld Scripture to bee erroneous, than forgoe those Tenents for which they thought there was so good reason. So likewise might it have been in these points which seem to beare in them so much contradiction to the sences and common opinion: and therfore 'tis excel­lent advise set down by S.In Genes. ad lit. lib. 2. in fine. Austin. Quod nihil credere de re obscur â temere debemus, neforte quod postea veritas patefecerit, quam­vis libris sanctis sive testamenti veteris, sive novi, nullo modo esse possit adversum, tamen propter amorem nostri erroris oderimus: That wee should not hastily settle our opinions concerning any obscure mat­ter, lest afterwards, the truth being dis­covered, (which however it may seeme, cannot bee repugnant to any thing in Scripture) wee should hate that, out of love to the error that wee have before entertained. A little reading may in­forme us how these Texts have bin abu­sed to strange and unmeant Allegories, which have mentioned any naturall truth in such a manner as was not agree­able to mens conceits. And besides, if [Page 34] the Holy Ghost had propounded unto us any secrets in Philosophie, we should have bin apt to be so busied about them, as to neglect other matters of greater importance. And therefore Saint Austin proposing the question,Ibid. cap. 9. what should be the reason, Why the Scripture do's not cleerely set down any thing concerning the Nature, Figure, Magnitude, and Motion of the Heavenly Orbes; hee an­swers it thus: The Holy Ghost being to deliver more necessarie Truths, would not insert these, lest men according to the varietie of their dispositions, should neglect the more weighty matters, and bestow their thoughts about the specu­lative naturall points, which were lesse needfull. So that it might seeme more convenient, that the Scripture should not meddle with the revealing of these unlikely Secrets, especially when it is to deliver unto us many other mysteries of greater necessitie, which seeme to be directly opposite to our sense and rea­son. And therefore, I say, the holy Ghost might purposely omit the treating of these Philosophicall Secrets, till time [Page 35] and future discoverie, might with lei­sure settle them in the opinion of others: As he is pleased in other things of a higher kind, to apply himselfe unto the infirmitie of our apprehensions, by being represented, as if hee were a hu­mane nature, with the parts and passions of a man. So in these things likewise, that he might descend to our capaci­ties, do's he vouchsafe to conforme his expressions unto the errour and mistake of our judgements.

But before we come to a further illu­stration, let us a little examine those particular Scriptures, which are com­monly urged to prove the motion of the Sun or Heavens. These (as was said) might be distributed under these three heads.

1 Those places which mention the rising or setting of the Sunne, as that in the Ps. 19. 5. 6. Psalme, The Sun like a Bridegroome commeth out of his chamber, and rejoyceth as agyant to runne his race: His going forth is from the end of Heaven, and his circuit unto the end of it, and there is nothing hid from the heate thereof. And that in Ecclesi­astes, [Page 36] The Sunne ariseth, and the Sunne goeth downe,Eccles. 1. 5. &c.

In which Scriptures, we may observe divers phrases that are evidently spoken in reference to the appearance of things, and the false opinion of the vul­gar. And therefore 'tis not altogether unlikely, That this, which they seem to affirme concerning the motion of the Heavens, should also bee understood in the same sence.

The Sun like a Bridegroome commeth out of his chamber; alluding perhaps unto the conceit of ignorant people: as if it took rest all the while it was absent from us, and came out of it's chamber, when it arose.

And reioyceth as a Gyant to run his race; because in the Morning it appeares bigger than at other times; and therfore in reference to this appearance, may then be compared unto a Giant.

His going forth is from the end of Hea­ven, and his circuit unto the ends of it. Allu­ding againe unto the opinion of the vul­gar: who not apprehending the round­nesse of the Heavens, doe conceive it to [Page 37] have two ends: one where the Sun riseth, the other where it setteth.

And there is nothing bid from the heate thereof, speaking still in reference to the common mistake, as if the Sunne were actually hot in it self; and as if the heate of the weather were not generated by reflection, but did immediately proceed from the body of the Sun.

So likewise, for that in Ecclesiastes, where 'tis said, the Sun riseth, and the Sun goeth downe, &c. which phrases being properly understood, doe import that he is sometimes in a higher place than at others: whereas, in a circumference, there is no place higher or lower, each part being at the same distance from the centre, which is the bottome. But now understand the phrase in reference to the Suns appearance, and then we grant that he do's seem sometimes to rise, and sometimes to go downe, because in refe­rence to the Horizon, (which common people apprehend to bee the bottome, and in the utmost bounds of it to joyne with the heavens,) the Sun do's appeare in the Morning to rise up from it, and in [Page 38] the Evening to goe down unto it. Now I say, because the Holy Ghost, in the manner of these expressions, do's so plainly allude unto vulgar errours, and the false appearance of things: therefore 'tis not without probabilitie, that hee should be interpreted in the same sence, when he seemes to imploy a motion in the Sun or Heavens.

2 The second place, was that rela­tion in Iosuah: where 'tis mentioned as a miracle. That the Sunne did stand still. And Iosuah said,Ios. 10. 12, 14 Galilaeus maintaines the literall sense of this place: towards the end of that trea­tise, which hee calls Nov-Antiq­pat. doctri­na. Sunne stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou Moone in the valley of Ajalon. So the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven, and hasted not to goe downe about a whole day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it. In which place like­wise, there are divers phrases wherin the Holy Ghost do's not expresse things ac­cording to their true nature, and as they are in themselves: but according to their appearances, and as they are conceived in common opinion. As,

1 When he sayes, Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon, or over Gibeon. Now the whole Earth being so little in compari­son [Page 39] to the body of the Sun, and but as a point, in respect of that Orbe wherein the Sun is supposed to move, and Gibeon being, as it were, but a point of this Globe of Earth: therefore the words cannot be understood properly, but ac­cording to appearance.Tostat. in locum, Quaest. 16. 17. 'Tis probable that Iosuah was then at Azecha, a little East from Gibeon, and the Sunne being somewhat beyond the Meridian,Arias Mon­tanus in locum. did seeme unto him as he was in that place, to bee over against Gibeon; and in refe­rence to this appearance, and vulgar conceit, do's hee command it to stand still upon that place.

2 And so secondly for that other expression; And thou Moone in the valley of Ajalon. This Planet was now a little East from the Sun, it being about three or foure dayes old (asTostat. ib. Quaest. 18. Serrarius in Iosh. 10. Quaes. 21. 22. Commentators guesse. Ajalon was three miles from Gibeon Eastward, and Iosuah commanded the Moone to stand still there: because unto him it did then seeme to be over against that valley; whereas, 'tis certaine, if he had been there himselfe, it would still have seemed to be as much distant [Page 40] from him. Iust as men commonly speak in shewing another the Stars: we point to a Star over such a chimney, or such a tree, because to us it appeares so; wheras the Star in it selfe is not sensibly more over them, than it is over us. So that in in this phrase likewise the Holy Ghost doth conforme himselfe unto the ap­pearance of things, and our grosser con­ceit.

3 And the Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven. Now to speake properly, and as the thing is in it selfe, Heaven ha's no midst but the centre; and therefore, this also must be interpreted in reference to the opinion of the vulgar, and by the midst of Heaven, wee are to understand such a place as was not very neere to ei­ther of the ends, the East or West.

4 And there was no day like that, be­fore it or after it: which words are not to be understood absolutely, for there are alwaies longer daies under the Poles: but in respect to the opinion of the vul­gar; that is, there was never any day so long which these ignorant people knew of.

[Page 41] 3 As for this last place concerning the Sunnes returning ten degrees in the diall of Ahaz: 2. King. 20. 11. I thinke it may probably be affirmed, That it is to be understood only concerning the shadow:Isai. 38. 8. which though it doe necessarily happen in all horizontall dialls, for any latitude betwixt the Tropickes: and so conse­quently in all declining dialls, the ele­vation of whose Pole is lesse than the Sunnes greatest declination; as Clavius de Horol. cap. 21. observes: yet the cir­cumstances of this relation in scripture, makes the event to differ from that other which is common and naturall: which against it's nature did seem to go back­wards, when as the Sunne it selfe was not in the least manner altered from it's usuall course. Of this opinion were Abarbinell; Arius Montanus, Burgensis, Vatablas Sanctius, &c.

The reasons for it may be these;

1 The miracle is proposed onely concerning the shadow; Wilt thou that the shadow shall ascend or returne by ten de­grees: there being not in the offer of this wonder, any the least mention [Page 42] made concerning the Sunnes going backwards.

2 'Tis likely wee should have had some intimation concerning the extra­ordinarie length of the day, as it is in that of Iosuah; but in this relation, the chiefe matter that the story takes notice of, is the alteration of the shadow.

3 Had it been by the supposed re­turne of the Sunnes body, this had been a greater miracle then those which were performed upon more solemne occasi­ons; it had been more wonderfull then it's seeming rest in Iosuahs time; then the supernaturall Eclipse at our Saviours death, when the Moone was in the full. And then it is not likely, that the Holy Ghost in relating of this miracle, should chiefly insist in expressing how the shadow returned, and that onely in the diall of Ahaz.

4 This Figure did not appeare in the Sun it selfe; because in the 2. Chron. 32. 31. 'Tis said, that the Embassadors of the king of Babylon did come unto Hezekiah, to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land; and therefore it seems the miracle [Page 43] did not consist in any change of the Heavens.

5 If it had been in the Sunne, it would have been as well discerned in other parts of the world, as in the land of Iudaea. And then,

1 What need the King of Babylon send thither to enquire after it? If you reply, because it was occasioned by He­zekiahs recoverie; I answer, 'tis not likely that the heathens would ever beleeve so great a miracle should bee wrought meerly for a signe of one mans recovery from a disease. But would either be apt to thinke that it was done for some more remarkable purpose, and that by some of their owne gods, unto whom they attributed a far greater power, than unto any other. 'Tis more probable, that they might heare some flying rumour of a miracle that was seene in Iudaea: which because it happened only in He­zekiahs house and diall; and that too up­on his recoverie from a dangerous sick­nesse, they might be more apt to be­leeve that it was a signe of it.

2 Why have we no mention made [Page 44] of it in the writings of the Antients? It is no way likely, that so great a miracle as this was (if it were in the Sun) should have been passed over in silence; Espe­cially, since it happened in those later times, when there were many heathen writers that flourished in the world, Hesiod, Archilochus, Symonides; and not long after, Homer, with divers others; and yet none of them have the least mention of any such prodigie. Wee have many relations of matters that were lesse ob­servable, which were done about that time; the Historie of Numa Pompilius, Gyges; the fight betwixt the three Bre­thren, with divers such stories. And 'tis scarse credible, that this should have been omitted amongst the rest.

Nay, we have (as many guesse) some hints from prophane antiquitie, of the miracle wrought by Iosuah. Vnto which, 'tis thought the Antients did allude in the fable of Phaëton; when the Sun was so irregular in his course, that hee burnt some part of the world. And question­lesse then, this which happened in later times, would not have been so wholly [Page 45] forgotten. 'Tis an Argument urged byTractat 35. in Mat. Origen, That the Eclipse at our Sa­viours Passion was not universall, be­cause no prophane author of those times mentions it. Which consequence is the very same with that which is urged in this other case; but by the way, his antecedent was false, sinceApologet. cap. 21. Tertullian affirmes, That it was recorded amongst the Romane Annels.

Now as for that story in Herodotus, Lib. 2. where after he had related the flight of Senacherib, he tels us, how the Sunne did foure times in the space of 10340 yeres invert his course, and rise in the West; which would seeme so unto other nati­ons, if he had only returned, as many conclude, from this Scripture. As for this story, (I say) it cannot well bee ur­ged as pertinent to the present busines, because it seems to have reference unto times that never were.

So that all these things being well considered, we shall find it more proba­ble, that this miracle doth consist in the returne of the shadow.

If you object,Isa. 38. 8. Ionah. 4. 8. That the Scripture [Page 46] do's expresly say, the Sunne it selfe returned tenne degrees; I answer, 'tis a frequent manner of speech in Scripture, to put the cause for the effect; as that in Ionas, Where 'tis said,Ion. 4. 8. That the Sunne did beat upon the head of Ionas; that is, the beames of the Sunne.Psal. 121. 6. So that of the Psalmist, The Sunne shall not smite thee by day, that is, the heate which proceeds from the Sunnes reflection. In the same sence may the phrase bee understood in this place; and the Sunne may be said to re­turne backe, because the light, which is the effect of it, did seeme to doe so; or rather, because the shadow, which is the effect of that, did change it's course.

This later Scripture then, will not at all make to the present purpose: as for those of the two former kinds, I have alreadie answered, That they are spoken in reference to the appearance of things, and vulgar opinion. For the further illustration of which, I shall en­deavour to confirme these two parti­culars.

1 That the Holy Ghost in many [Page 47] other places of Scripture, do's accom­modate his expressions unto the errour of our conceits: and do's not speake of divers things as they are in them­selves, but as they appeare unto us. Therefore 'tis not unlikely, that these phrases also may bee liable unto the same interpretation.

2 That divers men have fallen into great absurdities, whilest they have looked for the grounds of Phi­losophy, from the words of Scrip­ture; and therefore it may bee dan­gerous in this point also, to adhere so closely unto the Letter of the Text.

PROP. III.

THere is not any particular by which Philosophy hath been more endama­ged, than the ignorant superstition of some men: who in stating the controversies of it, doe so closely adhere unto the meere words of Scripture. Quam plurima occurrunt in libris sacris ad naturam pertinentia, &c. They are the words ofProaem. ad. Phil. sācram Vallesius. ‘There are sundry things in holy Writ concerning natu­rall points, which most men think are not so to be understood, as if the Holy Ghost did intend to unfold unto us any thing in that kinde: but re­ferring [Page 49] all to the salvation of our soules, do's speak of other matters ac­cording to common opinion. And a little after, Ego, divina haec eloquia, &c. I for my part am persuaded, that these divine Treatises were not written by the holy and inspired pen-men, for the interpretation of Philosophy, because God left such things to be found out by mens labour and industrie. But yet whatsoever is in them concerning na­ture is most true: as proceeding from the God of nature, from whom no­thing could be hid.’ And questionlesse, all those things which the Scripture do's deliver concerning any naturall point, cannot be but certaine and infal­lible, being understood in that sence, wherein they were first intended; but now that it do's speake somtimes accor­ding to common opinion, rather than the true nature of the things them­selves, was intimated before; wherfore (by the way)Vest. Trac. 3. cap. 2. Fromondus his triumph upon the later part of this quotation, is but vaine, and to no purpose. 'Tis a good rule set downe by a learnedSanctius in Isa. 13. 5. Item in Za­char. lib. 9. num. 45. Commentator, [Page 50] to bee observed in the interpretation of Scripture: Scriptura sacra saepè non tam ad veritatem ipsam, quam ad hominum opinio­nem, sermonem acommodat; that it do's ma­ny times accommodate it's expressions, not so much to the truth it selfe, as to mens opinions. And in this sence is that speech of Gregorie concerning Images and Pictures, attributed byComment. in Gen. c. 1. Calvin un­to the Historie of the Creation; viz. Librum esse ideotarum, that it is a Booke for the simpler and ignorant people. For it being written to informe them, as well as others, 'tis requisite that it should use the most plaine and easie expressions. To this purpose likewise is that of In Gen. c. 1, v. 10. art. 6 Mersennus, Mille sunt Scripturae loca, &c. ‘There are very many places of Scrip­ture, which are not to bee interpreted according to the Letter;Vide Hiero. in Ier. 28. Aquinas in Iob. 26. 7. and that for this reason, because God would apply himselfe unto our capacity and sence:’ Presertim in ijs, quae adres naturales, oculis­que subject as pertinent; more especially in those things which concerne nature, and are subject to our eyes. And there­fore in the very same place, though hee [Page 51] be eager enough against Copernicus, yet hee concludes that opinion not to be a heresie; because (saith he) those Scrip­tures which seeme to oppose it, are not so evident, but that they may bee capa­ble of another interpretation: Intima­ting, that it was not unlikely they should be understood in reference to outward appearance and common opi­nion; And that this manner of speech is frequently used in many other places of scripture, may be easily manifest from these following examples. Thus though the Moone may be prooved by infalli­ble observation, to bee lesse than any of the visible Stars, yet because of its ap­pearance, and vulgar opinion, therefore doth the Scripture in comparison to them,Gen. 1. 16. call it one of the great Lights.Psal. 136. 7. Of which place, saith Calvin, Moses populari­ter scripsit, nos potius respexit quam sydera. Moses did not so much regard the nature of the thing, as our capacitie; and there­fore uses a popular phrase: so as ordina­rie people without the help of Arts and Learning, might easily understand him; And in another place, Non fuit Spiritus [Page 52] Sancti concilium Astrologiam docere: ‘It was not the purpose of the Holy Ghost to teach us Astronomy:Comment. in Psa. 136. but being to pro­pound a Doctrine, that concernes the most rude and simple people, hee do's (both by Moses, and the Prophets) con­forme himself unto their phrases and conceits: lest any should thinke to ex­cuse his owne ignorance with the pre­tence of difficultie: As men common­ly do in those things which are delive­red after a learned and sublime man­ner.’ Thus Zanchi De operi­bus Dei, par. 2. li. 6. cap. 1. likewise, Moses ma­jorem rationem habuit nostri humaníque ju­dicij, &c. ‘When Moses calls the Moon a great light: he had a more especiall reference to mens opinions of it, than to the truth of the thing it self, because he was to deale with such, who do usu­ally judge rather by their sense, than by their reason.’ Nor will that di­stinction of Fromondus and others avoid this interpretation, when he tells us of magnum Materiale: which referres to the bulke and quantitie of the body; and magnum Formale, which imports the greatnesse of it's light. For we grant, that [Page 53] it is really unto us a greater light then any of the Stars, or than all of them to­gether: yet there is not any one of them, but is in it's selfe a bigger light than this; And therefore when wee say this speech is to be understood according to it's appearance, we do not oppose this to reality: But 'tis implied, that this reality is not absolute, and in the nature of the thing it selfe, but only relative, and in re­ference to us. I may say a candle is a big­ger light then a Star, or the Moone, be­cause it is really so to me. How ever any one will thinke this to be spoken, onely in relation to it's appearance, and not to be understood as if the thing were so in it selfe. But (by the way) it do's concerne Fromondus to maintaine the Scriptures authority,De Meteor. lib. 4. cap. 2. art. 5. in revealing of natural secrets; because, from thence it is that he fetches the chiefe Argument for that strange Assertion of his, concerning the heavi­nesse of the winde;Iob, 28. 25. Where Iob sayes, that God makes the weight for the winde. Thus likewise, because the common people usually thinke the rain to proceed from some waters in the expansum: therefore [Page 54] doth Moses in reference to this errone­ous conceit, tell us of waters above the Firmament, and the Windowes of Hea­ven:Comment. in Psal, 148. 4. Of which saith Calvin, Nimis servi­liter literae se astringunt. &c. ‘Such men too servilely tye themselves unto the letter of the text, who hence conclude, that there is a Sea in the Heavens: when as we know that Moses and the Prophets, to accommodate themselv's unto the capacitie of ruder people, do use a vulgar expression; and therefore it would be a preposterous course, to reduce their phrases unto the exact rules of Philososophy.’ Let me adde, that from this mistake, 'tis likely did arise that groundlesse observation of the antient Iewes; who would not ad­mit any to read the beginning of Genesis, till he was arrived to thirty yeres of age. The true reason of which, was this: not because that Booke was harder than any other; but because Moses conforming his expression to vulgar conceits, and they examining of them by more exact rules of Philosophy, were faine to force upon them many strange [Page 55] Allegories, and unnaturall Myste­ries.

Thus also, because for the most part we conceive the Starres to be innume­rable, therefore doth the Holy Ghost often speak of them in reference to this opinion.Ier. 35. 22. So Ieremy, As the hoast of Heaven cannot be numbred, neither the sand of the Sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David: So likewise when God would comfort Abraham with the promise of a numberlesse posterite, hee bids him looke up to Heaven, and tells him, that his Seed should be like those Stars for number:Gen. 15. 5. Which, saithIn 1. cap. Sphaerae. Clavius, Intelli­gendum est secundum communem sententiam vulgi, existimantis infinitā esse multitudinē stellarum, dum eas nocte serena confusè intue­tur, is to be understood according to the common opinion of the vulgar, who think the Stars to be of an infinite mul­titude, whilest they behold them all (as they seeme confused) in a cleere night. And though many of our Divines doe commonly interpret this speech to be a Hyperbole; yet being well considered, we shall finde that Abrahams posteritie, in [Page 56] some few generations, were farre more than there are visible Starres in the Fir­mament; and of such onely do's God speake, because hee bids Abraham looke up to the Heavens.

Now all these, even unto six differen­ces of Magnitude, are reckoned to bee but 1022. True indeed, at the first view­ing of the Heavens, it may seeme an in­credible thing, that they should be of no greater a number; but the reason of this is, because they appeare scattered and confused: so that the eye cannot place them in any such order, as to reckon them up, or take any distinct surveigh of of them.Sir. Fr. Bac. table of colours, num. 5. Now 'tis a knowne truth, Quod fortius operatur pluralit as partium, ubi ordo abest; nam inducit similitudinem infiniti, & impedit comprehensionem: That a pluralitie of Parts without order, ha's a more strong operation, because it ha's a kinde of seeming infinitie, and so hinders comprehension. And then besides, there are more appearances of Starres many times, than there are bodies of them; For the eye, by reason of it's weakenesse and disabilitie, to discerne any thing at so [Page 57] great a distance; as also, because of those beames which proceed from such re­mote bodies in a twinkling and wave­ring manner, and so mixe and confound themselves at their entrance into that Organ: it must needs receive more re­presentations than there are true bodies. But now, if a man doe but leisurely and distinctly compare the Stars of the hea­ven with those of this number, that are noted in a Coelestiall Globe, hee shall scarse find any in the Skie which are not marked with the Globe; nay, he may observe many in the Globe, which hee can scarse at all discerne in the heavens.

Now this number of the Starres is commonly distributed into 48 Constel­lations; in each of which, though wee should suppose tenne thousand Starres, (which can scarse be conceived) yet would not all this number equall that of the children of Israel. Nay, 'tis the assertion of Clavins, In prim. ca. Sphaerae. that Abrahams po­steritie in some few generations, were farre more then there could be Stars in the Firmament, though they stucke so close that they touched one another: [Page 58] And he proves it thus: A great circle in the Firmament, do's containe the dia­meter of a Starre of the first Magnitude 14960 times. In the diameter of the Fir­mament, there are contained 4760 dia­meters of such a Star: now if wee multi­ply this circumference by a diameter, the Quotient will be 71209600, which is the full number of Starres, that the eighth Sphaere (according to Ptolomies grounds,) would containe, if they stood so close, that they touched one another.

