[Transcriber’s Note:

 Spelling and punctuation are as in the original, including the consistently “modern” use of V and U. Italic capital V has two forms, used interchangeably. Since italic capital U does not occur, the rounded V-form has been transcribed as U. 

 Latin quotations were given in italics; the translation was usually printed with marginal quotation marks. In this e-text, Latin passages are shown as block quotes (indented) _without_ quotation marks, while passages with marginal quotes are shown as block quotes _with_ quotation marks. 

 The six Sidenotes shown with an asterisk alongside their number were printed with an asterisk in the original text; all other notes were unmarked. 

 References from the Sidenotes are identified at the end of the text, followed by a complete list of errata. ]

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 [Illustration: Sun with six orbits, each with symbol: Mercurius, Venus, Ceres et Proserpina, Mars, Jupiter, Saturnus Sun utters: Ame omnes “Ceres and Proserpina” orbit continuing below sun shows earth with orbiting moon. Text on earth orbit: Sua fovent; Vniuersũ ornant. Text on moon’s orbit: Mutuo se illuminant]

 THE DISCOVERY OF A WORLD IN THE MOONE. 

 or, A DISCOVRSE Tending TO PROVE

 that ’tis probable there may be another habitable World in that Planet. 

 _Quid tibi inquis ista proderunt? Si nihil aliud, hoc certè, sciam omnia angusta esse. _ SENECA. Præf. Ad 1. Lib. _N. Q. _

 [Decoration]

 _LONDON_, Printed by _E. G. _ for _Michael Sparl_ and _Edward Forrest_, 1638. 

 [Decoration]

 _Perlegi hæc παράδοξα & novitatis graciâ typis mandari permitto. _

 Mart. 29. 1638. THO. WEEKES _R. P. _ _Episc. Lond. Cap. _ _Domest. _

 [Decoration]

To the Reader. 

_If amongst thy leisure houres thou canst spare any for the perusall ofthis discourse, and dost looke to finde somewhat in it which may servefor thy information and benefit: let me then advise thee to come untoit with an equall minde, not swayed by prejudice, but indifferentlyresolved to assent unto that truth which upon deliberation shall seememost probable unto thy reason, and then I doubt not, but either thouwilt agree with mee in this assertion, or at least not thinke it to beas farre from truth, as it is from common opinion. _

_Two cautions there are which I would willingly admonish thee of in thebeginning. _

1. _That thou shouldst not here looke to find any exact, accurate Treatise, since this discourse was but the fruit of some lighter studies, and those too hudled up in a short time, being first thought of and finished in the space of some few weekes, and therefore you cannot in reason expect, that it should be so polished, as perhaps, the subject would require, or the leisure of the Author might have done it. _

2. _To remember that I promise onely probable arguments for the proofe of this opinion, and therefore you must not looke that every consequence should be of an undeniable dependance, or that the truth of each argument should be measured by its necessity. I grant that some Astronomicall appearances may possibly be solved otherwise then here they are. But the thing I aime at is this, that probably they may so be solved, as I have here set them downe: Which, if it be granted (as I thinke it must) then I doubt not, but the indifferent reader will find some satisfaction in the maine thing that is to be proved. _

_Many ancient Philosophers of the better note, have formerly defendedthis assertion, which I have here laid downe, and it were to be wished, that some of us would more apply our endeavours unto the examination ofthese old opinions, which though they have for a long time lienneglected by others, yet in them may you finde many truths well worthyyour paines and observation. Tis a false conceit, for us to thinke, thatamongst the ancient variety and search of opinions, the best hath stillprevailed. Time (saith the learned _Verulam_) seemes to be of the natureof a river or streame, which carrieth downe to us that which is light, or blowne up, but sinketh that which is weighty and solid. _

_It is my desire that by the occasion of this discourse, I may raise upsome more active spirit to a search after other hidden and unknownetruthes. Since it must needes be a great impediment unto the growth ofsciences, for men still so to plod on upon beaten principles, as to beafraid of entertaining any thing that may seeme to contradict them. Anunwillingnesse to take such things into examination, is one of thoseerrours of learning in these times observed by the judicious _Verulam_. Questionlesse there are many secret truths, which the ancients havepassed over, that are yet left to make some of our age famous for theirdiscovery. _

_If by this occasion I may provoke any reader to an attempt of thisnature, I shall then thinke my selfe happy, and this work successefull. _

Farewell. 

 [Decoration]

The First Proposition, by way of Preface. 

_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common consent. _

There is an earnestnesse and hungering after novelty, which doth stilladhere unto all our natures, and it is part of that primative image, that wide extent and infinite capacity at first created in the heart ofman, for this since its depravation in _Adam_ perceiving it selfealtogether emptied of any good doth now catch after every new thing, conceiving that possibly it may finde satisfaction among some of itsfellow creatures. But our enemy the divell (who strives still to pervertour gifts, and beate us with our owne weapons) hath so contriv’d it, that any truth doth now seeme distastefull for that very reason, forwhich errour is entertain’d--Novelty, for let but some upstart heresiebe set abroach, and presently there are some out of a curious humour;others, as if they watched an occasion of singularity, will take it upfor canonicall, and make it part of their creede and profession; whereassolitary truth cannot any where finde so ready entertainement; but thesame Novelty which is esteemed the commendation of errour and makes thatacceptable, is counted the fault of truth, and causes that to beerejected. How did the incredulous World gaze at _Columbus_ when heepromised to discover another part of the earth, and he could not for along time by his confidence, or arguments, induce any of the ChristianPrinces, either to assent unto his opinion, or goe to the charges of anexperiment. Now if he who had such good grounds for his assertion, couldfinde no better entertainement among the wiser sort, and upper end ofthe World; ’tis not likely then that this opinion which I now deliver, shall receive any thing from the men of these daies, especially ourvulgar wits, but misbeliefe or derision. It hath alwaies beene theunhappinesse of new truths in Philosophy, to be derided by those thatare ignorant of the causes of things, and reiected by others whoseperversenesse ties them to the contrary opinion, men whose envious pridewill not allow any new thing for truth which they themselves were notthe first inventors of. So that I may iustly expect to be accused of apragmaticall ignorance, and bold ostentation, especially since for thisopinion _Xenophanes_, a man whose authority was able to adde some creditto his assertion could not escape the like censure from others. For_Natales Comes_ speaking of that Philosopher, [1] and this his opinion, saith thus, _Nonnulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua nova monstra in Philosophiã introducunt, ut alicujus rei inventores fuisse appareant. _