The children of Israel were reckoned at their going out of Aegypt,Num. 1. 46. 603550, of such as were one and twenty yeares old, and upwards, and were able to go to war; besides children, & women, and youths, and old men, and the Levites; which in probabilitie, did alwaies treble the other number. Now if they were so many at one time, we may well conceive, that in all those severall generations, both be­fore and since, the number was much augmented; and long before this time, did far exceed this supposed multitude of the Stars. From all which, wee may inferre, that the Scripture expressions in [Page 59] this kind, are to be understood acording to appearance and common opinion.

Another place usually cited for the same purpose, to shew that the Holy Ghost do's not speake exactly concer­ning naturall secrets;1. Kin. 7. 23. 2. Chro. 4. 2. as that in the Kings and Chronicles, which relates unto us the measure of Solomons brazen Sea, whose diameter was ten cubites, and it's cir­cumference thirty; whereas to speake Geometrically, the more exact propor­tion betwixt the diameter and the cir­cumference, is not as ten to thirty, but rather as seven to twenty two.

But against this 'tisRoss. lib. 1. sect. 1. c. 8. objected by our adversaries,

1 This Sea was not perfectly round, but rather inclining to a semicircular Forme, asAntiq. Iud. lib. 8. cap. 2. Iosephus affirmes.

I reply: If it were so, yet this is so much from helping the matter, that it makes it much worse; for then the dis­proportion will be far greater.

But secondly, Scripture, which is to be beleeved before Iosephus, do's tell us in expresse tearms, that it was round all about, 1. Kings, 7. 23.

[Page 60] 2 The proportion of the diameter to the circumference,Ross. ibid. is not exactly the same: as seven to two and twenty, but ra­ther lesse. I answer, though it be, yet 'tis neerer unto that, then any other number.

3 The scripture do's but according to it's usuall custome,Ibid. suppresse the lesse number, and mention only that which is bigger and more full. So in someGen. 15. 13 Acts, 7. 6. pla­ces, Abrahams posteritie is said to re­maine in the land of Aegypt for foure hundred yeares; when as notwithstan­ding Exod. 12. 41. other scriptures tell us, that they tarried there thirty yeares longer.Gal. 3. 17. Thus likewise in oneGen 46. 27. place, the number of Iacobs house, who came into Egypt, is reckoned to be seventy; whereas,Acts, 7. 14. else­where, they are said to be seventy five.

I answer: All this is so far from de­stroying the force of the present Argu­ment, that it do's rather confirme it, and more cleerely evidence unto us, that the Scripture do's not only, not speak exact­ly in these subtle and more secret points of Philosophy, but also, in the ordinarie obvious numbring of things, do's con­forme unto common custome, and [Page 61] often use the round number for the whole.

4 'Tis yet objected byFromond. Vesta. 4. tract. 3. c. 2. another adversarie, That wee have no reason to expect, the Holy Ghost should reveale unto us this secret in Nature; because neither Archimedes, nor any other, had then found it out. I reply, and why then should we thinke that the Scrip­ture must needs informe us of the Earths Motion; when as neither Pitha­goras, nor Copernicus, nor any else, had then discovered it?

5 In taking the compasse of this vessell,Ibid. they measured somewhat below the brim, where it was narrower than at the top, and so the circumference there, might bee exactly but thirty cubites; whereof it's diameter was ten.

I answer: 'tis evident this is a meere shift, there being not the least ground for it in the Text. And then besides, why might not we affirme, That the diame­ter was measured from that place, as wel as the circumference? since 'tis very pro­bable, that the Holy Ghost did speak ad idem; and not tell us the bredth of one [Page 62] place, and the compasse of another. So that all our adversaries evasions cannot well avoid the force of the Argument that is taken from this Scripture.

Again, common people usually con­ceive the Earth to be such a plaine, as in it's utmost parts is terminated by the Heavens, so that if a man were in the far­thermost coasts of it, hee might touch the skie. And hence also, they think that the reason why some countries are hot­ter than others, is, because they lie nee­rer unto the Sun. Nay, Strabo tells us of some Philosophers too, who in this point have grossely erred; affirming, that there was a place towards the utmost coasts of Lusitania, where a man might heare the noise that the Sunne made, as he quencht his Beames in his descent to the Ocean; which, though it be an ab­surd mistake, yet we may note, that the Holy Ghost in the expression of these things, is pleased to conforme himselfe unto such kinde of vulgar and false con­ceits; And therefore, often speaks of the Psa. 19. 6. Mat. 24. 31. ends of Heaven, and thePs. 22. 27, &c. ends of the world. In this sence, they that come from [Page 63] any far countrey, are said to come from the end of Heaven, Isaiah, 13. 5. And in another place, From the side of the Hea­vens, Deut. 4. 32. All which phrases, doe plainly allude unto the errour of vulgar capacities (saith Sanctius) which hereby is better instructed,Comment. in Isa. 13. 5. then it would be by more proper expressions.

Thus likewise, because ignorant peo­ple cannot well apprehend how so great a weight as the Sea and Land, should hang alone in the open aire, without be­ing founded upon some Basis to uphold it: therefore in this respect also, do's Scripture apply it selfe unto their con­ceits,Iob. 38. 4. where it often mentions the foun­dations of the Earth. Psa. 102. 25. Which phrase, in the letter of it, do's manifestly allude unto mens imaginations in this kinde.

Thus also the common people usual­ly conceive the Earth to be upon the Water; because, when they have travel­led any way as farre as they can, they are at length stopped by the sea. Therefore doth Scripture in reference to this, af­firme,Psal. 136. 6. That God stretched the Earth upon the Waters, Psal. 24. 2. founded the Earth upon the Seas, [Page 64] and established it upon the Flouds; Of which places saith Calvin, Non disputat Philosophicè David, de terrae situ; sed popu­lariter loquens, ad rudium captum se accom­modat: 'Twas not Davids intent to speak philosophically concerning the Earths scituation; but rather, by using a popular phrase, to accommodate his speech unto the capacities of the ruder people.

In this sence likewise, are wee to un­derstand all those places of Scripture, wherein the coasts of Heaven are deno­minated from the relations of Before, Behinde, the right hand, or the left. Which do not imply (saithSubtil. Exercit. 67. Scaliger) any absolute difference in such places, but are spoken meerely in reference to mens estimations, and the common opi­nion of those people, for whom the Scriptures were first penned. Thus be­cause it was the opinion of the Iewish Rabbies, that man was created with his face to the East; therefore the Hebrew word [...], signifies Ante, or the East; [...] ▪ Post, or the West; [...], Dextra, or the South; [...], Sinistra, or the North. You may see all of them put together in that [Page 65] place of Iob, Behold I goe forward, and he is not there, Iob. 23. 8. 9. and backward, but I cannot perceive him; on the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him. He hideth himselfe on the right hand, that I cannot see him. Which expressions, are by some interpreters re­ferred unto the foure coasts of Heaven, according to the common use of those originall words. From hence it is, that many of the Antients have concluded hell to be in the North, which is signi­fied by the left hand: unto which side our Saviour tels us,Mat. 25. 33. that the Goats shall be divided. Which opinion, likewise seems to be favoured by that place in Iob, Iob, 26. 6, 7. where 'tis said, Hell is naked before God, and destruction hath no covering. And pre­sently 'tis added, Hee stretched out the North over the empty place. Vpon these grounds, S. Ierome interprets that speech of the Preacher, Eccles. 11. 3. If the tree fals towards the South, or towards the North, in the place where the tree falleth, there shal it be. Concerning those who shal go either to heaven or hell. And in this sence also do's some expound that of Zachary, 14. 4 Where 'tis said, that the mount of Olives [Page 66] shall cleere in the midst; halfe of it shall re­move towards the North, and halfe of it to­wards the South. By which is intimated, that amongst those Gentiles, who shall take upon them the profession of Christ, there are two sorts; Some that go to the North, that is to Hell; and others to the South, that is to Heaven. And therefore it is (say they) that God soIer. 1. 14. 15. item ca. 4. 6. 6. 1. often threa­tens evill out of the North; and upon this ground it is (saithLi. de nat. popul. ca. 4. Besoldus) that there is no Religion that worships that way. We read of the Mahumetans, that they adore towards the South; the Iewes towards the West; Christians towards the East, but none to the North.

But of this onely by the way. How­ever, certaine it is that the Holy Ghost do's frequently in Scripture set forth the severall coasts of Heaven by those relative tearmes of right hand and left hand, &c. which expressions doe not de­note any reall intrinsicall difference betwixt those places, but are rather fit­ted for the apprehension of those men, from whose fancy it is that they have such denominations.De Coelo, lib. 2 cap. 2. And though Ari­stotle [Page 67] concludes these severall positions to be naturall unto the Heavens, yet his authoritie in this particular is not available, because he delivers it upon a wrong ground, supposing the Orbs to be living creatures, and assisted with intel­ligences. Wee may observe, that the meaning of these coasts by the relations of right hand and left hand, &c. is so far from having any ground in the nature of those severall places, that these relations are not onely variously applyed unto them by divers religions (as was said be­fore,) but also by divers Arts and Pro­fessions. Thus because Astronomers make their observations towards the South parts of the Horizon, where there bee most Stars that rise and set: therefore do they account the West to be at their right hand, and the East their left. The Cosmographers in taking the latitude of places, and reckoning their severall cli­mates must looke towards the North Pole; and therefore, in their phrase, by the right hand is meant the East; and by the left hand, the West: and thus (saith Plutarch, De placit. Philos. li. 2. cap. 10. are we to understand these ex­pressions [Page 68] in Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle. The Poets count the South to bee to­wards the left, and the North the right hand. ThusLib. 3. Lucan speaking of the Arabians comming unto Thessalie, sayes:

The Augures taking their observati­ons at the East, count the South to be at their right hand, and the North their left: So that these denominations have not any reall ground in the nature of the things, but are imposed upon them by the Scripture phrase, in reference to the account and opinion of the Iewes.

Thus also,D. Hakwel. Apol. lib. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. because heretofore it was generally received, that the Heart was the principall seat of the Faculties; therefore doth the Spirit apply himself unto this common Tenent; and in many places,Prov. 8, 5. 10, 8. attributes Wisedome and Vn­derstanding to the Heart. Whereas, to speake properly,Eccles. 1. 13, 16, 17. & 8. 5. the reason and discur­five Faculties have their principall resi­dence in the Head (saith Galen and Hypo­crates, [Page 69] together with the generalitie of our later Physitians,) because they are hindred in their operations by the di­stempers of that part, and recovered by medicines applyed unto it.

So likewise are wee to understand those other places: Isaiah, 59. 5. where some translations reade it, Ova Aspidum ruperunt, they have broken the Vipers eggs; alluding to that common but fa­bulous story of the Viper, who breakes his passage through the bowells of the female. So Psal. 58. 4, 5. where the Pro­phet speaks of the deafe Adder, that stops her eares against the voice of the charmer. Both which relations (if we may beleeve many naturalists) are as false as they are common: and yet because they were en­tertained with the generall opinion of those days, therfore doth the holy Ghost vouchsafe to allude unto them in Holy Writ.Vesta Trac. 3. cap. 3. 'Tis a plaine mistake of Fromon­dus, when in answer to these places, he is feigne to say, that they are used prover­bially only, and doe not positively con­clude any thing. For when David writes these words, that they are like the deafe [Page 70] Adder which stoppeth her eares, &c. This affirmation is manifestly implyed, That the deafe Adder do's stop her eares against the voice of the charmer: which because it is not true in the letter of it, (as was said before) therefore 'tis very probable, that it should bee interpreted in the same sence wherein here it is cited.

In reference to this also, wee are to conceive of those other expressions; Cold commeth out of the North, Iob, 37. 9. and againe, faire weather comes out of the North, ver. 22. So ver. 17. thy garments are quieted when he warmeth the Earth by the South winde. And Prov. 25. 23. The North wind driveth away raine. Which phrases do not containe in them any absolute generall truth, but can so farre only bee verified, as they are referred to generall climates: and though unto us who live on this side of the Line, the North wind be coldest and driest; and on the contra­ry, the South wind moist and warme, by reason that in one of these places there is a stronger heate of the Sun to exhale moist vapors, than in the other: yet it is [Page 71] clean otherwise with the inhabitants beyond the other Tropicke; for there the North wind is the hotest, and moist, and the South the coldest and dry: So that with them, these Scriptures cannot properly bee affirmed, that cold or that faire weather commeth out of the North; but rather on the contrary. All which not­withstanding, do's not in the least man­ner derogate from the truth of these speeches, or the omnisciencie of the speaker: but doe rather shew the Wis­dome and Goodnesse of the blessed Spirit, in vouchsafing thus to conforme his Language unto the capacitie of those people unto whom these speeches were first directed. In the same sence are we to understand all those places where the Lights of Heaven are said to be darke­ned,Ioel, 2. 31. Item c. 3. 15. and the Constellations not to give their light, Isai. 13. 10. Not as if they were ab­solutely in themselves deprived of their light, and did not shine at all; but be­cause of their appearance to us; and therefore, in another place answerable to these, God sayes, he will cover the Hea­vens, and so make the Starres thereof [Page 72] darke, Ezech. 37. 2. Which argues, that they themselves were not deprived of this light (as those other speeches seem to imply) but wee.

In reference to this likewise are wee to conceive of those other expressions, that the Moone shall blush, and the Sunne bee ashamed, Isai. 24. 23. That they shall be tur­ned into bloud, Math. 24. 29. Not that these things shall bee so in themselves (saith S. Ierome,) Comment. in Ioel. ca. 3. but because they shall appeare so unto us. Thus also Marke, 13. 25. The Starres shall from Heaven; that is, they shall be so wholly covered from our sight, as if they were quite fallen from their wonted places. Or if this bee understood of their reall Fall, as it may seeme probable by that place in the Revelations, 6. 13. And the Stars of Heaven fell unto the Earth, even as a Figge-tree ca­steth her untimely Figges, when she is shaken by a mighty Winde: then is it to be inter­preted not of them that are truly Stars, but them that appeare so: alluding unto the opinion of the unskilfull vulgar (saithComment, in Isai. cap. 13. 5. Sanctius) that thinke the Mete­ors to be Starres. AndComment. in Gen. c. 3. ve. 10. art. 6. Mersennus spea­king [Page 73] of the same Scripture, sayes: Hoc de veris Stell is minimè volunt Interpretes intel­ligi. sed de Cometis & alijs ignitis Meteoris: Interpreters do by no means understand this of true Starres, but of the Comets and other fiery Meteors. Though the falling of these be a naturall event, yet may it be accounted a strange prodigie, as well as an Earthquake, and the darke­ning of the Sunne and Moone, which are mentioned in the verse before.

In reference to this, doth the Scrip­ture speake of some common naturall effects, as if their true causes were alto­gether inscrutable, and not to bee found out, because they were generally so esteemed by the vulgar. Thus of the wind it isIohn, 3. 8. said, That none know whence it commeth nor whither it goeth. In another Ier 10. 13, Item ca. 51. 16. place God is said to bring it out of his treasures; andIob. 37. 10. elsewhere it is called the [...] breath of God; And so likewise of the thunder: Concerning which,Io. 26. 14. Iob pro­poses this question, The thunder of his power who can understand? and therefore tooPsal 2. 9. 3, 4. &c. David do's so often stile it, the voice of God. All which places seeme to im­ply, [Page 74] that the cause of these things was not to be discovered, which yet later Philosophers pretend to know: so that according to their construction, these phrases are to be understood in relation unto their ignorance unto whom these speeches were immediately directed.

For this reason is it: Why, though there be in nature many other causes of Springs and Rivers than the Sea,Eccles. 1. 7. yet So­lomon (who was a great Philosopher, and perhaps not ignorant of them) do's mention onely this, because most obvi­ous, and easily apprehended by the vul­gar.Iob 9. 9. Item 38. 31. Vnto all these Scriptures, I might adde that in Amos, 5. 8. which speakes of the Constellation commonly called the seven Starres; whereas, later discove­ries have found that there are but sixe of them discernable to the bare eye, as ap­peares by Gallilaeus his glasse:Vide Fro­mond. Mete. l. 3. 6. 1. ar. 1. the seventh of them being but a deceipt of the eye arising from their too great neernes; and if a man try in a cleere night to number them distinctly, he shall find that there will sometimes appeare but sixe, and some times more.

[Page 75] True indeed, the originall word of this Scripture [...], do's not necessarily imply any such number in it's significa­tion, but yet our English translation renders it the seven Starres; and if it had been expresly so in the Originall too, it might have spoken true enough, because they are usually esteemed of that num­ber. And when it had been said, He made the seven Stars and Orion, we might have easily understood the words thus: Hee made those Constellations that are commonly knowne unto us under such names.

From all these Scriptures 'tis cleerly manifest, that it is a frequent custome for the Holy Ghost to speake of naturall things, rather according to their appea­rance and common opinion, than the truth it selfe. Now it is very plaine, and our enemies themselves do grant it, that if the World had bin framed according to the Systeme of Copernicus, Fromond. Antar. c. 6. futurum esset ut vulgus, de Solis motu & Terrae statu proinde ut nunc loqueretur. The vulgar phrase would have been the same as now it is, when it speakes of the Sunnes [Page 76] motion, and the Earth's standing still.

Wherefore 'tis not improbable, that such kind of Scripture expressions are to be understood only in relation to out­ward appearances, and vulgar opinion.

PROP. IIII.

IT ha's bin an antient and common opinion a­mongst the Iewes, that the Law of Moses did containe in it, not only those things which concerne our Religion and Obedience, but every secret also that may possibly be known in any Art or Science;Schickard. Bechin. Ha­peru. Disp. 5. num. 8. so that there is not a demonstration in Geome­trie, [Page 77] or rule in Arithmeticke; not a my­sterie in any trade, but it may be found out in the Pentateuch. Hence it was (say they) that Solomon had all his wisedome and policie: Hence it was that hee did fetch his knowledge concerning the na­ture of Vegetables, from the Cedar of Lebanon, to the Hysop that growes upon the wall. Nay from hence, they thought a man might learne the art of Miracles, to remoove a Mountaine, or recover the dead. So strangely have the learneder sort of that Nation been befooled, since their owne curse hath lighted upon them.

Not much unlike this foolish super­stition of theirs, is that custome of ma­ny Artists amongst us; who upon the in­vention of any new secret, will presently find out some obscure text or other to father it upon; as if the Holy Ghost must needs take notice of every parti­cular, which their partiall fancies did over-vallue.

Nor are they altogether guiltlesse of this fault, who looke for any secrets of nature from the words of Scripture; or [Page 78] will examine all it's expressions by the exact rules of Philosophy.

Vnto what strange absurdities this false imagination of the learneder Iewes hath exposed them, may be manifest by a great multitude of Examples. I will mention only some few of them. Hence it is, that they proove the shin-bone of Og the Giant to bee above three leagues long;Schickard. ib. Disp. 6. num. 2. Or (which is a more modest relati­on) that Moses being fourteen cubites in stature, having a Speare tenne Ells in length, and leaping up ten cubits, could touch this Giant but on the Ancle. All which, they can confirme unto you by a Cabalisticall interpretation of this story, as it is set downe in Scripture. Hence it is, that they tell us of all those strange Beasts which shall be seen at the comming of the Messias; as first, the Ox, which Iob calls Behemoth, Buxtor. Sy­nag. Iuda. cap. 36. that every day devoures the grasse on a thousand mountaines, as you may see it in the Psa. 50. 10. Psalme, where David mentions the cat­tell, or [...] upon a thousand hils. If you aske how this Beast do's to finde pasture enough, they answer, that hee remaines [Page 79] constantly in one place, where there is as much grasse grows up in the night, as was eaten in the day.

They tell us also of a Bird, which was of that quantitie, that having upon a time cast an egge out of her neast, there were beaten down by the fall of it, three hundred of the tallest Cedars, and no lesse than threescore villages drowned. As also of a Frog, as big as a Town capa­ble of sixty houses; which Frog, not­withstanding his greatnesse, was devou­red by a Serpent, and that Serpent by a Crow; which Crow as she was flying up to a Tree eclipsed the Sun, and darkned the World; by which you may guesse what a pretty twig that Tree was. If you would know the proper name of this Bird, you may finde it in Psal. 50. 11. where it is called [...],Vide Parap. Chald. or in our Translati­on, the Foule of the mountains. It seems it was somewhat of kinne to that other Bird they tell us of, whose legges were so long, that they reached unto the bot­tome of that Sea where there had bin an axe head falling for 7 yeres together, before it could come to the bottome.

[Page 80] Many other relations there are, which containe such horrible absurdities, that a man cannot well conceive how they should proceed from reasonable crea­tures. And all this arising from that wrong Principle of theirs; That Scripture did exactly containe in it all kind of Truths; and that every meaning was true, which by the Letter of it, or by Cabalisticall interpretations might be found out.

Now as it hath been with them, so likewise hath it happened in proportion unto others: who by a superstitious ad­hering unto the bare words of scripture, have exposed themselves unto many strange errours. ThusEnarrat. in Gen. S. Basil holds, That next to the Sun, the Moon is big­ger than any of the Stars, because Moses do's call them onely two great Lights.

Thus others maintaine, That there are waters properly so called above the starry Firmament, because of those vul­gar expressions in Scripture, which in their literall sence doe mention them. Of this opinion were many of the Anti­ents, Philo, Iosephus; and since them the [Page 81] Fathers,Respons. ad ques. 93. Orthod. Iustin Martyr, Que. 11. sup. Gen. Theodoret, De Civ. Dei, lib. 11. cap. ult. Austin, Hexam. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ambrose, Homil. 3. in Gen. Basil, and almost all the rest. Since them, sundry other lear­ned men, as Beda, Strabus, Damascen, Tho. Aquinas, &c. If you aske for what pur­pose they were placed here, Iustin Martyr tells us, for these two ends: First, to coole the heate that might otherwise arise from the motion of the solid Orbs; and hence it is (say they) that Saturne is col­der than any of the other Planets, be­cause though he moove faster, yet hee is neerer to these waters: secondly, to presse and keep downe the Heavens, lest the frequencie and violence of winds might breake and scatter them asunder; which opinion, together with both it's reasons, are now accounted absurd and redi­culous.

De civit. dei, l. 16. c. 23 S. Austin concludes the visible Stars to be innumerable, because Scripture phrases seeme to imply as much.

That the Heavens are not round, was the opinion ofRespon. ad quest. 93. Iustin Martyr, Hexam. lib. 1. cap. 6. Ambrose, Homil. 14. in epist. ad Hebr. Chrysostome, In ca. 8. Hebr. Theodoret, In idem c. Theophilact, doubted of byIn Gen. ad lit. li. 1. c. 9. Item l. 2. c. 6 S. Austin and divers others. Nay, S. Chrysostome was so confi­dent [Page 82] of it, that he proposes the question in a triumphant manner: [...]. Where are those men that can proove the Hea­vens to have a sphaericall Forme. The reason of which was this, Because 'tis said in one Scripture, that God stretched forth the Heavens as a curtain, Psal. 104. 2. and spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in, Isai. 40. 22. And so in that place of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, 8. 2. they are cal­led a Tent or Tabernacle: which because it is not sphaericall, therefore they con­clude also, that the Heavens are not of that Forme; whereas now, the contrary is as evident as demonstration can make a thing. And therefore,Lib 3. Comment. in Galat. ca. 5. S. Ierome in his time, speaking of the same errour, gives it this plaine censure: Est in Ecclesia stulti loquium, si quis Coelum putet fornicis modo curvatum, Esaiae quem non intelligit sermo­ne deceptus. 'Tis foolish speaking in the Church, if any through misapprehen­sion of those words in Isaiah, shall affirm the Heavens not to be round.

That the Seas not overflowing the land is a miracle, was the opinion of [Page 83] Homil. 4. Hexam. Basil,Commen. in Ioh. Chrisostome,In Psal. 103. Theodoret,Hexam. lib. 3. c. 2, 3. Am­brose, Orat. 34. Nazianzen, and since them, Aquinas part. 1. quest. 69▪ art. 1. A­quinas, Commen. in Psal. 24. Item in Ps. 136. 6. Luther, d Calvin, * Marlorate, with sundry others. Which they proo­ved from these Scripture expressions, that in Iob 38. 8. 11. Who hath shut up the Sea with doores, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb; when I did break up for it my decreed place; and set bars and doores, and said, hitherto shalt thou come, and no further, and here shall the pride of thy waves be staid. So likewise, Prov. 8. 29. God gave to the Sea his decree, that the Wa­ters should not passe his commandement. And Ierem. 5. 22. I have placed the sand for a bound of the Sea by a perpetuall decree that they cannot passe it: and though the waves thereof crosse themselves, yet can they not prevaile; though they roare, yet can they not passe over, that they turne not againe to cover the Earth. In all which places (say they) 'tis implied, that the water of it selfe, were it not withheld from it's own natu­rall inclination by a more speciall po­wer of God, would overflow the Land.

Others inferre the same conclusion with that in Ecclesiastes, where the rivers [Page 84] are said to come from the Sea; which they could not doe, unlesse that were higher. I answer: They should as well consider the later part of that Scripture, which sayes, that the Rivers returne to that place from whence they came, and then the force of this consequence will vanish. To this purpose, some urge that speech of our Saviour, where hee bids Simon to launch forth into the deep;Luke 5. 4. [...]. the Latine word is, in altum; from whence, they gather that the Sea is higher than the Land. But this savours so much of Monkish ignorance, that it deserves ra­ther to be laughed at, than to bee an­swered.

But now if we consider the true pro­perties of this Element, according to the rules of Philosophy: we shall finde, that it's not overflowing the Land is so farre from being a miracle, that it is a necessarie consequence of it's nature; and 'twould rather be a miracle, if it should be otherwise, as it was in the ge­nerall deluge. The reason is, because the water of it self must necessarily descend to the lowest place; which it cannot do, [Page 85] unlesse it be collected in a sphaericall Forme, as you may plainly discerne in this Figure.

Where the Sea at D. may seeme to be higher than a mountaine at B, or C. because the rising of it in the midst do's so intercept our sight from either of those places, that wee cannot looke in a streight line, from the one to the other. So that it may seem to be no lesse than a miracle, by which the sea (being a heavy body) was withheld from flowing down to those lower places of B, or C. But now, if you consider that the ascending of a body is it's motion from the centre, and descent is it's approaching unto it: [Page 86] you shall find▪ that for the Sea to moove from D. to B▪ or C. is a motion of Ascent, which is contrary to it's nature, because the mountaine at B, or C. are farther off from the centre, than the Sea at D. the Lines A, B. and A, C. being longer than the other A, D. So that for the Sun to keep alwaies in it's channell, is but agreeable to it's nature, as being a heavy body. But the meaning of those Scriptures, is, to set forth the power and wisedome of God: who hath appointed these channels for it, and beset it with such strong banks to withstand the fury of it's waves. Or if these men doe so much rely on naturall points, upon the bare words of Scripture, they might ea­sily bee confuted from those other pla­ces, where God is said to have founded the Earth upon the Seas, and establisht it upon the Flouds. From the literall in­terpretation of which, many of the An­tients have fallen into another errour: affirming the Water to be in the lower place; and as a basis, whereon the weight of the Earth was borne up. Of this opi­nion wereRecog. 8. Clemens Alexandrinus, Orat. con [...]. Idolos. Atha­nasius, [Page 87] In Psal. 136. 6. Hillarie, Ia Ps. 24. Eusebius, and others. So that it seemes, if a man should reso­lutely adhere to the bare words of the scripture, he might find contradiction in it: of which, the naturall meaning is alto­gether incapable.Comment. in Isai. l. 13. S. Ierome tells us of some who would proove Starres to have understanding, from that place in Isaiah, 45. 13. My hands have stretched out the Heavens, and all their hoast have I comman­ded. Now (say they) none but intelligent creatures are capable of Precepts; and therefore, the Starres must needs have rationall Soules. Of this opinion was De plant. Noe. Philo the Iew: nay, many of the Rabbies conclude, that they do everie houre sing praises unto God with an audible reall voice.Tostatus in Iosh. cap. 10. quest. 13, 14. Because of that in Iob 38. 7. which speakes of the Morning Starres sin­ging together. And Psal. 19. 3, 4. where 'tis said of the Heavens, that there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard, and their words are gone to the ends of the World. And whereas wee translate that place in the tenth of Iosuah, concerning the standing still of the Heavens: the originall Word, [...] do's properly sig­nifie [Page 88] Silence, and according to their opi­nion, Iosuah did onely bid them hold their peace. From such grounds, 'tis like­ly didTom. 1. in Iohan. Origen fetch his opinion, that the Stars should be saved. I might set downe many other the like instances, were it not for being alreadie weary of raking into the errours of antiquitie, or uncovering the nakednesse of our Fore­fathers. That excuse ofDe nat. novi orbis, lib. 1. cap. 2. Acosta may justly serve to mitigate the mistakes of these antient Divines: Facilè condonan­dum est patribus, si cum cognoscendo colendó­que Creatoritoti vacarent, de creaturâ minus aptè aliqua ex parte opinati sunt. Those good men were so wholly busied about the knowledge and worship of the Cre­ator, that they had not leisure enough for an exact search into the Essence of the Creatures. However, these examples that have been alreadie cited, may suffi­ciently manifest, how frequently others have been deceived, in concluding the points of Philosophy from the expres­sions of Scripture. And therefore, 'tis not certaine, but that in the pre­sent case also, it may bee insuffi­cient [Page 89] for such a manner of argu­ing.

PROP. V.

THe same answer which was in­sisted on before, concerning the conformitie of Scripture expressions to mens capacitie and common opinion, may well enough satisfie all those other Arguments, which seeme thence to affirme the Earth's setlednesse and Immobilitie; since this is as well agreeable to out­ward appearance and vulgar apprehensi­on as the other. But now for more full satisfaction, I shall set downe the parti­cular places that are urged for it; which being throughly examined, wee may plainly discerne, that none of them in [Page 90] their proper meaning, will serve to infer any such conclusion.

One of these sayings is that of the Preacher, Eccles. 1. 4. One generation com­meth, and another passeth, but the Earth en­dureth for ever; where the originall word is, [...] and the vulgar, stat; from whence ourVallesius Sacra Phil. cap. 62. adversaries conclude that it is im­mooveable.

I answer:Fuller, Mis­cell. l. 1. c. 15. Pineda Comment. in locum. the meaning of the word as it is here applyed, is permanet; or as we translate it, endureth. For it is not the purpose of this place to deny all kinde of motion to the whole Earth: but that of generation and corruption, to which other things in it are liable. And though Pineda, and others, keep a great deale of impertinent stirre about this Scripture, yet they grant this to be the naturall meaning of it: which you may more cleerely discerne, if you consider the chiefe scope of this Booke; wherein the Preachers intent is, to shew the extra­ordinarie vanitie of all earthly content­ments, ver. 2. the utter unprofitablenesse of all a mans labours, ver. 3. and this hee illustrates by the shortnesse and uncer­taintie [Page 91] of his life; in which respect, he is below many of his fellow creatures, as may bee manifested from these foure comparisons.

1 From the Earth, which though it seem to be but as the sediment of the World, as the rubbish of the Creation; yet is this better than man in respect of his lastingnesse, for one generation passeth away, and another commeth; but the Earth, that abideth for ever, ver. 4.

2 From the Sunne; who, though he seeme frequently to goe downe, yet hee constantly seemes to rise againe; and shines with the same glory, ver. 5. But man dyeth and wasteth away; Iob, 14. 10. 12. yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? he lyeth down, and riseth not till the Heavens be no more.

3 From the wind, the common em­blem of uncertaintie; yet it is more constant than man, for that knowes it's circuits, and whirleth about continually, v. 6. whereas our life passeth away as doth the wind,Psal. 78. 39. but returneth not againe.

4 From the Sea; though it bee as uncertaine as the Moone, by whom 'tis governed, yet is it more durable than [Page 92] man and his happinesse. For though the Rivers runne into it, and from it, yet is it still of the same quantitie that it was at the beginning, v. 7. But man grows wor­ser as he growes older, and still neerer to a decay. So that in this respect, hee is much inferior to many other of his fel­low creatures.

From whence it is manifest; that this constancie or standing of the Earth, is not opposed to it's locall motion, but to the changing or passing away of divers men in their severall generations. And therefore, thence to conclude the earth's Immobilitie, were as weake and ridicu­lous,M. Carpen­ters Geog. lib. 1. cap. 4. as if one should argue thus: One Miller goes, and another comes, but the Mill remaines still; ergo, the Mill hath no motion.

Or thus; one Pilate goes, and another comes, but the Ship remaines still; ergo, the Ship doth not stirre.

Perplex. li. 2. cap. 29. R. Moses tells us, how that many of the Iewes did from this place conclude, that Solomon thought the Earth to be E­ternall, because he saith it abideth [...] forever; & questionles, if we examine it [Page 93] impartially, we shal find that the phrase seemes more to favour this absurditie, than that which our adversaries would collect from hence; that it is without motion.

But M. Fuller urging this text against Copernicus; tells us, if any should inter­prete these phrases, concerning the Earth's standing still, ve. 4. and the Suns motion, ver. 5. in reference onely to ap­pearance and common opinion; he must necessarily also understand those two other verses, which mention the motion of the wind and rivers in the same sence. As if he should say; because some things appeare otherwise than they are, there­fore every thing is otherwise than it ap­peares; or, because Scripture speakes of some naturall things, as they are estee­med according to mans false conceit; therefore 'tis necessarie, that every natu­rall thing mentioned in Scripture, must be interpreted in the like sence: or, be­cause in one place, wee read of the ends of a Staffe, 1 Kings, 8. 8. and in many other places of the ends of the Earth, and the ends of Heaven: Therefore the [Page 94] earth & heavens have as properly ends as a Staffe. 'Tis the very same consequence of that in the objection. Because in this place of Ecclesiastes, wee read of the rest of the Earth, and the motion of the Sun; therefore, these phrases must needs bee understood in the same proper constru­ction as those afterwards, where motion was attributed to the Wind and Rivers. Which inference you see is so weake, that the Objector need not triumph so much in it's strength as he doth.

Another proofe like unto this, is ta­ken from S. Peter, epist. 2. cap. 3. ver. 5. where hee speakes of the Earth stan­ding out of the water, and in the water, [...]; and therefore, the Earth is immooveable.

I answer: 'tis evident that the word here is equivolent with fuit: and the scope of the Apostle is, to shew that God made all the Earth: both that which was above the water, and that which was under it. So that from this expression, to collect the rest and immo­bilitie of the Earth, would be such an ar­gument as this other. Such a man made [Page 95] that part of a Mill-wheele, or a Ship, which stands below the water, and that part which stands above the water: ther [...] ­fore those things are immoovable.

To such vain and idle consequences do's the heate of opposition drive our adversaries.

A third Argument stronger than ei­ther of the former, they conceive may may be collected from those1. Chron. 16. 30. scriptures: where 'tis said,Psal. 93. 1. Item 96. 10. The World is established, that it cannot be mooved.

To which, I answer: These places speake of the World in generall, and not particularly of our Earth; and there­fore may as well proove the immobility of the Heavens, they being the greatest pert of the World; in comparison to which, our Earth is but as an insensible point.

If you reply, that the word in these places is to be understood by a Synechdo­che, as being meant only of this habita­ble World, the Earth.

I answer: First, this is onely said, not prooved: secondly, David but a little be­fore seems to make a difference between [Page 96] the World and the Earth, Psal. 90. 2. where he sayes, Before thou hadst formed the Earth and the World. But thir [...], in another place, there is the same original word applyed expresly to the Heavens; and which is yet more, the same place do's likewise mention this supposed set­lednesse of the Earth, Prov. 3. 19. The Lord by wisdome hath founded the Earth: and by understanding hath he established the Heavens. So that these places can no more proove an immobilitie in the Earth than in the Heavens.

If you yet reply, That by the Heavens there is meant the seat of the Blessed, which do's not moove with the rest.

I answer: though by such an evasion a man might possibly avoid the force of this place: yet, first, 'tis but a groundlesse shift, because then, that verse will not containe a full enumeration of the parts in the World, as may seeme more agree­able to the intention of it: but onely shew, that God created this Earth where we live, and the Heaven of Heavens. So that the Heaven of the Starres and Pla­nets, shall be shifted out from the num­ber [Page 97] of the other creature: secondly, there is another place which cannot bee so avoided,LIB. 2. Cap. 5. Psal. 89. 37. where the Psalmist uses this expression, [...] It shall bee establi­shed as the Moone. So Psal. 8. 3. The Moone and the Starres, [...] which thou hast established. Thus likewise, Prov. 8. 27. when he established the Heavens: and in the next verse, our English translation reads it, when he established the clouds. And yet our adversaries will affirme the Moone, and Starres, and Clouds, to bee subject unto naturall motions: why then should the very same expressions be counted as sufficient Arguments to take it away from the Earth.

If it be replyed, That by establishing the Heavens, is meant only the holding of them up, that they doe not fall downe to us (as Lorinus explaines that in the eighth Psalme: Lorinus Comment. in Psal. 8. and quotes Euthymius for the same interpretation,) fundandi ver­bum significat decidere non posse, aut dimo­teri a loco vbi collecti sunt: I answer, why may not we as well interpret the words thus of the Earth: so that by establi­shing of it, is meant only the keeping of [Page 98] it up in the vast places of the open aire, without falling to any other place.

From hence it is plaine, That these Scriptures are to be understood of such an immobilitie in the Earth, as may likewise agree with the Heavens: the same originall word being so promis­cuously applyed to both.

I but (you wil say) there are some other places which do more peculiarly apply this setlednesse and establishment to the Earth. So Psal. 119. 9. Thy faithfulnes is unto all generations: thou hast established the Earth, and it abideth. Thus likewise, Psal. 104. 5. Who laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not bee removed for ever. The later of which, being well weighed in it's original (saith M. Fuller) do's in three emphaticall words strong­ly conclude the Earth's immobility.Miscel. lib. 1. cap. 15.

As first, when he sayes, [...] fundavit, he hath founded it: wherein it is implyed, that it do's not change his place. To which may bee added all those Texts, which so frequently speake of the foun­dations of the Earth; as also that ex­pression of the Psalmist, where hee [Page 99] mentions the Pillars of the Earth, Psal. 75. 3.

The second word is [...] translated Basis; and by the Septuagint, [...]; that is, he hath founded it upon it's owne firmenesse: and therefore it is al­together without motion.

The third expression is [...] from the root, [...] which signifies, declinare; im­plying, that it could not wagge with the least kind of declination.

To these I answer severally:

First, for the word, [...] fundavit, It can­not be understood properly, as if the na­turall Frame of the Earth, like other ar­tificiall buildings, did need any bottome to uphold it; for he hangeth the Earth up­on nothing, Iob. 26. 7. But it is a Metaphor, and signifies Gods placing or scitua­ting this Globe of Land and Water. As David tells us of the Pillars of the Earth: so Iob mentions Pillars of the Hea­vens, Iob, 26. 11. And yet that will not proove them to be immoveable.

True indeed, wee reade often concer­ning the foundations of the Earth: but so we do likewise of the ends, sides, and [Page 100] corners of the Earth; and yet these Scriptures will not proove it to bee of a long or square forme. Besides, we reade also of the Foundations of Heaven, [...] 2. Sam. 22. 8. And yet wee must not hence inferre, that they are without all motion; As also of the plan­ting of the Heavens, Isai. 51. 6. which may as well proove them to be immoovable, as that which followes in the same verse concerning the foundations of the Earth.

Which phrase (as I have observed right) in severall places of Scripture, is to be understood according to these three interpretations.

1 It is taken somtimes for the low­er parts of the Earth, as appeares by that place,So Ps. 18. 15. 2. Sam. 22. 16. The channels of the Sea appeared, the foundations of the World were discovered.

2 Somtimes for the beginning and first creation of it, Isa. 40. 2. Hath it not been told you from the beginning, have ye not understood from the foundations of the Earth. And in many other places, Iohn 17. 24. Ephes. 1. 4. Before the Foundations of the World [Page 101] was laid; that is, before the first cre­ation.

Sometimes it signifies the Magi­strates and chiefe Governours of the Earth. So many interpret that place in Micah, 6. 2. where 'tis said, Heare O yee mountaines the Lords controversie, and yee strong foundations of the Earth. So Psal. 82. 5. The foundations of the Earth are out of course; and in Sam. 2. 8. they are called pil­lars. For the Pillars of the Earth are the Lords, and he hath set the World upon them. Hence it is, that the Hebrewes derive their word for Master, or Lord: from a root which signifies a Basis or bottome, [...].Etimol. mag And the Greeke word for King, do's in it's Primitives import as much as the Foundation of the people, [...]. But now, none of all the severall interpretati­on of this phrase, will in the least man­ner conduce to the confirmation of the present Argument.

As for the second word, [...] Basis ejus: I answer, the proper signification of it, is locus dispositus, sedes, or statio, an appointed seat or station; and accor­ding [Page 102] to this sence, is it most frequently used in Scripture. And therefore, the Heavens are sometimes called, [...] the seat of Gods habitation. And for this reason likewise, doe Aquila and Symma­chus translate it by the word [...], a seat or appointed scituation, which may as well be attributed to the Heavens.

The third expression is [...] that it should not be moved from the Primi­tive [...] which do's not signifie barely to move; but declinare, or vacillare, to de­cline or slip aside from it's usual course. Thus is it used by David, Ps. 17. 5. where he prayes, Hold up my goings in thy paths, [...] That my footsteps slide not▪ He do's not meane that his feet should not move. So Psal. 121. 3. He will not suffer thy foot to bee mooved. Thus likewise, Psal. 16. 8. Because the Lord is at my right hand, I shall not be moved: which last place is translated in the new Testament by the Greeke word [...],Acts 2. 25. which signi­fies fluctuare, or vacillare, to be shaken by such an uncertaine motion as the waves of the Sea. Now as Davids feet may have their usuall motion, and yet in this [Page 103] sence be said not to move, that is, not to decline or slip aside: so neither can the same phrase applyed to the Earth, prove it to be immovable.

Nor doe I see any reason, why that of Didacus Astunica may not be truly affir­med,Comment. in Iob. That wee may prove the naturall motion of the Earth, from that place in Iob, 9. 6. Qui commovet terram è loco suo, as well as it's rest and immobilitie from these.

From all which, it is very evident, that each of these expressions, concerning the founding or establishing both of Heaven or Earth, were not intended to shew the unmovablenesse of either, but rather, to manifest the power and wisedome of Providence, who had so setled these parts of the World in their proper scituations, that no naturall cause could displace them, or make them decline from their appointed course. As for such who doe utterly dislike all new interpretation of Scrip­ture, even in such matters as do meerely concern opinion, and are not fundamen­tall: I would only propose unto them a [Page 104] speech of S. Hierome, concerning some that were of the same mind in his time. Cur novas semper expetant voluptates, & vulgae eorum vicina Maria non sufficiant, cur in solo studio Scripturarum, veteri sapore contenti sunt.

Thus have I in some measure cleered the chiefe Arguments from Scripture, against this opinion. For which not­withstanding, I have not thence cited any: because I conceive the Holy Writ, being chiefly intended to in­forme us of such things as concerne our faith and obedience: wee cannot thence take any proper proofe for the confirmation of Naturall Se­crets.

PROP. VI.

OVr adversaries doe much in­sult in the strength of those Arguments which they conceive; do unanswerably conclude, the Earth to bee in the centre of the World. Whereas, if they were but impartially considered, they would be found altogether insuf­ficient for any such conclusion, as shall be cleerly manifested in this following Chapter.

The Arguments which they urge in the proofe of this, are of three sorts; Ei­ther such as are taken,

1 From expressions of Scripture.

[Page 106] 2 From principles of naturall Phi­losophy.LIB. 2. Cap. 6.

3 From common appearances in Astronomy.

Those of the first kinde are chiefly two: The first is grounded on that com­mon Scripture phrase, which speakes of the Sunne, as being above us. So Solomon often mentioning humane affaires, calls them,Eccles. 1. 14, &c. the works which are done under the Sunne. From whence it appeares that the Earth is below it; and therefore, neerer to the centre of the Vniverse, than the Sunne.

I answer: Though the Sun in compa­rison to the absolute frame of the World, be in the midst; yet this do's not hinder, but that in respect to our Earth, he may be truly said to bee above it, be­cause wee usually measure the height or lownesse of every thing, by it's being further off, or neerer unto this centre of our Earth. From which, since the Sunne is so remote, it may properly bee affir­med, that wee are under it; though not­withstanding that bee in the centre of the World.

[Page 107] A second Argument of the same kinde, is urged by Fromundus.

'Tis requisite,Antar. c. 12. item Vesta. tract 5. c. 2. that Hell (which is in the centre of the Earth) should be most remotely scituated from the seat of the Blessed. But now this Heaven, which is the seat of the Blessed, is concentricall to the starry Sphaere. And therefore it will follow, that our Earth must bee in the midst of this Sphaere; and so conse­quently, in the centre of the World.

I answer: This Argument is groun­ded upon these uncertainties;

1 That Hell must needs bee scitua­ted in the centre of our Earth.

2 That the heaven of the Blessed, must needs bee concentricall to that of the Starres.

3 That places must bee as farre di­stant in scituation as in use:

Which because they are taken for granted, without any proofe, and are in themselves but weake and doubtfull: therefore the conclusion (which alwaies followes the worser part) cannot bee strong, and so will not need any other answer.

[Page 108] The second sort of Arguments taken from naturall Philosophy, are princi­pally these three:

1 First,Arg. 1. from the vilenesse of our Earth, because it consists of a more for did and base matter than any other part of the World; and therefore, must bee scituated in the centre, which is the worst place, and at the greatest distance from those purer incortuptible bodies, the Heavens.

I answer: This Argument do's sup­pose such propositions for grounds, which are not yet prooved; and therfore not to be granted. As,

1 That bodies must bee as farre di­stant in place, as in Nobilitie.

2 That the Earth is a more ignoble substance than any of the other Pla­nets, consisting of a more base and vile matter.

3 That the centre is the worst place.

All which, are (if not evidently false) yet very uncettaine.

2 From the nature of the centre;Arg. 2. which is the place of rest, and such as in all circular motions, is it's selfe immoo­veable. [Page 109] And theresore will be the fittest scituation for rhe Earth; which by rea­son of it's heavinesse, is naturally unfit for motion.

I answer: This Argument likewise is grounded upon these two foolish foun­dations; As,

1 That the whole Frame of Nature do's moove round, excepting onely the Earth.

2 That the whole Earth, conside­red in it's whole, and in it's proper place, is heavy; or more unfit for a naturall motion, than any of the other Planets.

Which are so farre from being such generall grounds, from which contro. versies should be discussed, That they are the very thing in question betwixt us and our adversaries.

3 From the nature of all heavy bo­dies,Arg. 3. which is to fall towards the lowest place. From whence they conclude, that our Earth must be in the centre.

I answer: This may proove it to be a centre of gravitie, but not of distance; or that it is in the midst of the World. Yea (but say our adversaries) Aristotle [Page 110] for this urges a demonstration, which must needs be infallible. Thus, the mo­tion of light bodies, do's apparantly tend upward towards the circumfe­rence of the World: but now the mo­tion of heavy bodies, is directly contra­ry to the ascent of the other; wherefore it will necessarily follow, that these doe all of them tend unto the centre of the World.

I answer: Though Aristotle were a Ma­ster in the art of Syllogismes, and he from whom we received the rules of disputa­tion; yet in this particular, 'tis very plain that hee was deceived with a fallacie, whilst his Argument do's suppose that which it do's pretend to proove.

That light bodies doe ascend unto some circumference which is higher and above the Earth, is plaine and un­deniable. But that this circumference is the same with that of the World, or concentricall unto it, cannot be reasona­bly affirmed, unlesse he suppose the earth to bee in the centre of the Vniverse, which is the thing to be prooved.

I would fain know from what grounds [Page 111] our adversaries can proove, that the des­cent of heavy bodies is to the centre; or the ascent of light bodies, to the cir­cumference of the World. The utmost experience we can have in this kinde, do's but extend to those things that are upon our Earth, or in the aire above it. And alas, what is this unto the vaste frame of the whole Vniverse? but pun­ctulum, such an insensible point, which do's not beare so great a proportion to the whole, as a small sand do's unto the Earth. Wherefore it were a sencelesse thing, from our experience of so little a part, to pronounce any thing infallibly concerning the scituation of the whole. The Arguments from Astronomy, are chiefly these foure; each of which, are boasted of to be unanswerable.

1 The Horizon do's everie where divide all the great circles of a Sphaere into two equall parts:Arg. 1. So there is always halfe the Equinoctiall above it, and half below. Thus likewise, there will con­stantly be six signs of the Zodiacke above the Horizon, and other six below it. And besides, the circles of the Heaven and [Page 96] Earth, are each way proportionable to one another: as fifteen Germane miles on the Earth, are every where agreeable to one degree in the Heavens; and one houre in the Earth, is correspondent to fifteen degrees in the Equator. From whence it may bee inferred, that the Earth must necessarily bee scituated in the midst of these circles; and so conse­quently, in the centre of the World.

I answer: This Argument do's right­ly proove the Earth to be in the midst of these circles: but we cannot hence con­clude, that it is in the centre of the World: from which, though it were ne­ver so much distant, yet would it still re­maine in the midst of those circles, be­cause it is the eye that imagines them to be described about it. Wherefore it were a weake and preposterous collecti­on, to argue thus, That the Earth is in the centre of the World; because in the midst of those circles; or because the parts and degrees of the Earth, are an­swerable in proportion, to the parts and degrees in Heaven. Whereas, it follows rather on the contrary, That these circles [Page 113] are equally distant and proportionall in their parts; in respect of the Earth, be­cause it is our eye that describes them about the centre of it.

So that though a farre greater part of the world did appeare at one time than at another; yet in respect of those cir­cles which our eye describes about the Earth, all that wee could see at once, would seem to be but a perfect Haemis­phere: As may bee manifested by this following Figure.

[Page 114] Where if wee suppose A. to bee our Earth, B. C. D. E. one of the great cir­cles which we fancy about it, F. G. H. I. the orbe of fixed Starres, R. the centre of them. Now though the Arke, G. F. I. bee bigger than the other, G. H. I. yet yet notwithstanding, to the eye on the Earth, A. one will appeare a semicircle, as well as the other; because the imagi­nation do's transferre all those Starres into the lesser circle, B. C. D. E. which it do's fancy to be described above that centre. Nay, though there were a habita­ble Earth, at a far greater distance from the centre of the world, even in the place of Iupiter, as suppose at Q. yet then also would there bee the same appearance. For though the Arke, K. F. L. in the star­ry heaven, were twice as big as the other, K. H. L. yet notwithstanding at the Earth, Q. they would both appeare but as equall Hemispheres, being transfer­red into that other circle, M. N. O. P. which is part of the Sphaere that the eye describes to it selfe above the Earth.

From whence wee may plainely discern, That though the Earth be never [Page 115] so farre distant from the centre of the World; yet the parts and degrees of that imaginarie Sphaere about it, will always be proportionall to the parts and de­grees of the Earth.

2 Another demonstration like un­to this former,Arg. 2. frequently urged to the same purpose, is this: If the Earth be out of the centre of the World, then must it be scituated in these three positions: either in the Equator, Vid. Carp. Geog. l. 1. c. 5. but out of the Axis; or secondly, in the Axis, but out of the Equator; or thirdly, besides both of them. But it is not placed according to any of these scituations; therefore must it needs be in the centre.

1 'Tis not in the Equator, and beside the Axis. For then, first, there will bee no Equinox at all in some places, when the days and nights shall be of an equall length: secondly, the afternoones and forenoones will not bee of the same length; because, then our Meridian Line must divide the Hemisphaere into unequall parts.

2 'Tis not in the Axis, but out of the Equator; for then, first, the Equinox [Page 116] would not happen when the Sunne was in the middle line betwixt the two Sol­stices, but in some other paralell, which might bee neerer to one of them, accor­ding as the earth did approach to one Tropicke more than another. Secondly, there would not bee such a proportion between the increase & decrease of days and nights, as now there is.

3 'Tis not besides both of them: For then, all these inconveniences, and sundry others must with the same neces­sity of consequence be inferred. From whence it will follow, That the Earth must be scituated there, where the Axis and Equator meet, which is in the centre of the World.

To this we grant, that the Earth must needs be placed both in the Axis and Equator; and so consequently, in the centre of that sphaere which we imagine about it: But yet this will not prove, that it is in the midst of the Vniverse. For let our adversaries suppose it to bee as far distant from that, as they conceive the Sun to be; yet may it still be scitua­ted in the very concourse of these two [Page 117] Lines: because the Axis of the World is nothing else but that imaginary Line which passes through the Poles of our Earth, to the Poles of the World. And so likewise the Equator, is nothing else but a great circle in the midst of the Earth, betwixt both the Poles, which by imagination is continued even to the fixed Starres. Thus also, we may affirme the Earth to be in the plane of the Zodi­acke, if by it's annuall motion it did de­scribe that imaginarie circle: and in the plane of the Equator, if by it's diurnall motion about it's own Axis, it did make severall paralels, the midst of which should be the Equator. From whence it appeares, that these two former Argu­ments proceed from one and the same mistake, whilest our adversaries suppose the circumference and centre of the Sphaere, to be the same with that of the World.

Another demonstration of the same kinde,Arg. 3. is taken from the Eclipses of the Sunne and Moone; which would not al­waies happen when these two Lumina­ries are diametrically opposed, but som­times [Page 118] times when they are lesse distant than a semicircle, if it were so, that the Earth were not in the centre.

I answer: This Argument, if well con­sidered, will be found most directly to inferre this conclusion, That in all Eclipses, the Earth is in such a strait Line (betwixt the two Luminaries,) whose extremities doe point unto op­posite parts of the Zodiacke. Now though our adversaries should suppose (as Copernicus do's) the Earth to be sci­tuated in that which they would have to bee the Sunnes Orbe; yet would there not bee any Eclipse, but when the Sunne and Moone were diametrically opposite, and our Earth betwixt them: As may cleerely bee manifested by this Figure, where you see the two Luminaries in opposite Signes: and according as any part of our Earth is scituated by it's diurnall revolution, so will every Eclipse be either visible, or not visible unto it.

[Page 119]

The last and chiefe Argument, is ta­ken from the appearance af the Starres; which in every Horizon,Arg. 4. at each houre of the night,Arist. de coe. lo. li. 2. c. 14. and at all times of the yere, seeme of an equall bignesse. Now this could not bee, if our Earth were some­times neerer unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, which is granted to bee the diameter of that Orbe, wherein the Earth is supposed to move.

[Page 120] I answer: this consequence will not hold, if we affirme the Earth's Orbe not to be big enough for the making of any sensible difference in the appearance of the fixed Stars.Copern. li. 1. cap. 5, 6.

Yea, but (you wil say) tis beyond con­ceit, and without all reason, to think the fixed Starres of so vast a distance from us, that our approaching neerer unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, can­not make any difference in the seeming quantitie of their bodies.

I reply: There is no certaine way to find out the exact distance of the starry Firmament: but we are fain to conclude of it by conjectures, according as seve­rall reasons and observations seem most likely unto the fancies of divers men. Now that this opinion of Copernicus do's not make it too big, may be discerned from these following considerations.

The Worlds great & little, are relative tearmes, and do import a comparison to somthing else: So that where the Firma­ment (as it is according to Copernicus) is said to be too big; 'tis likely, that this word is to be understood in reference to [Page 121] some other thing of the same kinde, the least of which, is the Moones Orbe: but now if it's being so much bigger than this may bee a sufficient reason, why it should be thought too great, then it seemes that every thing which exceeds another of the same kind, in such a pro­portion, may be concluded to be of too big a quantitie: and so consequently, we may affirme, that there is no such thing in the World. And hence it will follow, that Whales and Elephants are meere Chimaera's, and poeticall fictions, because they doe so much exceed many other li­ving creatures. If all this eighth sphaere (saith Gallilaeus) as great as it is, were a light body, and placed so farre from us that it appeared but as one of the lesser Starres, wee should then esteeme it but little; and therefore, we have no reason now to thrust it out from being amongst the works of nature, by reason of it's too great immensitie. 'Tis a fre­quent speech of our adversaries, Tycho, Fromundus, and others, in excuse of that incredible swiftnesse which they ima­gine in their primum mobile, That 'twas [Page 122] requisite the motion of the Heavens should have a kind of infinitie in it, the better to manifest the infinitenesse of the Creator. And why may not wee as well affirme this concerning the bignes of the Heavens? Difficilius est accidens praeter modulum subjecti intendere, quàm subjectum sine accidente augere (saith Kep­lar.) His meaning is, that 'tis lesse absurd to imagine the eighth Sphaere of so vast a bignesse, as long as it is without moti­on, or at least, ha's but a very slow one: than to attribute unto it such an incre­dible celeritie, as is altogether dispro­portionable to it's bignesse.

2 'Tis the acknowledgement of Clavius, Comment. in Sphaer. cap. 1. and might easily be demonstra­ted, That if the centre were fastened up­on the Pole of the World, the Orbe wherein he supposes the Sunne to move, would not be able to reach so farre in the eighth Sphaere (being considered ac­cording to Ptolomies Hypothesis) as to touch the Pole-starre: which notwith­standing (saith he) is so neere the Pole it selfe, that wee can scarse discerne it to move: Nay, that circle which the Pole­starre [Page 123] makes about the Pole, is aboue foure times bigger than the Orbe of the Sunne. So that according to the opini­on of our adversaries, though our Earth were at that distance from the centre, as they suppose the Sunne to be, yet would not this eccentricitie make it neerer to any one part of the Firmament, than the Pole-starre is to the Pole, which ac­cording to his confession, is scarse sensi­ble. And therefore according to their opinion, it would cause very little diffe­rence in the appearance of those Stars, the biggest of which do's not seeme to bee of above five cubites in it's di­ameter.

3 'Tis considerable, That the sphaeres of Saturne, Iupiter, Mars, are according to the generall opinion, of very great ex­tension; and yet each of them is appoin­ted onely to carry about it's particular Planet, which are but very little in com­parison of the fixed Starres. Now if for the scituation of these fixed Starres, there should be allotted a proportiona­ble part of the World, 'tis certaine, that their Orbe must be farre bigger than it [Page 124] is commonly supposed, and very neer to this opinion of Copernicus.

4 Wee usually judge the bignesse of the higher Orbs, by their different motions. As because Saturne finishes his course in thirty yeares, and Iupiter in twelve, therfore we attribute unto those Orbes such a different proportion in their bignesse. Now if by this rule wee would finde out the quantitie of the eighth Sphaere, wee shall discerne it to be farre neerer unto that bignesse, which Copernicus supposeth it to have, than that which Ptolomy, Tycho, and others, ordina­rily ascribe unto it. For the starry Hea­ven (say they) do's not finish his course under 26000 yeares; whereas Saturne, which is next unto it, do's compasse his Orbe in thirty yeares. From whence it will probably follow, that there is a very great distance betwixt these in place, be­cause they have such different termes of their revolutions.

But against this answer: unto the last Argument, our adversaries thus reply:

1 If the fixed Starres be so far di­stant from us,Fromond. Vesta. tract. 5. cap. 1. that our approaching nee­rer [Page 125] unto them by 2000000 Germane miles, doe not make any sensible diffe­rence in their appearance, then Gallilaeus his perspective could not make them seeme of a bigger Forme, than they doe to the bare eye, which yet is contrary to common experience.

2 From hence it may bee inferred,Ibid. That the least fixed Star is bigger than all this Orbe wherein wee suppose the Earth to move; because there is none of them but are of a sensible bignesse in re­spect of the Firmament, whereas, this it seemes is not.

3 Since God did at first create the Starres for the use of all nations that are un­der the wholeheavens, Deut. 4. 19.Ibid. it might have argued some improvidence in him, if he had made them of such vast magni­tudes: whereas they might as well be­stow their light and influences, and so consequently be as serviceable to that end for which they were appointed, if they had been made with lesse bodies, and placed neerer unto us. And 'tis a common maxime, that nature in all her operations, do's avoid superflui­ties, [Page 126] and use the most compendious way.

I answer:

1 To the first, whether the perspe­ctive do make the fixed Starres appeare bigger than they do to the bare eye, can­not certainly be concluded, unlesse wee had such an exact glasse, by which wee might trie the experiment. But if in this kinde we will trust the authoritie of others,Astron. Copern. lib. 4. par. 1. Keplar tells us from the expe­rience of skilfull men, that the better the perspective is, by so much the lesse will the fixed Starres appeare through it, being but as meer points from which the beames of light doe disperse them­selves like haires. And 'tis commonly affirmed by others, that the Dog-starre; which seemes to bee the biggest Starre amongst those of the first magnitude, do's yet appeare through this glasse but as a little point no bigger than the fif­tieth part of Iupiter. Hence it is, that though the common opinion hold the Starres of the first magnitude to be two minutes in their diameter, and Tycho three, yetSystem. mundi, C [...]ll. 3. Gallilaeus, who hath bin most [Page 127] versed in the experiments of his owne perspective, concludes them to bee but five seconds.

2 To the second: First wee affirme, the fixed Starres to be of a vaste magni­tude. But however, this Argument do's not induce any necessitie that we should conceive them so big as the earth's Orb. For it might easily bee prooved, that though a Starre of the sixth magnitude were but equall in diameter unto the Sunne (which is farre enough from the greatnesse of the Earth's Orbe) yet the starry heav'n would be at such a distance from us, that the Earth's annuall moti­on could not cause any difference in it's appearance.

Suppose the diameter of the Sunne to be about half a degree,Vide Galil. ibid. as our adversaries grant; whereas a Starre of the sixth mag­nitude is fifty thirds, which is compre­hended in that of the Sun 2160 times. Now if the Sunne were removed so far from us, that it's diameter would seeme but as one of that number whereof it now containes 2160, then must his di­stance from us, bee 2160 times greater [Page 128] than now it is: which is all one, as if wee should say, that a Starre of the sixth magnitude is severed from us by so ma­ny semidiameters of the Earth's Orb. But now according to common consent, the distance of the Earth from the Sun, do's containe 128 semidiameters of the Earth, and (as was said before) this sup­posed distance of the fixed Starres, do's comprehend 2160 semidiameters of the Earth's Orbe. From whence it is mani­fest, that the semidiameter of the Earth, in comparison to it's distance from the Sunne, will bee almost doubly bigger than the semidiameter of the Earth's Orbe, in comparison to this distance of the Starres. But now the semidiameter of the Earth, do's make very little diffe­rence in the appearance of the Sunne, be­cause we see common observations up­on the surface of it, are as exactly true to the sence, as if they were made from the centre of it. Wherefore, that difference which would bee made in these fixed Stars, by the annuall course of the earth, must needs be much more unobservable, or rather altogether insensible.

[Page 129] 2 The consequence of this Argu­ment is grounded upon this false suppo­sition, That every body must necessarily be of an equall extension, to that di­stance from whence there do's not ap­peare any sensible difference in it's quantitie. So that when I see a Bird flying such a height in the aire, that my being neerer unto it, or farther from it, by tenne or twenty foot, do's not make it seem unto my eyes either bigger or lesse; then I may conclude that the bird must needs be either ten or twenty foot thicke: or when I see the body of a Tree that may be halfe a mile from me, and perceive that my approaching neerer to it by thirty or forty paces, do's not sensi­bly make any different appearance, I may then inferre, that the Tree is forty paces thicke; with many the like absurd consequences, that would follow from that foundation upon which this Argu­ment is bottomed.

To the third I answer: 'Tis too much presumption, to conclude that to bee superfluous, the usefulnesse of which we doe not understand. There be many se­cret [Page 130] ends in these great works of Provi­dence, which humane wisedome cannot reach unto, and as Solomon speakes of those things that are under the Sunne, so may we also of those things that are above it, That no man can find out the works of God, Eccles. 8. 17. for though a man labour to seek it out. Yea further: Though a wise man thinke to know it, yet shall he not be able to finde it. He that hath most insight into the works of nature, is not able to give a satisfying reason, why the Planets or Stars should be placed just at this particular distance from the Earth, and no neerer or farther. And besides, this Argument might as well be urged against the Hypothesis of Ptolomy or Tycho, since the Starres, for ought we know, might have been as ser­viceable to us, if they had been placed farre neerer, than either of those Au­thors suppose them. Againe, were there any force in such a consequence, it would as well conclude a great impro­vidence of nature, in making such a mul­titude of those lesser Stars, which have lately discovered by the perspective. For to what purpose should so many [Page 131] Lights be created for the use of man, since his eyes were not able to discerne them? So that our disabilitie to com­prehend all those ends which might be aimed at in the works of nature, can bee no sufficient Argument to proove their superfluitie. Though Scripture doe tell us that these things were made for our use, yet it do's not tell us, that this is their only end. 'Tis not impossible, but that there may be elsewhere some other inhabitants, by whom these lesser Stars may be more plainly discerned. And (as was said before) why may not we affirm that of the bignesse, which our adversa­ries doe concerning the motion of the Heavens? That God, to shew his owne immensitie, did put a kinde of infinitie in the creature.

There is yet another Argument to this purpose, urged byLib. 1. sect. 2. cap. 1. Al. Ross. which was not referred to any of the former kinde, because I could scarsely beleeve I did rightly understand it: since he puts it in the front of his other Arguments, as being of strength and subtilty enough to be a leader unto all the rest; and yet [Page 132] in the most likely sence of it, 'tis so ex­tremely simple to be pressed in a con­troversie that every fresh man would laugh at it. The words of it are these: Quod minimum est in circulo debet esse cen­trum illius, at terra longè minor est Sole, & Aequinoctialis terrestris est omnium in Coe­lo circulus minimus, ergo, &c.

By the same reason, it would rather fol­low, that the Moon or Mercury were in the centre, since both these are lesse than the Earth. And then, whereas he sayes that the Aequinoctiall of the Earth is the least circle in the Heavens, 'tis neither true nor pertinent, and would make one suspect, that hee who should urge such an Argument, did searse understand any thing in Astronomy.

There are many other objections like unto this, not worth the citing: The chiefe of all have bin already answered; by which you may discerne, that there is not any such great necessitie, as our ad­versaries pretend, why the Earth should bee scituated in the midst of the Vni­verse.

PROP. VII.

THe chiefe reasons for the confirmation of this truth, are implyed in the inconveniences of this Hypothesis above any o­ther; whereby wee may resolve the motions and appearances of the Heavens into more easie and natu­rall causes.

Hence will the frame of nature bee freed from that deformitie, which it ha's according to the Systeme of Tycho: who though he make the Sunne to be in the midst of the Planets, yet without any good reason, denies it to be in the midst of the fixed Starres; as if the Planets, which are such eminent parts of the World, should bee appointed to move about a distinct centre of their owne, which was beside that of the Vniverse.

[Page 134] Hence likewise are wee freed from many of those inconveniences in the Hypothesis of Ptolomy, who supposed in the Heavens, Eppicides and Eccentrickes, and other Orbes, which he calls the dif­ferents of the Apoge and the Perige. As if nature in framing this great engine of the World, had been put unto such hard shifts, that shee was faine to make use of wheeles and screwes, and other the like artificiall instruments of mo­tion.

There bee sundry other particulars, whereby this opinion concerning the Sunnes being in the centre, may bee strongly evidenced: which because they relate unto severall motions also, cannot therefore properly be insisted on in this place. You may easily enough discerne them, by considering the whole frame of the Heavens, as they are according to the Systeme of Copernicus; wherein, all those probable resolutions that are gi­ven for divers appearances amongst the Planets, doe mainly depend upon this supposition, that the Sunne is in the centre. Which Arguments (were there [Page 135] no other) might be abundantly enough for the confirmation of it. But for the greater plenty, there are likewise these probabilities considerable.

1 It may seem agreeable to reason, that the light which is diffused in seve­rall Starres through the circumference of the World, should be more eminent­ly contained, and (as it were) contracted in the centre of it, which can only be by placing the Sunne there.

2 'Tis an Argument ofIn prim. cap. Sphaer. Clavius, and frequently urged by our adversaries, That the most naturall scituation of the Sunnes body was in the midst, betwixt the other Planets; and that for this rea­son, because from thence he might more conveniently distribute amongst them both his light and heate. The force of which, may more properly bee applyed to proove him in the centre.

3 'Tis probable that the planetarie Orbes (which are speciall parts of the Vniverse) doe moove about the centre of the World, rather than about any other centre which is remote from it. But now 'tis evident, that the Planet Saturne, Iu­piter, [Page 136] Mars, Venus, Mercury, doe by their motion encompasse the body of the Sunne. 'Tis likely therefore, that th [...]s is scituated in the midst of the World.

As for the three upper Planet, 'tis found by observation, that they are al­waies neerest to the Earth, when in op­position to the Sunne, and farthest from us, when in conjunction with it: which difference is so eminent, that Mars in his Perige do's appeare sixty times big­ger than when hee is in the Apoge, and at the greatest distance.

Now, that the revolution of Venus and Mercury also is about the Sun, may from hence be evidenced: first, because they are never at any great distance from him: secondly, because they are seen sometimes above, and sometimes below him: thirdly, because Venus, accor­ding to her different scituations, do's change her appearance, as the Moone.

4 There is yet another Argument, whichDe Coelo. lib. 2. 6 [...]. 13. Aristotle himselfe do's repeat from Pythagoras. The most excellent body should have the best place; but the Sunne is the most excellent body, [Page 137] and the centre is the best place; therfore 'tis likely the Sunne is in the centre. In the frame of nature (which is supposed to be of an orbicular forme) there are but two places of any eminency, the cir­cumference and the centre. The circum­ference being of so wide a capacity, can­not so fitly be the peculiar seat of a bo­dy, that is so little in respect of it: and besides, that which is the most excellent part of the World, should bee equally preserved in it selfe, and shared in it's vertues by all the other parts, which can only be done by it's being placed in the midst of them. This is intimated unto us in that frequent speech of Plato, that the Soule of the World do's reside in the innermost place of it: and that in Saturnal. lib. 1. cap. 17, &c. Macrobius, who often compares the sun in the World, to the Heart in a living creature.

Vnto this Aristotle answers by a di­stinction: There is medium magnitudinis, so the centre is the middle of a Sphaere: and there is medium naturae, or infor­mationis, which is not alwayes the same with the other; for in this [Page 138] sence the Heart is the middle of a man; because from thence (saith hee) as from the centre, the vitall spirits are convei­ed to all the members: and yet we know that it is not the centre of Magnitude, or at an equall distance from all the o­ther parts.

And besides, the middle is the worst place, because most circumscribed, since that is more excellent which do's limit any thing, than that which is bounded by it. For this reason is it, that Matter is amongst those things which are termi­nated, and Forme, that which do's cir­cumscribe.

But against this answer of Aristotle, it is againe replyed:

1 Though it be true,Keplar. Astr. Copern. lib. 4. par. 2. that in living creatures the best and chiefest part is not placed alwaies just in the midst, yet this may be, because they are not of an orbicular forme, as the World is.

2 Though that which bounds ano­ther thing be more excellent than that which is terminated by it, yet this do's not proove the centre to bee the worst place, because that is one of the tearmes [Page 139] or limits of a round body, as well as the circumference.

There are likewise other Arguments to this purpose, much insisted on by eminent Astronomers,Maestin. prae. ad Nar [...]at. Rhetici. Keplar. mysterium Cosmogra­phicum. taken from that harmonicall proportion which there may be betwixt the several distance and bignesse of the Orbs, if we suppose the Sun to be in the centre.

For according to this (say they) wee may conceive an excellent Harmonie both in the number and the distance of the Planets: (and if God made all other things numero & mensurâ, much more then those greater Works, the Heavens) for then the five Mathematicall bodies, so much spoken of byLib. 13. prop. 14, 15, &c. Euclid, wil beare in them a proportion answerable to the severall distances of the Planets from one another.

Thus a Cube will measure the di­stance betwixt Saturne and Iupiter; a Py­ramis or Tetraëdron, the distance betwixt Iupiter and Mars; a Dodecaëdron, the di­stance betwixt Mars and the Earth; an Icosaëdron, the distance betwixt the Earth and Venus; and an Octoëdron, the distance [Page 140] betwixt Venus and Mercury; that is, if we conceive a circumference described immediately without the Cube, and ano­ther within it, the distance betweene these two will shew what proportionall distance there is betwixt the Orbe of Saturne, and that of Iupiter. Thus also, if you conceive a circumference described on the outside of a Pyramis or Tetraëdron, and another within it, this will shew such a proportionall distance, as there is betwixt the Orbe of Mars, from that of Iupiter. And so of the rest.

Now if any aske why there are but six Planetary Orbs? Keplar answers: Quia non oportet plures quàm quinque proporti­ones esse, totidem nempè quot regularia sunt in Mathesi corpora. Sex autèm termini con­summant hunc proportionum numerum: Be­cause there are but five proportions, so many as there are regular bodies in Ma­thematickes, each of whose sides and angles are equall to one another. But now there are six tearmes required to consummate this number of proporti­ons; and so consequently, there can bee but six primary Planets.

[Page 141] Thus likewise by placing the Sunne in the centre,LIB. 2. Cap. 6. wee may conceive such a proportion betwixt the Bodies of the Planets, as will be answerable unto their severall Sphaeres: Then Mercury, which ha's the least Orbe, will have the least Body; Venus bigger than that, but lesse than any of the other; our Earth bigger than Venus, but lesse than the rest; Mars bigger than the Earth, but lesse than Iu­piter; Iupiter bigger than Mars, and lesse than Saturne; Saturne being the highest, should also be the biggest. All which Harmony would bee disturbed by put­ting in the Sunne amongst them; and therfore, it may be more convenient for him to sit still in the centre.

There are sundry other Arguments in this kinde to be found out, by a consi­deration of this whole Hypothesis: Hee that do's rightly understand it, may therein easily discerne many strong pro­babilities, why the Sun should be in the midst of the World, rather than in any other position.

PROP. VIII.

THe two chiefe motions in the World, which are more especially re­markable above the rest, are the Diurnall, and Annuall.

The Diurnall, which makes the diffe­rence betwixt night and day, is caused by the revolution of our Earth vpon it's owne Axis, in the space of foure and twenty houres.

The Annuall, which makes the diffe­rence betwixt Winter and Summer, is likewise caused by the Earth, when be­ing carried through the Eclipticke in it's owne Orbe, it finishes it's course in a yeare.

The first is usually stiled, Motus revo­lutionis: [Page 143] The second Motus circumlationis: There is likewise a third, which Coper­nicus calls Motus inclinationis: but this being throughly considered, cannot properly be stiled a motion, but rather an immutabilitie, it being that whereby the Axis of the Earth do's alwaies keep paralell to it selfe, from which scituati­on, it is not his annuall course that do's make it in the least manner to decline.

As for the difficulties which concern the second of these, they have been al­readie handled in the sixth Proposition, where the Earth's eccentricitie was main­tained.

So that the chiefe businesse of this Chapter, is to defend the Earth's diur­nall motion, against the objections of our adversaries. Sundry of which obje­ctions, to speak (as the truth is) do beare in them a great shew of probabilitie, and such too (as it seemes) was very effi­cacious, since Aristotle and Ptolomy, &c. men of excellent parts and deep judge­ments, did ground upon them, as being of infallible and necessarie conse­quence.

[Page 144] I shall reckon them up severally, and set downe such answers unto each, as may yeeld some satisfaction to every in­different seeker of truth.

1 First then, 'tis objected from our sences; If the Earth did move, we should perceive it. The Westerne mountaines would then appeare to ascend towards the Starres, rather than the Stars to de­scend below them.

I answer: The sight judges of motion according as any thing do's desert the plane whereon it selfe is seated: which plane every where keeping the same sci­tuation and distance, in respect of the eye, do's therefore seem immovable un­to it, and the motion will appeare in those Starres and parts of the Heaven; through which the verticall Line do's passe.

The reason of such deceit may be this: Motion being not a proper object of the sight, nor belonging to any other peculiar sence, must therefore be judged of by the sensus communis, which is lia­ble to mistake in this respect; because it apprehends the eye it self to rest immo­vable, [Page 145] whilest it do's not feel any effects of this motion in the body: As it is when a man is carried in a Ship; so that sence it but an ill judge of naturall secrets. 'Tis a good rule of Plato, [...]: A Philoso­pher must not bee carried away by the bare appearance of things to sight, but must examine them by reason. If this were a good consequence, The Earth do's not move, because it do's not ap­peare so to us, we might then as well ar­gue, that it do's move when we goe upon the water, according to the verse: ‘Provehimur portu, terraeque, verbesque recedunt.’

Or if such Arguments would hold, it were an easie matter to prove the Sunne and Moone not so big as a Hat, or the fixed stars as a Candle.

Yea,Al. [...]oss. l. 1. sect. 1 cap. 1. but if the motions of the Hea­vens bee onely apparant, and not reall, then the motion of the clouds will be so too, since the eye may bee as well decei­ved in the one as the other.

I answer: 'Tis all one, as if he should [Page 146] inferre, that the sence was mistaken in every thing, because it was so in one thing: and this would be an excellent Argument to prove that opinion of Anaxagoras, that the Snow was blacke.

The reason why that motion which is caused by the Earth, do's appeare as if it were in the Heavens, is, because the sen­sus communis in judging of it, do's con­ceive the eye to be it selfe immovable (as was said before) there being no sence that do's discerne the effects of any mo­tion in the body; and therefore, it do's conclude every thing to move, which it do's perceive to change it's distance from it: So that the clouds do not seem to move sometimes, when as notwith­standing they are every where carried about with our Earth, by such a swift re­volution; yet this can be no hinderance at all, why wee may not judge aright of their other particular motions, for which there is not the same reason. Though to a man in a Ship, the Trees and Bankes may seeme to move; yet it would be but a weak Argument, to con­clude from hence, that therefore such a [Page 147] one could not tell whether his friend do's really stirre, whom he sees to walke up and downe in the Ship: or that hee might as well bee deceived in judging the Oares to move, when they doe not.

'Tis againe replyed by the same Ob­jector,Ibid. That it is not credible, the eve should bee mistaken in judging of the Starres and Heavens; because those be­ing light bodies, are the primarie and proper Objects of that sence.

I answer: The deceit here is not con­cerning the light or colour of those bo­dies, but concerning their motion; which is neither the primarie nor pro­per Object of the Eye, but reckoned amongst the Objecta Communia.

2 Another common Argument a­gainst this motion, is taken from the danger that would thence arise, unto all high buildings, which by this would quickely bee ruinated, and scattered abroad.

I answer:Coper. l. 1. [...]8 This motion is supposed to be naturall: and those things which are according to nature, have contrary ef­fects to other matters, which are by [Page 148] force and violence. Now it belongs un­to things of this later kind, to be incon­stant and hurtfull; whereas those of the first kinde must be regular, and tending to conservation. The motion of the Earth is alwaies equall and like it selfe: not by starts and fits. If a glasse of Beere may stand firmely enough in a Shippe, when it moves swiftly upon a smooth streame, much lesse then will the moti­on of the Earth, which is more naturall; and so consequently more equall, cause any danger unto those buildings that are erected upon it. And therefore to suspect any such event, would bee like the feare of Lactantius, who would not acknowledge the being of any Antipo­des, Gibert de Magn. lib. 6. cap. 5. lest then he might bee forced to grant that they should fall downe unto the Heavens. We have equall reason to be afraid of high buildings, if the whole World above us were whirled about with such a mad celeritie as our adver­saries suppose; for then there would be but small hopes, that this little point of Earth should escape from the rest.

But supposing (saithLib. 1. sect. 1. cap. 3. Rosse) that this [Page 149] motion were naturall to the Earth, yet it is not naturall to Townes and Buil­dings, for these are artificiall.

To which I answer: Ha, ha, he.

3 Another Argument to this pur­pose is taken from the rest and quietnes of the aire about us; which could not be, if there were any such swift motion of the Earth. If a man riding upon a fleet horse, doe perceive the aire to beat against his face, as if there were a winde, what a vehement tempest should wee continually feele from the East, if the Earth were turned about with such a swift revolution as is supposed.

Vnto this 'tis usually answered, That the aire also is carried along with the same motion of the Earth: For if the concavitie of the Moones Orbe, which is of so smooth and glabrous a superfi­cies, may (according to our adversaries) drive along with it the greatest part of this Elementarie World, all the regions of Fire, and all the vast upper regions of Aire, and (as some will have it) the two lower Regions, together with the Sea likewise; for from hence (saith Alex. [Page 150] Rosse, lib. 1. sect. 1. cap. 3.) is it, that be­twixt the Tropicks there is a constant Easterne wind, and a continuall flowing of the Sea Westward; I say, if the moti­on of the Heavens which are smooth bodies, may bee able to carry with it so great a part of the elementarie World: or if the rugged parts of the Moons Body be able to carry with it so great a part of the aire, as Fromondus (Ant. c. 16.) affirms: much more then may our earth, which is a rugged mountainous Body, be able to turne about so little a part of the world, as that vaporous aire next unto it.

[Page 151] Suppose the inward circle to repre­sent the Earth; and the outward, the thicker aire which encompasses it. Now it is easily conceivable, that the re­volution of so great a Body as this Globe of Earth, may turne about by it's meere motion (if there were nothing els) so little a part of the adjoyning aire, as is here represented: And yet,

1 The disproportion betwixt the thicknesse of the Earth, and this Orb of Aire, is farre greater than could bee ex­prest in the Figure, being but as twenty miles; which is at most the thicknesse of this Aire, unto 3456 miles, which is the semidiameter of our Earth, and so is but as an insensible number in respect of this other.

2 Besides the meere motion of the Earth, which in probabilities (being such a rugged body) might bee enough to carry so little a part of the aire along with it; there is also (as wee suppose) a magneticall vigor which proceeds from it, whereby 'tis more able to make all things that are neere unto it, to observe the same revolution.

[Page 152] But if it be so (saithLi. 1. sect. 1. cap. 5. Alex. Ross.) that not only the man, but the medium also, and the Object bee moved: this must needs be such a great hinderance to the sight, that the eye cannot judge exactly of any thing. For suppose the man alone to be in a motion, hee could not see so well as when hee is still; but now if not only he, but his spectacles, and booke were all mooved, he would not bee able to discerne any thing distinctly.

I answer: the consequence were perti­nent, if all these were severall motions: but if the Subject, and Medium, and Object were all carried with one and the same equall motion (as it is here suppo­sed) this could be no impediment to the act of seeing, but it would bee all one with the rest; because by this means, they are not severed from one another; and therefore the species are not distur­bed. 'Tis an excellent saying ofSyst. mun­di, Collop. 2. Galli­laeus, and may serve for the resolution of many such doubts as these: Motus eate­nus tanquàm motus operatur, quatenus re­lationem habet ad eas res quae ìpso distituun­tur, in ijs verò-rebus, quae totae aequaliter de [Page 153] eo participant, nihil operatur, & ita se habet ac si nullus esset. If a man be within some roome of a Ship, he may read altogether as easily when the Ship moves, as when it stands still.

4 Another Argument against this circular motion of the earth▪ is grounded upon that common Principle amongst the Aristotelians: Vnius corporis simplicis unum tantum est motus: One kind of body ha's but one kind of motion. But now the Earth and Water ha's a motion of descent: the Aire, a motion of ascent; and therefore none of them can have any circular motion naturall unto them.

I answer: First, these right motions of elementarie bodies belong onely to the parts of them, and that too when they are out of their proper places; so that the whole to which they belong, may not­withstanding this, have another motion of it's owne. But secondly, this saying which Aristotle cals a Principle, will not consist with other evident experiments of nature. Thus, though a Loadstone in respect of it's matter and condensitie, naturally tends downward; yet this do's [Page 154] not hinder, but that in respect of some other qualities, as it's desire of union and coition to another loadstone, it may also naturally move upwards. From whence it will follow, that the same elementarie bodie may have divers natural motions.

5 The gravitie and magnitude of this Earthy Globe, do make it alto­gether unfit for so swift a motion.

I answer: First, Heavinesse can onely be applyed unto those bodies which are out of their proper places, or unto such parts as are severed from the whole to which they belong. And therefore the Globe of Earth, considered as whole, and in it's right place, cannot truly bee called heavy. I deny not, but that there is in it, and so likewise in the other Pla­nets, an ineptitude to motion, by reason of the matter and condensitie of their bodies: And so likewise there is, as truly (though not according to the same de­grees) in the least particle of a materiall condensed substance: so that this cannot reasonably be pretended as a just impe­diment, why the earth should be incapa­ble of such a motion. Secondly, and [Page 155] though this Globe be of so vast a mag­nitude, yet as nature bestowes upon other creatures (for instance an Eagle and a Flye) spirits, and motive powers, proportionable to their severall bodies: so likewise may she indowe the Earth with a motive facultie answerable to it's greatnesse. Or if this may make the Earth incapable of so swift a motion, as is supposed, much more then will the Heavens bee disabled for that greater swiftnesse which is imagined in them. I might adde, the Globe of the Sun and Iupiter are observed to move about their owne centres; and therefore the Earth, which is farre lesse than either of them, is not by reason of it's too great magni­tude made unfit for such a revolution. Thirdly, as for the swiftnesse of the Earth's course, it do's not exceed (all cir­cumstances well considered) the celeri­tie of some other motions, with which we are acquainted; as that of the clouds, when driven by a tempestuous wind;Mae [...]lin prae­fat. ad Nar­rat. Rhet. Fromond. Vesta. tract. 1. cap. 3. that of a Bullet shot from a Cannon, which in the space, a minute do's fly 4 miles. Or as another hath observed in the se­cond [Page 156] scruple of an hour it may passe the fifteenth part of a Germane mile: Than which, there is not any point in the Earth's Equinoctiall that moves faster; and though a Bullet bee much slower in moving a greater distance, yet for so lit­tle a space, while the force of the pouder is most fresh and powerfull, it do's equal the swiftnesse of the Earth. And yet,

1 A bullet or cloud is carried in it's whole body, being fain to break it's way through the aire round about it: but now the earth (in respect of this first motion) do's remaine still in the same scituation, and move onely about it's owne centre.

2 The motion of a Bullet is violent, and against it's nature, which do's strongly incline it to move downwards. Whereas the Earth being considered as whole, and in it's proper place, is not heavy, nor do's it containe any repug­nancie to a circular motion.

6 The chiefe Argument, on which our adversaries do most insist, is this: If there were such a motion of the Earth as is supposed,Aristot. de Coelo, lib. 2. cap. 13. then those bodies which are severed from it in the Aire, would [Page 157] be forsaken by it. The clouds would seeme to rise and set as the Starres. The Birds would be carried away from their nests. No heavy body could fall perpen­dicular. An Arrow or Bullet being shot from East to West by the same vio­lence, will not bee carried an equall di­stance from us, but we should by the re­volution of our Earth, overtake that which was shot to the East, before it could fall. If a man leaping up should abide in the Aire but one second scru­ple of an houre, or the sixtieth part of a minute, the Earth in that space, would withdraw it selfe from him almost a quarter of a mile. All these and many other such strange inferences, which are directly contrary to sence and experi­ence, would follow from this motion of the Earth.

There are three severall wayes most frequently used for the resolving of these kind of doubts.

1 From those magneticall qua­lities, which all elementarie bodies do partake of.

2 From the like motions of other [Page 158] things within the roome of a sailing Ship.

3 From the like participation of motion in the open parts of a Ship.

1 For those magneticall properties, with which all these bodies are endow­ed. For the better understanding of this, you must know, That besides those common elementarie qualities of heat, coldnesse, drinesse, moisture, &c. which arise from the predominancie of seve­rall Elements; there are likewise other qualities (not so well known to the An­tients) which wee call magneticall, of which every Particle in the Terrestriall Globe do's necessarily participate: and whether it be joyned to this Globe by continuitie or contiguitie; or whether it be severed from it, as the Clouds in the second Region, a Bird, or Bullet in the Aire; yet do's it still retaine it's magne­ticall qualities, together with all those operations that proceed from them.

Now from these properties doe wee suppose the circular motion of the Earth to arise.

If you aske, what probabilities there [Page 159] are, to prove that the Earth is indowed with any such affections. I answer: 'Tis likely, that the lower parts of this Globe do not consist of such a soft fru­ctifying Earth, as there is in the surface (because there can be no such use for it, as here, and nature do's nothing in vain;) but rather, of some hard rocky sub­stance, since we may well conceive, that these lower parts are pressed close toge­ther by the weight of all those heavy bo­dies above them. Now 'tis probable, that this rocky substance is a Load-stone, ra­ther than a Iaspis, Adamant, Marble, or any other; because experience teacheth us, that the Earth and Loadstone do agree together in so many properties. Sup­pose a man were to judge the matter of divers bodies; each of which should bee wrapt up in some covering from his eye, so that he might not only examine them by some other outward signes: If in this examination he should find any particu­lar body which had all the properties that are peculiar to a Load-stone, hee would in reason conclude it to be of that nature, rather than any other. Now there [Page 160] is altogether as much reason why wee should inferre, that the inward parts of the Earth doe consist of a magneticall substance. The agreement of these two you may see largely set forth in the treatise of D. Gilbert. I will instance on­ly in one Example; which of it self may sufficiently evidence, that the Globe of Earth do's partake of the like affecti­ons with the load-stone. In the mariners needle you may observe the magneti­call notions of direction, variation, decli­nation; the two last of which are found to be different, according to the varietie of places. Now this difference cannot proceed from the needle it selfe, be­cause that is the same every where. Nor can we well conceive how it should bee caused by the Heavens; for then the vari­ation would not be alwaies alike in the same place, but diverse, according to those severall parts of the heaven, which at severall times should happen to bee over it: And therefore, it must necessari­ly proceed from the Earth, which being it selfe endowed with magneticall affe­ctions, do's diversly dispose the motions [Page 161] of the needle, according to the diffe­rence of that disponent vertue which is in it's severall Ports.

Now to apply this unto the particu­lar instances of the Objection: We say, though some parts of this great Magnet the Earth, may according to their mat­ter be severed from the whole; yet are they alwayes joyned to it by a commu­nion of the same magneticall qualities; and doe no lesse observe these kinde of motions, when they are separated from the whole, than if they were united to it. Nor need this seeme incredible, that a heavy Bullet, in such a swift violent course, should bee able to observe this magneticall revolution of the whole Earth; when as we see that those great bodies of Saturne, Iupiter, &c. hanging in the vaste spaces of the aetheriall Aire, do so constantly and regularly move on, in their appointed courses: Though we could not shew any similitude of this motion in these inferior bodies, with which we are acquainted; yet wee must know, there may be many things which agree to the whole frame, that are not dis­cernable [Page 162] in the divers parts of it. 'Tis naturall unto the Sea to ebbe and flow, but yet there is not this motion in every drop or bucket of Water. So if we con­sider every part of our bodies severally, the humours, bones, flesh, &c. they are all of them apt to tend downewards, as being of a condensed matter; but yet consider them according to the whole Frame, and then the bloud or humours may naturally ascend upwards to the Head, as well as descend to any of the lower parts. Thus the whole Earth may move round, though the severall parts of it have not any such particular revoluti­on of their owne. Thus likewise, though each condensed body being considered by it selfe, may seem to have only a mo­tion of descent; yet in reference to that whole Frame of which it is a part, it may also partake of another motion that may be naturall unto it.

But some may here object: Though the Earth were endowed with such magneticall affections, yet what proba­bilitie is there that it should have such a revolution? I answer: 'Tis observed of [Page 163] those other magneticall bodies of Sa­turne, Iupiter, and the Sun, that they are carried about their owne centers; and therefore 'tis not improbable, but that it may be so with the Earth also; which if any deny, he must shew a reason why in this respect they should be unlike.

Yea, but though the Earth did move round, what ground is there to af­firme that those bodies which are seve­red from it, as a Bullet, or the clouds, should follow it in the same course?

I answer: Those spots which are dis­covered about the Sun, and are thought to bee clouds or evaporations from his body, are observed to bee carried about according to his revolution. Thus the Moone is turned round by our Earth: the foure lesser Planets by the body of Iupiter. Nay, thus all the Planets in their severall Orbes, are moved about by the revolution of the Sunne, upon it's owne Axis (saith Keplar) and therefore much more may an Arrow or Bullet be carri­ed round by the magneticall motion of our Earth.

The second way, whereby some an­swer [Page 164] unto the instances of this Argu­ment, is, by shewing the like motions of other things within some roome of a sailing Ship. Thus experience tea­ches (say they) that a candle, as also the fumes that come from it, will alwayes keep the same scituation in the swiftest motion of a Ship, as if it did rest immo­vably, and the flame will not more espe­cially bend one way, or have any trou­bled fluctuation, but burne as strait and quietly, as if it did stand still. Againe, it ha's been found (say those that have been versed in these kinde of experi­ments) that the same force will cast a body but at an equall distance, whether or no the body do move with, or against the motion of the Ship. As also that any weight being let fall, will descend in as true a perpendicular, as if the Ship did stand still. If a man leaping up, doe tarry in the Aire one second minute of an houre, yet the Ship will not in it's greatest swiftnesse (as it should accor­ding to the calculation of our adversa­ries) be carried from him at least fifteen foot. If wee suppose a man to jumpe in [Page 165] such a Ship, he will not be able to passe farther, when he jumps against the motion of it, than when hee jumps with it. All which particulars may argue, that these things are carried along together, by the common motion of the Ship. Now if bodies may be thus jointly mo­ved by such a praeternaturall motion, much more then will they accompanie the Earth in it's diurnall revolution, which we suppose to bee naturall unto them, and as a Law imposed by God in their first Creation.

If the flame of a candle, or the smoke that comes from it (things that are so easily movable) are notwithstanding carried so equally, and without any di­sturbance, by the motion of a Ship: then also the Cloudes in the Aire, and all other light Bodies, may well enough be turned about by the revolution of our Earth.

If an equall force wil cast an heavy bo­dy but at an equall distance, whether or no it move with, or against the motion of the Ship; then may wee easily conceive, that an Arrow or Bullet being [Page 166] shot with the same violence, will passe but the same space on the Earth, whe­ther or no it be shot towards the East or West.

If a heavy Body, while the Ship do's move, will fall downe in a strait Line, then it is not the revolution of our Earth that can hinder a perpendicular descent.

If a man leaping up in a Ship, may abide in the Aire on the second scruple of an houre, and yet this Ship in it's greatest swiftnesse not withdraw it selfe fifteene foot; then will not the Earth in that space go from him almost a quarter of a mile.

But against this 'tis objected,Fromondus Vesta. tract. 2. cap. 2. That the Earth ha's the similitude of an open Ship, and not of any room that is close. And though it bee true, that when the Roofe and the Walls doe all move to­gether, the Aire which is included be­twixt them, must bee carried along by the same motion; yet it is not so with the Earth, because that hath not any such Walls or Roofe, wherein it may containe and carry along with it the me­dium. [Page 167] And therefore experience will rather argue against this supposed revo­lution. Thus 'tis observed, that a stone being let fall from the Mast of a Ship that moves swiftly, will not descend to the same point, as if the Ship did stand still. From whence it will follow, that if our Earth had such a circular motion, then any heavy body being let fall from some high Tower, or other steep place, would not descend unto that point of Earth which was directly under it at the beginning.

To this wee answer; That the Aire which moves along with our Earth, is as well limited in certaine bounds, as that which is included in a roome. If you aske where these bounds are termina­ted: I answer neither by the utmost parts of the World, nor yet by the concavitie of the Moons Orb (as Fromondus would have us affirme) but by the Sphaere of vaparous Aire that encompasses our Earth; or which is all one, by the Orbe of magneticall vigor, which proceeds from it. And besides, tis considerable that all Earthly Bodies are not onely [Page 168] contained within these limits, as things are in a close roome, but also as parts in that whole to which they belong.

2 Though the carrying along of the medium may solve the motion of light Bodies in a Ship, as the flame of a candle, smoake, or the like; yet this can­not concurre to that which hath bin said of heavy Bodies, as a man leaping up, a Bullet descending, &c. since it is not the motion of the meere Aire that is able to make these partake of the same motion with the Ship. Vnto that Ar­gument which he urges from the expe­riment of a Stone falling in an open Ship, Wee answer:

1 Though the instance of a Ship, may serve as a proofe for this opinion, it being an Argument a minori ad majus, from an accidentall motion to a natu­rall; yet it will not serve against it. For though it were not thus in accidentall motions; yet this would not hinder but that it might be so in those that are sup­posed to be proper and naturall.

2 As for that experiment it selfe, 'tis but a groundlesse imagination, and [Page 169] was never yet confirmed by any particu­lar experience, because 'tis certaine the event would be clean otherwise, as shall be prooved in the third way of answe­ring.

3 The third and last way of clee­ring the doubts in the sixth Argument, is by shewing the like participation of motion, in those things that are in the open parts of a Ship. To which purpose Gallilaeus urges this experiment:Syste. Mun­di. Colloq. 2. If any one should let fall a Stone from an high Mast, he would find lapidem in eun­dem semper Navis locum decidere, seu con­sistat illa, seu quantacunque velocitate mo­veatur: that the Stone would alwayes descend unto the very same place, whe­ther or no the Ship did move or stand still. The reason of which is, because the motion of the Ship is likewise impres­sed in the Stone: which impression is not equally prevalent in a light body, as a Feather, or Wooll, because the Aire which ha's power over them, is not carri­ed along by the same motion of the Ship. Thus likewise will it be in this other experiment: If a man upon a run­ning [Page 170] Horse should in his swiftest course let fall a Bullet or Stone, these heavy Bodies, besides their owne descent, would also participate that transverse motion of the Horse. For as those things that are throwne from us, do con­tinue the it motion when they are out of the hand in the open Aire: so likewise must it bee when the force is conferred by that motion which the arm ha's from the Horse. While a man is riding, his arme is also carried by the same swiftnes of the Horse; therefore, if hee should onely open his hand and let fall any thing, it would not descend in a strait Line, but must necessarily be driven for­ward, by reason of that force impressed in it by the swiftnesse of the Horse, which is also communicated to the arme: it being all one in effect, whether or no the arme be moved by a particular motion of it's owne, as it is in casting of things from us; or by the common motion of the Body, as it is in dropping of any thing from us, either when wee are on the toppe of some sayling Shippe, as in the Former; or on [Page 171] some running Horse, as in this Later in­stance.

What hath been said concerning the motion of descent, is likewise applyable, both to that which is upward, and that which is transversall. So that when 'tis objected, if the Earth did move, then a Bullet that were shot up perpendi­cularly would bee forsaken by it, and not descend to the place from whence it arose: Wee answer, that the Cannon which is upon the Earth, together with the Bullet in it, doe partake of the same circular mo­tion, with the Earth, and this perhaps our adversaries will grant, whilest wee suppose the Bullet to re­maine still in the Cannon, all the dif­ficultie will bee to shew how it must necessarily observe the same motion, when it is shot out into the open Aire. For the better explication of this, you may note this following Fi­gure.Gallil. Syst. Colleq. 2.

[Page 172]

Where wee suppose A. C. to bee a Cannon perpendicularly, erected with a Bullet in it at B. which if it were immovable, wee grant that the Bullet being discharged, must ascend in a just perpendicular. But now conceive this Cannon to move along with the Earth, then in that space of time while the Bullet by the force of the pouder is as­cending to the top of the Bore, the Can­non will be transferred to the scituation D. E. so that the Bullet must bee mo­ved according to the Line F. G. which is not directly upright, but somewhat declining. Now the motion of the Bullet in the Aire, must necessarily be [Page 173] conformed unto that direction that is impressed in it by the Cannon from whence it is shot, and so consequently it must bee continued according to the Line F. G. and therefore will alwayes keep perpendicularly over the point from which it did ascend.

If you reply, that the motion of the Bullet in the Cannon must needs bee so so swift, that the Earth cannot carry the Cannon from C. to E. in the same space of time, wherein the Bullet do's move from B. to A. I answer: 'tis not materiall whether the Earth bee of a greater or lesser swiftnesse than the Bullet, because the declination must alwayes bee pro­portionable to the motion of the Earth, and if wee suppose this to bee slower than the Bullet, then the declina­tion of the Line F. G. will bee so much the lesse.

This truth may yet farther bee illu­strated by the practise of those Fowlers, who use to kill Birds as they are flying: Concerning which Art, tis commonly thought that these men direct their aimes to some certaine space in the [Page 174] Aire, just before the Birds, where they conceive the Bullet wil meet with them in their flight; whereas the truth is, they proceed in this case, the very same way, as if the Birds did stand still, by a direct aiming at their bodies, and fol­lowing of their flight by the motion of the piece, till at length, having got a perfect aime, they discharge, and do hit altogether as surely, as if the Birds were sitting upon a Tree. From whence wee may observe, that the motion of the piece, as in our aiming, it is made to follow the Birds in their flight (though it be but slow,) yet is communicated to the Bullet in the Aire.

But here it may seeme very difficult to give any reason according to those grounds concerning the flight of birds; which being animated, have a liberty to fly here or there, to tarry for a good space of time in the open Aire, and so 'tis not easie to conceive what meanes there is, by which they should partici­pate of the Earth's diurnall revolu­tion.

To this Gallilaeus answers, that the [Page 175] motion of the Aire, as it do's turne about the Clouds, so doth it also carry with it the Birds, together with such other like things that are in it. For if some violent winde bee able to drive with such swiftnesse a full laden Ship, to throw downe Towers, to turne up Trees, and the like; much more then may the diurnall motion of the Aire, (which do's so farre exceed in swiftnesse the most tempestuous winde) be able to carry with it the bodies of Birds.

But if all things bee turned about by this revolution,Ob. then it should seeme there is no such thing as a right mo­tion, whether of ascent, or descent in a strait Line.

I answer:Sol. The moving of heavy or light bodies, may bee considered in a double relation.

1 According to the space wherein they move, and then we grant their mo­tions not to bee simple, but mixed of a direct and circular.

2 According to the body or medi­um wherein they move, and then they may properly be said to have right mo­tions, [Page 176] because they passe through the medium in a strait Line; and therefore it is, that unto us they seeme directly to ascend or descend. Aristotle himselfe would not deny, but that Fire may as­cend in a strait Line unto it's Sphaere, and yet participate also of that cir­cular motion which hee supposes to bee communicated from the Heavens, unto the upper part of the Aire, and it's owne Region. So likewise must it bee for the descent of any thing. Suppose a Ship in it's swiftest motion, and a man in it, having some vessell filled with wa­ter, should let fall into it a little Ball of Waxe, or some other matter which may be slow in it's sinking, so that in one mi­nute it should scarse descend the space of a cubit, though the Ship (it may be) in the same time may passe at least a hundred cubits; yet would this still seeme unto the eye to descend in a strait Line; and the other motion which is communicated unto it by the Shippe, would not at all bee discernable in it. And though in this case, the motion were in it selfe composed of a circular [Page 177] and direct; yet in respect of us it would appeare, and so might be stiled exactly strait.

Now if it be thus in those which are generally granted to be praeternaturall motions; wee need not doubt then the possibilitie of the like effect in that mo­tion which wee conceive to be proper and naturall, both to the Earth, and the things that belong unto it.

There is yet another Objection to this purpose urged byAustriaca Syder. par. 2. prop. 25. Malapertius, a late Iesuite, who though hee doe with much eagernesse presse this Argument concerning a Bullet or Stone, against the opinion of Copernicus; yet he grants that it might easily be resolved, if the defen­ders of it would affirme that the Aire did move round with the earth. But this (saith he) they dare not avouch; for then the Comets would always seem to stand stil, being carried about with the revolu­tion of this aire, and then they could not rise or set, as experience shews they doe.

To this it may be answered, that most Comets are above that Sphaere of Aire which is turned round with our Earth, [Page 178] as is manifest by their height. The mo­tion that appeares in them, is caused by the revolution of our Earth, whereby we are turned from them.

As for those which are within the Orbe of our Aire, these do seem to stand still. Such a one was that mentioned byDe bello Iudaico, lib. 7. cap. 12. Dion. lib. 54. Iosephus, which did constantly hang over Ierusalem; and that likewise which appeared about the time of Agrippa's death, and for many dayes together did hang over the City of Rome. Where­fore Nat. Qu. lib. 7. cap. 6. Seneca do's well distinguish out of Epigenes, betwixt two sorts of Co­mets, the one being low, and such as seeme immovable, the other higher, and such as did constantly observe their ri­sings and settings, as the Starres.

I have done with all the Arguments of any note or difficultie, that are urged against this diurnall motion of the Earth. Many other cavils there are not worth the naming, which discover themselves to be rather the Objections of a captious, than a doubtfull minde. Amongst which, I might justly passe over those that are set down byLib. 1. sect. 2, cap. 6. Alex. [Page 179] Rosse. But because this Author do's pro­ceed in his whole discourse with so much scorne and triumph, it will not be amisse therefore to examine what infal­lible evidence there is in those Argu­ments upon which hee grounds his boastings.

We have in one chapter no lesse than these nine.

1 If the Earth did move,Arg. 1. then would it bee hotter than the Water, because motion do's produce heate; and for this reason likewise, the Water would be so hot and rarified, that it could not bee congealed; since that also do's partake of the same motion with the Earth.

2 The Aire which is next the Earth,Arg. 2. would be purer, as being rarified with motion.

3 If the Earth did move the Aire,Arg. 3. it would cause some sound, but this is no more audible than Pythagoras his Harmony of the Heavens.

4 'Twould have been in vaine for Nature to have endowed the Heavens with all conditions requisite for moti­on,Arg. 4. if they had been to stand still: As [Page 180] first, they have a round Figure. Second­ly, they have neither gravitie nor levity. Thirdly, they are incorruptible. Fourth­ly, they have no contrary.

5 All similarie parts are of the same nature with the whole:Arg. 5. But each part of the Earth do's rest in it's place; therfore also doth the whole.

6 The Sun in the World is as the Heart in a mans Body:Arg. 6. But the motion of the Heart ceasing, none of the mem­bers do stir; therefore also if the Sunne should stand still, the other parts of the World would be without motion.

7 The Sun and Heavens do worke upon these inferior Bodies by their light and motion.Arg. 7. So the Moone do's operate upon the Sea.

8 The Earth is the Foundation of Buildings;Arg. 8. and therefore must be firme and stable.

9 'Tis the constant opinion of Di­vines,Arg. 9. that the Heavens shall rest after the day of Iudgement; which they prove from Isa. 60. 20. They Sun shall no more goe downe, neither shall thy Moone withdraw it selfe. So likewise Rev. 10. 6. The Angell [Page 181] sweares that there shall be time no longer; and therefore the Heavens must rest, since by their motion it is that time is measured. And S. Paul sayes, Rom. 8. 20. That all the Creatures are made subject to vanity. Now this can be no other in the Heavens, than the Vanitie of Motion, which the Wise man speaks of, Ec­cles. 1. 4. The Sunne riseth, and the Sunne goeth downe, &c.

To these it may be answered:

In the first you may note a manifest contradiction,Ad. 1. & 2. when hee will have the Earth to bee hotter than the Water, by reason of this motion; when as notwithstanding he acknowledges the Water to move along with it; and therefore too in the next Line he infers that the Water, because of that heate and rare faction which it receives from this motion with the earth, must be incapable of so much cold as to be congealed into Ice.

But unto that which may be concei­ved to bee his meaning in this and the next Argument: I answer, if he had fully understood this opinion which hee op­poses, he would easily have apprehended [Page 182] that it could not be prejudiced by either of these consequences. For we suppose that not only this Globe of Earth and Water, but also all the vaporous Aire which invirons it, are carried along by the same motion. And therfore, though what hee sayes concerning the heate, which would bee produced by such a motion, were true; yet it would not bee pertinent, since our Earth and Water, and the Aire next unto them, are not by this meanes severed from one another, and so doe not come within the com­passe of this Argument.

If any reply, That this will notwith­standing hold true concerning the up­per part of the Aire, where there is such a separation of one body from another; and so consequently, an answerable heate: I answer,

1 'Tis not generally granted, That motion in all kind of bodies do's pro­duce heate; some restraine it onely to follid bodies: affirming, That in those which are fluid, it is rather the cause of coldnesse. This is the reason (say they) why running Waters are ever to our [Page 183] sence the coolest: and why amongst those Winds which proceed from the same coasts of Heaven, about the same time of the yeare, the strongest al­waies is the coldest? If you object, that running Waters are not so soone frozen as others: They answer, this is not be­cause they are thereby heated; but be­cause unto congellation, it is requisite that a Body should settle and rest, as well as be cold.

2 If wee should grant a moderate heate in those parts of the Aire, we have not any experiment to the contrary, nor would it prejudice the present opinion, or common Principles.

As the sound of this motion is not more heard than the Harmony of the Heavens:Ad. 3. so neither is there any reason why this motion should cause a sound, more than the supposed motion of the Heavens, which is likewise thought to be continued unto the Aire hard by us.

This will prove the Earth to move as well as the Heavens;Ad. 4. For that ha's, first, a round Figure, as is generally granted. Secondly, being considered as whole, [Page 184] and in it's ptoper place, it is not heavy, as was proved before: and as for the two other conditions, neither are they true of the Heavens; nor if they were, would they at all conduce to their motion.

1 This Argument would prove that the Sea did not ebbe and flow,Ad. 5. because there is not the same kind of motion in euery drop of Water: or that the whole Earth is not sphaericall, because every little piece of it is not of the same Forme.

This is rather an illustration than a proofe;Ad. 6. of if it do prove any thing, it may serve as well for that purpose unto which it is afterward applyed, where the motion of every Planet is suppo­sed to depend upon the revolution of the Sunne.

That the Sunne and Planets do work upon the Earth by their own reall daily motion,Ad. 7. is the thing in question; and therefore must not be taken for a com­mon ground.

Wee grant that the Earth is firme and stable from all such motions where­by it is jogged or uncertainly shaken.Ad. 8.

[Page 185] 1 For the authoritie of those Di­vines, which hee urges for the inter­pretation of these Scriptures; this will be but a weake Argument against that opinion which is already granted to bee a Paradox.

2 The Scriptures themselves, in their right meaning, will not at all con­duce to the present purpose.

As for that in Isaiah, if wee consult the cohaerence, wee shall finde that the scope of the Prophet is to set forth the Glory of the Church tri­umphant. Wherein (hee sayes) there shall not bee any need of the Sunne or Moone, but Gods presence shall supply them both: For the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting Light, and thy God thy glory, ver. the nine­teenth, and as for this Sunne and Moone, it shall not goe downe, or withdraw it selfe: but hee shall bee an everlasting Light without intermis­sion.Vid. Revel. 21. 23. item c. 22. ver. 5. So that 'tis evident hee speakes of that Light which shall hereafter bee, in stead of the Sunne and Moone.

[Page 186] As for that in the Revelations, wee yeeld, that time shall cease; but to say that this depends upon the cessation of the Heavens, is to beg the question, and to suppose that which is to be proved, viz. that time is measured by the motion of the Heavens, & not of the Earth.Gen. c. 1. l. 2. quaest. 6. Perre­rius (from whom this last argument was borrowed without acknowledgement) might have told him in the very same place, that time do's not absolutely, and universally depend upon the motion of the Heavens, sed in motu & successione, cu­juslibet durationis, but in any such suc­cession, by which duration may be mea­sured.

As for that in the Romans, wee say, that there are other vanities to which the Heavenly Bodies are subject: As first, unto many changes and alterations, witnesse those Comets, which at seve­rall times have been discerned amongst them; and then likewise to that generall corruption, in which all the creatures shall be involved at the last day.2. Pet. 3. 10, 12. When they shall passe away with a great noise, and the Elements shall melt with fervent heate.

[Page 187] Thus you see, there is not any such invincible strength in these arguments, as might cause the Author of them to triumph before hand with any great noise of victory.

Another Objection like unto these is taken from the Etymologie of se­verall words. Thus the Heavens are called Aethera, ab [...] because they are alwaies in motion, and the Earth Vesta, quia vi stat, because of it's immo­bilitie.

To which I answer: 'Twere no dif­ficult matter to finde such proofes for this opinion, as well as against it.

Thus wee may see that the Hebrew word [...] is derived from [...] quia currit; and Terra, non quod terratur, sed quod pe­renni cursu omnia terat, saith Calcagnius. However, though wee suppose the Ety­mology to be never so true and genuine; yet it can at the best but shew what the more common opinion was of those times when such names were first im­posed.

But suppose all this were so,Ob. That the Earth had such a diurnall revolu­tion; [Page 188] yet how is it conceivable that it should at the same time have two distinct motions.

I answer:Sol. This may easily bee ap­prehended, if you consider how both these motions doe tend the same way from West to East. Thus a Bowle being turned out of the hand, ha's two motions in the Aire; one, whereby it is carried round; the other, whereby it is cast forward.

From what hath been delivered in this Chapter, the indifferent Reader may gather some satisfaction for those Arguments which are usually urged against this diurnall motion of the Earth.

PROP. IX.

AMongst those many Ar­guments that may bee urged for the confirma­tion of this truth, I shall set down only these five.

1 If we suppose the Earth to be the cause of this motion, then will those vast and glorious Bodies of the Heavens be freed from that in­conceivable, unnaturall swiftnes, which must otherwise bee attributed unto them.

For if the diurnall revolution be in the Heavens,Vid. Maest. Epit. Astr. lib. 1. in fine. then it will follow ac­cording to the common Hypothesis, that each Starre in the Equator must in every houre move at the least 4529538 Germane miles. So that according [Page 190] to the observation ofDe Prop. l. 5. prop. 58. Cardan, who tels us, that the pulse of a well tempered man do's beat 4000 times in an houre; one of these Starres in that space, whilst the pulse beats once, must passe 1132 Germane miles (saith Alphraganus:) Or according to Tycho 732 Germane miles. But these numbers seem to be somwhat of the least; and therefore many others doe much inlarge them, affirming that every Starre in the Equator, in one bea­ting of the pulse, most move 2528 of these miles.

'Tis the assertion ofComment. in prim cap. Sphaerae. Calvius, that though the distance of the Orbs, and so consequently their swiftnesse, seeme to be altogether incredible; yet it is rather farre greater in it self, than Astronomers usually suppose it; & yet (saith he) accor­ding to the common grounds, every star in the Equator, must move 42398437½ miles in an houre. And though a man should constantly travel 40 miles a day; yet he would not be able to goe so far as a Star do's in one houre, under 3904 yeares: Or if wee will suppose an Arrow to bee of the same swiftnesse, then must [Page 191] it compasse this great Globe of Earth and Water 1884 times in an hour. And a Bird that could but fly as fast, might go round the World seven times in that space, whilest one could say, Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.

Which though it be a pretty round pace; yet you must conceive that all this is spoken onely of the eighth Sphaere, and so being compared to the swiftnesse of the primum mobile, is but a slow and heavy motion.

For (saith the same author) the thick­nesse of each Orbe is equall to the di­stance of it's concave superficies from the centre of the Earth. Thus the Orbe of the Moone do's containe as much space in it's thicknesse, as there is be­twixt the neerest parts of that and the centre. Thus also the eighth Sphaere is as thicke as that whole space betwixt the centre of the Earth, and it's owne concave superficies. So likewise must it be in those three other Orbes, which he supposes to bee above the Starry Hea­ven. Now if we proportion their swift­nesse according to this difference in [Page 192] their bignesse, you may then conceive (if you can) what a kinde of celeritie that must be, by which the primum mobile wil be whirled about.

Tycho makes the distance of the Stars to bee much lesse, and their motion flower; and yet hee is faine to confesse, that it is omni cogitatione celerior.

Clavius likewise speaking concerning the swiftnesse of the Starry Orbe, do's acknowledge, Quod velocitas ejus captum humani ingenij excedit. What then could he thinke of the primum mobile?

D^r Gilbert being (it seems) astonished at the consideration of this strange swiftnesse,De magnete, lib. 6. cap. 3. sayes of it, that it is motus su­pra omnes cogitationes, somnia, fabulas & li­centias poeticas insuperabilis, ineffabilis, in­comprehensibilis. A man may more easily conceive the possibilitie of any Fable or Fiction how Beasts and Trees might talke together, than how any materiall Body should bee moved with such a swiftnesse.

Not but that 'tis possible for God to turne them about with a farre greater velocitie. Nay 'tis possible for Art to [Page 193] contrive a motion, which shall be equal­ly slow in that proportion as this is swift. But however, the question here, is not what can be done, but what is most likely to be don according to the usuall course of Nature. 'Tis the part of a Phi­losopher, in the resolution of naturall events, not to fly unto the absolute Po­wer of God, and tell us what he can doe, but what according to the usuall way of Providence, is most likely to be done, to find out such causes of things, as may seem most easy & probable to our reason.

If you ask what repugnancy there is in the Heavens, unto so great a swiftnes: we answer, Their being such vast, materiall condensed substances, with which this inconceivable motion cannot agree.

Since Motion and Magnitude are two such Geometricall things, as beare a mutuall proportion to one another; therefore it may seeme convenient, that slownesse should be more agreeable to a great Body, and swiftnes to a lesser: and so it would bee more consonant to the Principles of Nature, that the Earth, which is of a lesser quantitie, should be [Page 194] appointed to such a motion as is some­what proportionable to it's bignes, than that the Heavens that are of such a vast magnitude, should bee whirled about with such an incredible swiftnes, which do's as farre exceed the proportion of their bignesse, as their bignesse do's ex­ceed this Earth, that is but as a point or centre to them. 'Tis not likely that na­ture in these constant and great workes, should so much deviate from that usual harmony and proportion which she ob­serves in lesser matters. If this Globe of Earth onely were appointed to move every day round the Orbe of the fixed Starres, though it be but a little Body, and so more capable of a swift motion; yet that swiftnesse would be so extreme­ly disproportionable unto it, that wee could not with reason conceive it possi­ble, according to the usuall course of na­ture. But now that the Heavens them­selves, of such strange bignesse, with so many Starres, which do so farre exceed the magnitude of our Earth, should bee able to turne about with the same celeritie: Oh 'tis altogether [Page 195] beyond the fancy of a Poet or a mad man.

For answer unto this Argument, our adversaries tell us, that there is not in the Heavens any repugnancie to so swift a motion; and that whether wee consider the nature of those Bodies, or secondly, the swiftnesse of this motion.

1 For the nature of those Bodies, either their

• Qualities.
• Quantity.

1 There is not in them the Quali­ties of lightnesse or heavinesse, or any the least contrarietie that may make them reluctant to one another.

2 Their magnitude will helpe them in their swiftnesse:Ross. lib. 1. sect. 1. ca. 1. For the greater any body is, the quicker will it be in it's motion, and that not onely when it is moved by an inward Principle, as a mil­stone will descend faster than a little pibble; but also when it's motion do's proceed from some externall Agent, as the Winde will drive a great Cloud, or a heavy Ship, when it is not able to stir a little Stone.

2 As for the swiftnesse of this mo­tion, the possibilitie of it may be illu­strated [Page 196] by other particulars in Nature: As,

1 The sound of a Cannon,Idem lib. 2. sect. 1. ca. 5. in a lit­tle time is carried for twenty miles di­stance.

2 Though a Starre bee scituated so remotely from us; yet the Eye dis­cerns it in a moment, which is not with­out some motion, either of the Species of the Starre, or the Rayes of the Eye. Thus also the Light do's in an instant passe from one side of the Heaven to another.Idem lib. 1. sect. 1. cap. 2.

3 If the force of Pouder be able to carry a Bullet with so great a swiftnesse, we need not doubt then, but that the Heavens are capable of such a celeritie, as is usually attributed unto them.

Vnto these it may be answered:

1 Where they say that the heaven­ly Bodies are without all gravitie, wee grant it, in the same sence as our Earth also, being considered as whole, and in it's proper place, may bee denied to bee heavy: since this qualitie in the exactest sence; can onely bee ascribed unto such parts as are severed from the whole to [Page 197] which they belong. But however, since the Heavens or Stars are of a materiall substance, 'tis impossible but there should bee in them some ineptitude to motion; because matter is of it selfe a dull and sluggish thing; and by so much the more, as it is kept close and con­densed together. And though the fol­lowers of Ptolomey doe with much con­fidence deny the Heavens to be capable of any reluctancie to motion; yet it were easie to prove the contrary out of their owne Principles. 'Tis not con­ceivable, how the upper Sphaere should move the nether, unlesse their Super­ficies were full of rugged parts (which they deny:) or else one of the Orbes must leane upon the other with it's weight, and so make it partake of it's owne motion. And besides, they tell us, that the farther any Sphaere is di­stant from the primum mobile, the lesse is it hindered by that in it's proper course, and the sooner do's it finish it's owne revolution. From whence it will easily follow, that these Bodies have re­sistency from one another.

[Page 198] I have often wondred, why amongst the inchanted Buildings of the Poets, they have not fained any Castle to bee made of the same materials with the sollid Orbs, since in such a fabrick there would have been these eminent conveni­ences.

1 It must needs be very pleasant, by reason of it's perspicuitie, because it is more diaphanous than the Aire it selfe, and so the Walls of it could not hinder the prospect any way.

2 Being so solid and impenitrable, it must needs be excellent against al vio­lence of weathers, as also against the assaults of the enemy, who should not be able to breake it with the most furi­ous batteries of the Ram, or pierce it with any Cannon shot.

3 Being void of all heavinesse, a man may carry it up and downe with him, as a Snaile do's his House: and so whether hee follow the enemy, or fly from him, hee ha's still this advantage, that he may take his castle and defence along with him.

But then againe, there are on the [Page 199] other side as many inconveniences. For,

1 It's perspicuitie would make it so open, that a man should not bee able to retire himselfe into any private part of it. And then,

2 Being so extremely sollid, as wel as invisible, a man should be stil in dan­ger of knocking his head against every Wall and Pillar; unlesse it were also in­tangible, as some of the Peripatetickes af­firme.

3 It's being without all gravitie, would bring this inconvenience, that every little puffe of wind would blow it up and downe; since some of the same sect are not ashamed to say, that the Heavens are so utterly devoid of heavi­nesse, that if but a little Fly should justle against the vast frame of the Coe­lestiall Sphaeres, hee would move them out of their places.

A strong fancy, that could bee at lei­sure, might might make excellent sport with this Astronomicall fiction.

So that this first evasion of our Ad­versaries, will not shelter them from the [Page 200] force of that Argument, which is taken from the incredible swiftnes of the Hea­vens.

2 Whereas they tell us in the se­cond place, that a bigger Body, as a Mil­stone, will naturally descend swifter than a lesse, as a Pibble. I answer: This is not because such a great Body is in it selfe more easily movable; but be­cause the bigger any thing is which is out of it's owne place, the stronger will bee it's naturall desire of returning thi­ther, and so consequently, the quicker it's motion. But now those Bodies that move circularly, are alwayes in their proper scituations, and so the same rea­son is not applyable unto them. And then, whereas 'tis said that Magnitude do's alwayes adde to the swiftnesse of a violent motion (as Winde will move a great Shippe sooner than a little Stone:) Wee answer, This is not be­cause a Shippe is more easily movable in it selfe than a little Stone: For I suppose the Objector will not thinke hee can throw the one as farre as the other; but because these little [Page 201] Bodies are not so liable to that kinde of violence from whence their motion do's proceed.

As for those instances which are ci­ted to illustrate the possibilitie of this swiftnesse in the Heavens, wee answer: The passage of a sound is but very slow in comparison to the motion of the Heavens. And then besides, the swift­nesse of the Species of sound or sight, which are accidents, are not fit to in­fer the like celeritie in a materiall sub­stance: and so likewise for the Light whichDe Animā. lib. 2. cap. 7. Aristotle himselfe, and with him the generalitie of Philosophers, doe for this very reason prove not to bee a Body, because it moves with such swiftnesse, of which (it seemes) they thought a Body to bee incapa­ble. Nay, theRoss. lib. 2. sect. 1. ca. 4. Objector himselfe in another place, speaking of Light in reference to a substance, do's say: Lumen est accidens, sic species rei visae, & alia est ratio substantiarum, alia acci­dentium.

To that of a Bullet, wee answer: Hee might as well have illustrated the [Page 202] swiftnes of a bullet, which wil passe 4 or 5 miles in 2 minutes, by the motion of a hand in a Watch, which passes 2 or 3 in­ches in 12 houres; there being a greater disproportion betwixt the motion of the heavens, and the swiftnes of a Bullet, than there is 'twixt the swiftnes of a bul­let, and the motion of a hand in a watch.

Another Argument to this purpose may be taken from the chiefe end of the Diurnall and Annuall motions,Arg. 2. which is to distinguish betwixt Night and Day, Winter and Summer; and so con­sequently, to serve for the commodities and seasons of the habitable World. Wherfore it may seeme more agreeable to the Wisedome of Providence, for to make the Earth as well the efficient, as the finall cause of this motion: Especi­ally since nature in her other operations do's never use any tedious difficult means to performe that which may as well bee accomplished by shorter and easier wayes. But now, the appearances would be the same, in respect of us, if only this little point of Earth were made the subject of these motions, as if [Page 203] the vast Frame of the World, with all those Stars of such number and bignes were moved about it.Galen. 'Tis a common Maxime, [...]. Na­ture do's nothing in vaine, but in all her courses do's take the most compendious way. 'Tis not therefore (I say) likely, that the whole Fabricke of the Heavens, which do so much exceed our Earth in magnitude and perfection, should bee put to undergoe so great and constant a Worke in the service of our Earth, which might more easily save all that labour by the circumvolution of it's owne Body; especially, since the Hea­vens doe not by this motion attaine any farther perfection for themselves, but are made thus serviceable to this little Ball of Earth. So that in this case it may seeme to argue as much improvi­dence in nature to imploy them in this motion, as it would in aLansberg. Mother, who in warming her Childe, would rather turne the fire about that, than that about the sire: Or in aKeplar. Cook, who would not rost his Meat by turning it about to the fire; but rather, by turning the fire about [Page 204] it:Galilaeus. Or in a man, who ascending some high Tower, to save the labour of stir­ring his head, should rather desire that all the Regions might successively bee turned before his eye, that so hee might easily take a view of them.

Wee allow every Watch-maker so much wisdome as not to put any moti­on in his Instrument, which is superflu­ous, or may bee supplied an easier way: and shall wee not thinke that Nature ha's as much providence as every ordi­nary Mechanicke? Or can wee imagine that She should appoint those nume­rous and vast Bodies, the Stars, to com­passe us with such a swift and restlesse motion, so full of confusion and uncer­tainties, when as all this might as well be done by the revolution of this little Ball of Earth?

Amongst the severall parts of the World,Arg. 3. there are six Planets which are generally granted to move. As for the Sun and the Earth, and the fixed Starres, it is yet in question, which of them are naturally indowed with the same con­dition. Now common reason will di­ctate [Page 205] unto us, that motion which is most agreeable to that which in kind and pro­perties is most neer to those Bodies that undoubtedly are moved. But now there is one eminent qualification, wherin the Earth do's agree with the Planets; wher­as the Sun, together with the fixed stars, do in the same respect differ from them: and that is Light, which all the Planets and so too the Earth, are fain to borrow elswhere, whilest the Sun and the Stars have it of their owne. From whence it may bee probably concluded, that the Earth is rather the subject of this moti­on than the other. To this it may be ad­ded, that the Sun and Stars seem to be of a more excellent Nature than the other parts of the World; and therfore should in reason be indowed with the best qua­lifications. But now motion is not so no­ble a condition as rest. That is but a kind of wearisome and servile thing; wheras, this is usually ascribed to God himself: Of whom 'tis said:

De Coelo, li. 2. cap. 10. Aristotle tells us, 'tis very agreeable to reason that the time appointed [Page 206] for the revolution of each Orbe, should be proportionable to it's bignesse. But now this can onely be by making the Earth a Planet, and the subiect of the annuall and diurnall motions. Where­fore 'tis probable, that this do's rather move than the Heavens.

According to the common Hypothe­sis, the primum mobile will move round in a day. Saturne in thirty yeares. Iupiter in twelve. Mars in two. The Sunne, Venus, and Mercury, which have severall Orbes, yet will agree in their revolutions, being each of them about a yeare in finishing their courses: Whereas by making the Earth a Planet, there will be a just pro­portion betwixt the bignesse of the Orbes, and the time of their motions: For then, next to the Sunne or Centre, there will be the Sphaere of Mercury; which as it is but narrow in it's diame­ter, so likewise is it quick in it's motion, running it's course in eighty eight days. Venus, that is next unto it, in 224 dayes. The Earth in 365 daies, or a yeare. Mars, in 687 dayes. Iupiter in 4332 dayes. Sa­turne, in 10759 dayes. Thus likewise is [Page 207] it with those Medicean Starres that en­compasse Iupiter. That which is lowest amongst them, finishes his course in two and twenty houres; the next in three dayes and a half; the third, in seven dayes; and the farthest in seventeen days. Now as it is (according to Aristotles confession) more likely that Nature should observe such a due proportion betwixt the Heavenly Orbes: so is it more probable, that the Earth should move, rather than the Heavens.

This may likewise be confirmed from the appearance of Comets:Arg. 5. Concer­ning which, there are three things com­monly granted, or if they were not, might be easily proved: namely,

1 That there are divers Comets in the Aire, betwixt the Moone and our Earth.

2 That many of these Comets do seeme to rise and set as the Stars.

3 That this appearing motion is not properly their owne, but communi­cated unto them from somewhat else.

But now, this motion of theirs cannot be caused by the Heavens; and therefore [Page 208] it must necessarily proceed from the re­volution of our Earth.

That the Moones Orbe cannot carry along with it the greater part of the aire wherein these Comets are placed, might easily be proved from the common grounds. For the concave Superficies of that Sphaere is usually supposed to bee exactly terse and smooth; so that the meer touch of it cannot turne about the whole Element of Fire, with a motion that is not naturall unto it. Nor could this Elementarie Fire which they ima­gine to be of a more rarified and subtle Nature, communicate the same motion to the thicker Aire, and that to the wa­ters (as some affirme:) For by what meanes could that smooth Orbe take hold of the adjoyning Aire. To this Sarsius answers, that there are great gibbosities, and mountainous inequali­ties, in the concavitie of the lowest Sphaere, and by these is it inabled to carry along with it the Fire and Aire. ButAntarist. cap. 16. Fromondus tels him, Fictitiaista & ad fugam reperta sunt. And yet his owne Conjecture is scarse so good, when hee [Page 209] affirmes, that this motion of the aethe­riall Aire, as also of that elementary Aire hard by us, is caused by that ruggednesse which there is in the Bo­dies of the Planets; of which opinion wee may with as good reason say as hee sayes to Sarsius: Fictitia ista, & ad fugam reperta; These things are meere fictions invented for shifts, and without any pro­bable ground.

But now this appearance of the Co­mets may easily be resolved, if wee sup­pose the earth to move. For then, though they did still remaine in their wonted places; yet this, by it's diurnall revoluti­on successively with drawing it self from them, they wil appear to rise & set. And therefore, according to this common naturall experiment, it is more probable that the Earth should move, than the Heavens.

Another Argument urged by some, to prove that this Globe of Earth is easily movable, is taken from the opini­on of those who affirme that the accesse of any weight unto a new place:Vid. Vasq. lib. 1. disp. 2. cap. 816. as sup­pose an army do's make the Earth poise [Page 210] it selfe afresh, and change the centre of gravitie that it had before: but this is not generally granted; and therefore not to bee insisted on as a common ground.

To this purpose likewise is that infe­rence of Lansbergius, who from Archi­medes his saying, that hee could move the Earth, if he knew where to stand and fasten his instrument; concludes, that the Earth is easily movable; whereas 'twas the intent of Archimedes in that speech, to shew the infinit power of En­gines: there being no weight so great, but that an instrument might be inven­ted to move it.

Before we finish this Chapter, tis re­quisite that we enquire what kind of fa­cultie that is from which those motions that Copernicus ascribes unto the Earth, do's proceed. Whether or no it be some Animall Power, that do's assist (as Ari­stotle) or informe (as Keplar thinks) or else some other naturall motive quali­tie which is intrinsicall unto it.

Wee may observe, That when the proper genuine cause of any motion is [Page 211] not obvious, men are very prone to at­tribute unto that which they discerne to be the most frequent Originall of it in other things, Life. Thus the Stoicks affirme, the Soule of the Water to bee the cause of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea.Senec. Nat. Qu. lib. 5. cap. 5, 6. Thus others thinke the Winde to proceed from the Life of the Aire, whereby it is able to move it selfe seve­rall waies, as other living creatures. And upon the same grounds doe the Plato­nicks, Stoicks, and some of the Peripate­ticks, affirme the Heavens to bee anima­ted. From hence likewise it is, that so many do maintaine Aristotle his opini­on concerning Intelligences: which some of his followers, the Schoole-men, doe confirme out of Scripture. From that place in Mat. 24. 29. where 'tis said, The Powers of the Heaven shall bee shaken. In which words, by Powers (say they) are meant the Angels, by whose power it is, that the Heavens are moved. And so likewise in that, Iob, 9. 13. Where the vulgar ha's it, Sub quo curvantur, qui por­tant orbem; that is, the Intelligences. Which Text, might serve altogether as [Page 212] well to prove the Fable of Atlas and Hercules. Thus Cajetan concludes from that place in the Psalme, 136. 5. Where 'tis said, God by wisdome made the heavens: or according to the vulgar, Qui fecit Coe­los intellectu, That the Heavens are mo­ved by an intelligent Soule.

If wee consider the originall of this opinion, we shall find it to proceed from that mistake of Aristotle, who thought the Heavens to be Eternall; and there­fore to require such a moving cause, as being of an immateriall Substance, might be exempted from all that weari­nesse and inconstancie, which other things are liable unto.

But now this ground of his is evident­ly false, since 'tis certain, That the Hea­vens had a beginning, and shall have an end. However, the imploying of An­gels in these motions of the World, is both superfluous, and very improbable.

1 Because a naturall Power, intrin­sicall to those Bodies, will serve the turne as well. And as for other operati­ons, which are to bee constant and regular, Nature do's commonly [Page 213] make use of some inwarde Prin­ciple.

2 The Intelligences being immate­riall, cannot immediatly worke upon a Body. Nor do's any one tell us what In­struments they should make use of in this businesse. They have not any hands to take hold of the Heavens, or turne them about. And that opinion of Aqui­nas, Dur and, Soncinas, with other School-men, seemes to bee without all reason; who make the faculty, whereby the An­gels move the Orbs, to be the very same with their Vnderstandings and Will: So that if an Angell doe but meerely suspend the Act of willing their Moti­on, they must necessarily stand still; and on the contrary, his only willing them to move, shall bee enough to carry them about in their severall courses. Since it were then a needlesse thing for Provi­dence to have appointed Angels unto this businesse, which might have been done as well by the only Will of God. And besides, how are the Orbes capa­ble of perceiving this Will in the Intel­ligences? Or if they were, yet what mo­tive [Page 214] Facultie have they of themselves, which can inable them to obey it?

Now as it would bee with the Hea­vens: so likewise is it with the Earth, which may bee turned about in it's di­urnall revolution, without the helpe of Intelligences, by some motive Power of it's owne, that may be intrinsicall un­to it.

If it be yet enquired, what cause there is of it's annuall motion: I answer, 'Tis easily conceivable, how the same Prin­ciple may serve for both these, since they tend the same way from West to East.

However, that opinion of Keplar is not very improbable, That all the Pri­mary Planets are moved round by the Sunne, which once in twenty five, or twenty six dayes, do's observe a revolu­tion about it's owne Axis, and so carry along the Planets that encompasse it; which Planets are therefore slower or swifter, according to their distances from him. If you aske by what means the Sunne can produce such a motion?

He answers: By sending forth a kind [Page 215] of Magneticke Vertue in strait Lines, from each part of it's Body; of which there is alwaies a constant succession: so that as soone as one beame of this vigor ha's passed a Planet, there is another presently takes hold of it, like the teeth of a Wheele.

But how can any vertue hold out to such a distance?

He answers: First, as light and heate, together with those other secret influ­ences, which work upon Minerals in the Bowels of the Earth: so likewise may the Sunne send forth a magneticke, mo­tive vertue, whose power may bee conti­nued to the farthest Planets. Secondly, if the Moone, according to common Philosophy may move the Sea, why then may not the Sun move this Globe of Earth?

In such Quaere's as these, wee can con­clude only from conjectures that speech of the wise man, Eccl. 3. 11. being more especially verified of Astronomicall que­stions, concerning the Frame of the whole Vniverse, That no man can finde out the Works of God, from the beginning to the [Page 216] end. Though wee may discerne diverse things in the World, which may argue the infinite Wisedome and Power of the Author; yet there will bee alwaies some particulars left for our dispute and enquiry, and we shall never bee able with all our industry, to attaine a perfect comprehension of the creatures, or to find them wholly out, from the beginning to the end.

The Providence of God having thus contrived it,Valles Sacr. Philos. c. [...]4. that so man might look for another Life after this, when all his lon­ging and thirst shall be fully satisfied. For since no naturall appetite is in vain, it must necessarily follow, that there is a possibilitie of attaining so much know­ledge as shall bee commensurate unto these desires, which because it is not to be had in this World, it will behove us then to expect and provide for another.

PROP. X.

IT hath been already pro­ved, that the Earth is capable of such a scitua­tion and motion, as this opinion supposes it to have. It remaines, that in the last place we shew how agreeable this would bee unto those ordinary seasons of Dayes, Moneths, Yeres, and all other appearan­ces in the Heavens.

1 As for the difference betwixt days and nights: 'tis evident, That this may be caused as well by the revolution of the Earth, as the motion of the Sunne; since the Heavenly Bodies must needs seeme after the same manner to rise and set, whether or no they themselves by their owne motion do passe by our Ho­rizon and Verticall point; or whether our Horizon and Verticall point, by the revo­lution [Page 218] of our Earth, doe passe by them. According to that ofDe Coelo, lib. 2. cap. 8. Aristotle, [...]. There will not appeare any difference, whether or no the Eye be moved from the Object, or the Object from the Eye. And therfore I cannot chuse but wonder that a man of any reason or sence should make choise of no better an Argument to conclude his booke withall, than that which were read at the later end of Al. Ross. where he infers, that the Earth do's not move, because then the shadow in a Sunne­diall would not be altered.

2 As for the difference of Moneths, we say, That the diverse illumination of the Moone, the different bignes of her Body, her remaining for a longer or shorter time in the earth's shadow, when she is eclipsed, &c. may well enough be solved by supposing her to move above our Earth, in an Eccentricall Epicycle. Thus,

[Page 219]

In which kinde of Hypothesis there will bee a double difference of motion. The one caused by the different sci­tuation of the Moones Body in it's owne Eccentricke. The other by the different scituation of the Moons Orbe in the Earth's Eccentricke: which is so exactly answerable to the motions and appearances of this Planet, that from hence Lansbergius drawes an Argument [Page 220] for this Systeme of the heavens, which in the strength of his confidence hee calls, Demonstrationem [...], cui nullâ rati­one potest contradici.

4 As for the difference betwixt win­ter & summer; betwixt the number and length of days, which appertain to each of those seasons: the seeming motion of the sun from one signe to another in the Zodiack: All this may easily be solved, by supposing the Earth to move in an Ec­centricall Orbe about the Sun. Thus,

[Page 221] Suppose the Earth to bee at C. then the Sunne at A. will seeme to bee in the signe ♋ and at the greatest distance from us, because the Earth is then in the farthest parts of its Ec­centricke. When after by it's Annu­all Motion it hath passed successive­ly by the Signes ♒♓♈♉♊ at length it comes to the other Solstice at B. where the Sunne will appeare in ♑ and seeme biggest, as being in it's Perigie, because our Earth is then in the neerest part of it's Eccentricke.

As for all other Appearances of the Sunne which concerne the An­nuall Motion, you may see by the following Figure, that they are exactly agreeable to this Hypothesis.

[Page 222]

Where you have the Earth described about the Sunne at A. in the foure chief points of the Zodiacke; namely, the two Equinoctials at ♈ and ♎ and the Solstices and ♑ and ♋. Through all which points, the Earth do's passe in his annuall mo­tion from West to East.

The Axis upon which our Earth do's move, is represented by the Line B. C. which Axis do's alwaies decline from that of the Eclipticke, about 23 degrees,[Page 222] [...] [Page 223] thirty minutes. The Points B. C. are imagined to be the Poles, B. the North Pole, and C. the South.

Now if we suppose this Earth to turn about its owne Axis, by a diurnall moti­on, then every Point of it will describe a paralell Circle, which will be either bigger or lesser, according to it's di­stance from the Poles. The chiefe of them are the Equinoctiall D. E. The two Tropicks, F. G. and H. I. The two Polar Circles M. N. the Arcticke, and K. L. the Antarcticke: of which, the Equi­noctiall only is a great Circle, and there­fore will alwaies be equally divided by the Line of Illumination M. L. wheras the other paralels are thereby distribu­ted into unequal parts. Amongst which parts, the diurnall Arches of those that are towards B. the North Pole, are big­ger than the Nocturnall, when our Earth is in ♑ and the Sunne appeares in ♋ Insomuch, that the whole Arcticke Circle is enlightened, and there is day for halfe a yeare together under that Pole.

Now when the Earth proceeds to [Page 224] the other Solstice at ♋ and the Sunne ap­peares in ♑ then that Hemisphere must be involved in darknesse, which did be­fore partake of Light. And those para­lels towards the North & South Poles will still bee divided by the same ine­qualitie. But those bigger parts which were before enlightened, will now bee darkened, & vice versa. As when the Earth was in N. the Arcticke Circle M. N. was wholly enlightned, and the Antarcticke, K. L. altogether in the dark. So now, when it is in A. the Antarcticke, K. L. will be wholly in the Light, and the other M. N. altogether obscured. Whereas the Sun before was verticall to the inhabitants at the Tropick F. G. So now is he in the same scituation to those that live under the other Tropicke, H. I. And whereas before the Pole did incline twenty three degrees thirty mi­nutes towards the Sunne, so now do's it recline as much from him. The whole difference will amount to 47 degrees, which is the distance of one Tropicke from the other.

But now in the two other Figures, [Page 225] when the Earth is in either of the Equi­noctialls ♈♎ the Circle of Illumination will passe through both the Poles; and therefore must divide all the paralels into equall parts. From whence it will follow, that the Day and Night must then bee equall in all places of the World.

As the Earth is here represented in ♎ it turnes only the enlightened part to­wards us: as it is in ♈ wee see it's noctur­nall Hemisphere.

So that according to this Hypothesis, wee may easily and exactly reconcile every appearance concerning the diffe­rence betwixt Dayes, and Nights, Winter and Summer, together with all those other varieties which depend upon them.

If you would know how the Planets (according to the Systeme of the Hea­vens) will appeare Direct, Stationarie, Retrograde; and yet still move regu­larly about their owne Centers, you may plainely discerne it by this fol­lowing Diagram.

[Page 226]

Where suppose the Sun to be at A. the Circle (B. G. M.) to be the Orbe of the Earth's motion, and that above it noted with the same Letters, to bee the Sphaere of Iupiter; and the uppermost of all, to bee a part of the Zodiacke in the Starry Heaven.

[Page 227] Now if you conceive the Letters, BCDEF GHIKLM, and bcdef ghiklm, to divide the Earth's Orb, and that of Iupiter, into severall parts, pro­portionable to the slownesse or swiftnes of their different motions (Iupiter fini­shing his course in twelve yeres, and the Earth in one) then supposing the Earth to be at the point (B.) and Iupiter likewise in his Orbe to bee scituated at (b) hee will appeare unto us to be in the Zodiacke at the point (r.) But afterwards, both of them moving forward to the Letter (Cc.) Iupiter will seeme to be in the Zodiacke at (v) as having passed di­rectly forward according to the order of the Signes. And so likewise each of them being transferred to the places (Dd.) (Ee.) Iupiter will still appeare Direct, and to have moved in the Zodiack unto the Points (yz.) But now when the Earth comes to be more immediatly in­terposed betwixt this Planet and the Sunne; as when both of them are at the Letter (Ff.) then will Iupiter be discer­ned in the Zodiacke at (x.) So that all the while the Earth was passing the [Page 228] Arch (E F) Iupiter did still remaine be­twixt the Points (z) and (x) and there­fore must seeme unto us as if hee were Stationary; but afterwards, both of them being carried to (Gg.) then Iupiter will appeare at (s) as if by a hasty motion he had returned from his former course the space (x s.) Both of them passing to (H h) this Planet will still seeme to bee swiftly Retrograde, and appeare in the Point at (p) but when they come to the Points (I i.) Iupiter will then seem to be slower in this motion, and to have onely passed the space (P n.) Both of them being transferred to (K k.) Iupiter will then appeare in the Zodiacke at (o) as being againe Direct, going forward ac­cording to the order of the Signes, and while the Earth did passe the Arch (IK) Iupiter then remain'd between the points (n o.) and so consequently, did againe seeme to bee Stationary. Both of them comming to (L l.) & thence to (M. N.) Iupiter will still appeare Direct, and to have gone forward in the Zodiacke from (q) to (t.) So that all the space wherein Iupiter is retrograde, is represented by [Page 229] the Arch (n z.) In which space, he him­selfe moves in his owne Orbe, the Arch (e i) and so the Earth in it's Orbe, a pro­portionall space (EI.)

As it hath been said of this Planet, so likewise is it applyable to the other. Saturne, Mars, Venus, Mercury; all which are thus made to appeare direct, Stationa­rie, and retrograde, by the motion of our Earth, without the helpe of those Epi­cycles and Eccentricks, and such unneces­sary wheele worke, wherewith Ptolomey hath filled the Heavens. Insomuch that hereAntarist. cap. 18. Fromondus is faine to confesse, Nullo Argumento in speciem probabiliori, Vest. tract. 4. cap. 3. motum terrae annuum a Copernicanis astrui, quam illo stationis, directionis, regressionis Planetarum. There is not any more pro­bable Argument to prove the annuall motion of the Earth, than it's agree­ablenesse to the station, direction, and regression of the Planets.

Lastly, that Copernicus his Systeme of the Heavens, is very answerable to the exactest observations, may bee manifest from this following description of it.

[Page 230]

Suppose the Sunne to be scituated at A. Now because Mercury is found by experience to be alwaies very neere the Sunne, so that he do's for the most part lye hid under his Raies. As also because this Planet hath a more lively vigorous Light than any of the other; there­fore wee may inferre, that his Orbe [Page 231] is placed next unto the Sunne, as that at B.

As for Venus, 'tis observed, That She do's alwaies keep at a set distance from the Sunne, never going from him above forty degrees or thereabouts; that her Body appeares through the perspective to be forty times bigger at one time than at another; that when She seemes biggest and neerest unto us, wee then discerne her as being perfectly round. Therefore doth this Planet also move in a Circle that incompasses the Sun. Which Circle do's not containe the Earth within it; because then, Venus would sometimes be in opposition to the Sunne; whereas, 'tis generally granted, that She never yet came so far as to be in a Sextile.

Nor is this Circle below the Sun (as Ptolomey supposeth) because then this Planet, inMatutina Vespertin [...]. both it's Conjunctions, would appeare horned, which She do's not.

Nor is it above the Sunne, because then She would alwaies appeare in the Full, and never Horned.

[Page 232] From whence it will follow, that this Orbe must necessarily bee betwixt the Earth and the Sunne; as that at C.

As for Mars: 'tis observed, That hee do's appeare sixty times bigger when he is neer us, than at his greatest distance; that he is sometimes in opposition to the Sunne. From whence we may conclude, that his Orbe do's containe our Earth within it. 'Tis observed also, that he do's constantly appeare in the Full, and ne­ver Horned; from whence likewise it is manifest, that the Sunne is comprehen­ded within it's Orbe, as it is in that which is represented by the Circle, E.

And because the like appearances are observed in Iupiter and Saturne (though in lesse degrees) therefore wee may with good reason conceive them to be in the Heavens, after some such maner as they are here set downe in the Figure, by the Circles, F. G.

As for the Moone: because Shee is sometimes in opposition to the Sunne; therefore must her Orbe comprehend in it the Earth: because She appeares dark in her Conjunction, and sometimes [Page 233] eclipses the Sunne; therefore that must necessarily be without her Orbe, as it is in that Epicycle at H. In the Centre of which, the Earth must necessarily bee scituated according to all those appea­rances mentioned before. So that the Orbe of it's annuall motion, will bee re­presented by the Circle D.

All which appearances, cannot so well be reconciled by Ptolomey, Tycho, Origanus, or by any other Hypothesis, as by this of Copernicus. But the applica­tion of these to the severall Planets, to­gether with sundry other particulars, concerning the Theoricall part of Astro­nomy, you may see more fully set downe by those who have purposely handled this subject, Copernicus, Rheticus, Galilae­us; but more especially Keplar: nnto whom I doe acknowledge my selfe in­debted for sundry particulars in this discourse.

I have done with that which was the chiefe purpose of the present Treatise; namely, the removall of those common prejudices that men usually entertaine against this opinion. It remaines, that [Page 234] by way of conclusion, I endeavour to stirre up others unto these kind of Stu­dies, which by most men are so much neglected.

'Tis the most rationall way, in the prosecution of severall Objects, to pro­portion our love and endeavour after every thing, according to the excellen­cie and desireablenesse of it. But now, amongst all Earthly Contentments, there is nothing either better in it selfe, or more convenient for us, than this kind of Learning; and that, whether you con­sider it according to it's generall Nature, as a Science; or according to it's more speciall Nature, as such a Science.

1 Consider it as a Science. Certaine it is, that amongst the varietie of Ob­jects, those are more eligible which conduce unto the welfare of that which is our best part, our Soules. 'Tis not so much the pleasing of our sences, or the increasing of our Fortunes, that do's de­serve our industry, as the information of our Iudgements, the improvement of our Knowledge. Whatever the World may thinke; yet it is not a vast Estate, a [Page 235] Noble Birth, an eminent place, that can adde any thing to our true reall Worth; but it must be the degrees of that which makes us Men, that must make us better Men, the endowments of our Soule, the enlargement of our Reason. Were it not for the contemplation of Philoso­phy, the heathenPraef. ad lib. 1. Nat. Quaest. Seneca would not so much as thanke the gods for his Being. Nisi ad haec admitterer non fuit opere pre­tium nasci. Detrahe hoc inestimabile bonum, non est vita tanti, ut sudem, ut aestuem. Take but away this benefit, & he would not thinke Life worth the sweating for. So much happinesse could hee discerne in the Studies of Nature. And therfore as a Science in generall, it may very well deserve our Love and Industry.

2 Consider it as such a particular Science, Astronomy: the Word signifies the Law of the Stars; and the Hebrewes (who doe not ordinarily admit of com­position) call it in two words,Iob 38. 33. Ier. 33. 25. [...] Coelorum statuta, or the Ordinances of Hea­ven; because they are governed in their courses by a certain rule, as the Psal­mist speaks in the hundred forty eighth [Page 236] Psa. ve. 6. God ha's given them a Law which shall not be broken.

Now this of all naturall Sciences may best of all challenge our Industry; and that, whither you consider it,

• 1 Absolutely, as it is in it selfe: or,
• 2 As it stands in reference to us.

1 As it is in it selfe. The excellencie of any Science may be judged of (saith the Philosopher) first, by the excellency of the Object. Secondly, by the cer­taintie of it's demonstrations.

1. For the Object. It is no lesse than the whole World (since our Earth also is one of the Planets) more especially those vast and glorious Bodies of the Heavens. So that in this respect, it far exceeds all those barren, empty specu­lations, about Materia prima, and Vniver­sale, and such like cob webs of learning; in the study of which, so many doe mis­place their younger yeares. And for the same reason likewise is it to be preferr'd before all those other Sciences, whose subjects are not either of so wide an ex­tent, or so excellent a Nature.

2 For the demonstrations of Astronomy, [Page 237] they are as infallible as truth it self; and for this reason also do's it excel all other knowledge, which do's more depend up­on conjectures & uncertaintie. They are onely those who want skill in the Prin­ciples of this Science, that mistrust the conclusions of it. Since therefore in these respects, it is one of the most ex­cellent Sciences in Nature, it may best deserve the industry of Man, who is one of the best Works of Nature. Other creatures were made with their Heads and Eies turned downwards: would you know why man was not created so too? why it was, that he might be an Astro­nomer?

God gave to man an upright face, that he Might view the stars, & learn astronomy.

2 Consider it in reference to us, and so it is,

• 1 Most Vsefull.
• 2 Most Pleasant.

1 Most usefull, and that in sundry respects. It proves a God and a Pro­vidence, [Page 238] and incites our hearts to a grea­ter admiration and feare of his omnipo­tencie. We may understand by the Heavens, how much mightier he is that made them; for by the greatnesse and beauty of the crea­tures, proportionably the Maker of them is seene, saith the booke of Wisdome, 13. 4. 5. Itwas hence that Aristotle did fetch his chiefe Argument to prove a primus motor. 'T was the consideration of these things that first led Men to the know­ledge & worship of God (saithTuscul. 1. Item Plut. de placit. Phil. l. 1. c. 6. Tully.) Haec nos primum ad Deorum cultum, tum ad modestiam, magnitudinem (que) animi erudi­vit. And therefore when God by the Prophet would convince the people of his Deitie, he bids them lift up their eyes on high; and behold who hath created those things that bringeth out their Host by num­ber, that calleth them all by their Names, &c. Isa. 40. 26. which occasioned that say­ing of Lactantius: Instit. lib. 2. cap. 5. Tanta rerum magnitudo, tanta dispositio tanta in servandis ordinibus, temporibus (que) constantia; non potuit aut olim sine provido artifice oriri, aut constare tot sae­culis sine incolapotente, aut perpetuum guber­nari sine perit [...] & sciente rectore, quod ratio [Page 239] ipsa declarat. Such a great order and constancy amongst those vast Bodies, could not at first be made but by a wise Providence, nor since preserved without a powerfull Inhabitant, nor so perpetu­ally governed without a skilfull guide.

True indeed, an ordinary view and common apprehension of these Coele­stiall Bodies, must needs manifest the Excellencie & Omnipotencie of their Maker; but yet a more accurate and dili­gent enquiry into their Natures, will raise our Vnderstandings unto a neerer Knowledge, and greater Admiration of the Deitie. As it is in those inferiour things, where the meere outside of a Man, the comelinesse and majesty of his countenance, may bee some Argument from whence to inferre the excellencie of his Creator. But yet the subtle Ana­tomist, who searches more deeply into this wonderfull structure, may see a cleerer evidence for this in the conside­ration of the inward Fabricke, the mus­cles, nerves, membranes, together with all those secret contrivances in the Frame of this little World. Thus also [Page 240] is it in the great Vniverse, where the common apprehension of things is not at all considerable, in comparison to those other discoveries, which may bee found out by a more exact enquiry.

As this Knowledge may conduce to the proving of a God, and making Men religious; so likewise may it serve to confirme unto us the Truth of the Holy Scriptures: since the sacred Story, in the order of it's narrations, do's so exactly agree with the conversions of Heaven, and Logisticall Astronomy.

It may also stirre us up to behave our selves answerably unto the noble and di­vine nature of our Souls.Psal. 8. 3, 6. When I consider the Heaven, the Workes of thy fingers, the Moone and the Starres which thou hast or­dained, what is Man, that that thou art so mindfull of him? as to create such vast glorious Bodies for his service.

Againe, when I consider with my self the strange immensitie and bignesse of this great Vniverse, in comparison to which, this Earth of ours is but as an un­discernable point: When I consider that I carry a Soule about me, of far greater [Page 241] worth than all this, and desires that are of a wider extent and more unbounded capacity than this whole Frame of Na­ture; Then mee thinks it must needs ar­gue a degeneratenesse and poverty of Spirit, to busie my Faculties about so ignoble, narrow a subject as any of these earthly things. What a folly is it in Men to have such high conceits of themselves, for some small possessions which they have in the World above others, to keep so great a bussle about so poore a matter.Sen. Nat. Quaest. l. 1. Nonne ô terrena ani­malia con­sideratis, quibus prae­sidere vide­amini? Nam si inter mu­res videres unum ali­quem, jus sibi ac pote­statem prae caeteris vin­dicantem, quanto mo­vereris cha­chinno, &c. Boëtim de Consol. l. 2. Hoc est punctum quod inter tot gentes ferro & igni dividitur. 'Tis but a little point which with so much adoe is distributed unto so many nations by fire and sword. What great matter is it to be Monarch of a small part of a point? Might not the Ants as well di­vide a little Mole-hill into diverse Pro­vinces, and keep as great a stir in dispo­sing of their government? Punctum est illud in quo navigat is, in quo bellatis, in quo regna dìsponitis. All this place wherin we warre; and travell, and dispose of King­domes, is but a point far lesse than any of those small stars, that at this distance [Page 242] are scarse discernable. Which when the Soule do's seriously meditate upon, it will begin to despise the narrownesse of it's present habitation, and thinke of providing for it selfe a mansion in those wider spaces above, such as may bee more agreeable to the noblenesse and divinity of it's Nature.

Why should any one dreame of pro­pagating his name, or spreading his re­port through the World? when as though he had more glory than ambiti­on can hope for; yet as long as all this habitable earth is but an inconsiderable point, what great matter can there be in that fame which is included within such strait contracted limits?

[Page 243] Why should any one be taken up in the admiration of these lower outsides, these earthly glories? Respicite Coeli spa­tium, firmitudinem, celeritatem, & aliquan­do desinite vilia mirari. Idem lib. 3. Hee that rightly understands the nature of the Heavens, will scarse esteem any other thing worth his notice, much lesse his wonder.

Now when wee lay all this together, that he who hath most in the World, hath almost nothing of it; That the Earth it selfe, in comparison to the Vni­verse, is but an inconsiderable point; and yet that this whole Vniverse do's not beare so great a proportion to the Soul of man, as the earth do's unto that: I say, when a man in some retired thoughts shall lay all this together, it must needs stir up his spirits to a contempt of these earthly things, and make him place his love & endeavour upon those comforts that may be more answerable to the ex­cellency of his nature.

Without this Science, what traffick could wee have with forreine Nati­ons? What would become of that mutuall Commerce, whereby the [Page 244] World is now made but as one Com­mon-wealth?

2 As this Science is thus profita­ble in these and many other respects: so likewise is it equally pleasant. The eye (saith the Philosopher) is the sence of pleasure, and there are no delights so pure and immateriall as those which en­ter through that Organ. Now to the un­derstanding which is the eye of the soul, there cannot be any fairer prospect, than to view the whole Frame of Nature, the fabrick of this great Vniverse, to discern that order & comlinesse which there is in the magnitude, Wis. 7. 18, 19. situation, motion of the severall parts that belong unto it; to see the true cause of that constant variety and alteration which there is in the dif­ferent seasons of the yeare. All which must needs enter into a mans thoughts, with a great deale of sweetnes and com­placency. [Page 245] And therfore it was that Iulius Caesar in the broiles and tumult of the camp, made choise of this delight:

And for this reason likewise did Sene­ca amidst the continuall noise & bussle of the Court, betake himselfe to this re­creation:

And certainly those eminent men who have this way bestowed a great part of their imployment, such as were Ptolomey, Iulius Caesar, Alphonsus King of Spain, the noble Tycho, &c. have not on­ly [Page 246] by this means pitched upon that which for the present was a more solid kind of pleasure and contentment; but also a surer way to propagate their me­mories unto future ages. Those great costly Pyramides which were built to perpetuate the memory of their foun­ders, shall sooner perish and moulder away into their primitive dust, than the names of such Worthies shall bee for­gotten. The monuments of learning are more durable than the Monuments of Wealth or Power.

All which encouragements may bee abundantly enough to stir up any con­sidering man, to bestow some part of his time in the study and inquisition of these Truths.