 “Some there are who least they might seeme to know nothing, will bring up monstrous absurdities in Philosophy, that so afterward they may bee famed for the invention of somewhat. ”

The same author doth also in another place accuse _Anaxagoras_[2] offolly for the same opinion, _Est enim non ignobilis gradus stultitiæ, 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 orother, when a man knows not what to say. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _Mytholog. Lib. 3. C. 17. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Lib. 7. C. 1. _]

If these men were thus censur’d, I may iustly then expect to be deridedby most, and to be believed by few or none; especially since thisopinion seemes to carry in it so much strangenesse, so muchcontradiction to the generall consent of others. But how ever, I amresolved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that itis not the common opinion of others that can either adde or detract fromthe 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 theReader to consider things without a prejudice, when hee shall see thatthe common opposition against this which I affirme cannot any wayderogate from its truth. 

1. Other truths have beene formerly accounted as ridiculous as this, Ishall specifie that of the Antipodes, which have beene denied and laughtat by many wise men and great Schollers, such as were _Herodotus_, St. _Austin_, _Lactantius_, the _Venerable Bede_, _Lucretius_ the Poet, _Procopius_, and the voluminous _Abulensis_ with others. _Herodotus_counted it so horrible an absurdity, that hee could not forbearelaughing to thinke of it. Γελῶ δὲ ὁρῶν γῆς περιόδος γράψαντας, πολλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐδένα νόον ἔχοντας ἐξηγησάμενον ὃι Ὠκεανόν τεῥεόντα γράφουσι, πέριξ τήν τε γὴν ἐοῦσαν κυκλοτερέα ὡς ἀπὸ τόρνου. 

 [Greek: Gelô de horôn gês periodous grapsantas, pollous êdê kai oudena noon echontas exêgêsamenon hoi Ôkeanon te rheonta graphousi, perix tên te gên eousan kukloterea hôs apo tornou. ]

 “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 inthose learneder men of later times, when all sciences began to flourishin the World. Such was Saint _Austin_ who censures that relation of theAntipodes to be an incredible fable, [1] and with him agrees the eloquent_Lactantius_, [2]

 _quid illi qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris Antipodes putant? num aliquid loquuntur? aut est quispiam tam ineptus, qui credat esse homines, quorum vestigia sunt superiora quàm capita? aut ibi quæ apud nos jacent inversa pendere? fruges & arbores deorsum versus crescere, pluvias & nives, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in terram? & miratur aliquis hortor pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum Philosophi, & agros & maria, & urbes & montes pensiles faciunt? &c. _

 “What (saith he) are they that thinke there are Antipodes, such as walke with their feet against ours? doe they speake any likelyhood? or is there any one so foolish as to believe that there are men whose heeles are higher than their heads? that things which with us doe lie on the ground doe hang there? that the Plants and Trees grow downewards, that the haile, and raine, and snow fall upwards to the earth? and doe wee admire the hanging Orchards amongst the seven wonders, whereas here the Philosophers have made the Field and Seas, the Cities and Mountaines hanging. ”

What shall wee thinke (saith hee in _Plutarch_) that men doe clyng tothat place like wormes, or hang by their clawes as Cats, or if weesuppose a man a little beyond the Center, to bee digging with a spade?is it likely (as it must bee according to this opinion) that the earthwhich hee loosened, should of it selfe ascend upwards? or else supposetwo men with their middles about the center, the feete of the one beingplaced 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 standupright, and many other such grosse consequences would follow (saithhee) which a false imagination is not able to fancy as possible. Uponwhich considerations, _Bede_[3] also denies the being of any Antipodes, _Neque enim Antipodarum ullatenus est Fabulis accommodandus assensus_, “Nor should wee any longer assent to the Fable of Antipodes. ” So also_Lucretius_ the Poet speaking of the same subject, sayes:

 _Sed vanus stolidis hæc omnia finxerit error. _[4]

 [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. Lib. 16. Cap. 9. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Institut. L. 3. C. 24. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _De ratione temporum, Cap. 32. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _De nat. Rerum, lib. 1. _]

That some idle fancy faigned these for fooles to believe. Of thisopinion was _Procopius Gazæus_, [1] but he was perswaded to it by anotherkinde of reason; for he thought that all the earth under us was sunke inthe water, according to the saying of the Psalmist, [2] Hee hath foundedthe Earth upon the Seas, and therefore hee accounted it not inhabited byany. Nay _Tostatus_ a man of later yeeres and generall learning dothalso confidently deny that there are any such Antipodes, though thereason which hee urges for it bee not so absurde as the former, for theApostles, saith hee, [3] travelled through the whole habitable world, butthey never passed the Equinoctiall; and if you answer that they are saidto goe through all the earth, because they went through all the knowneworld, hee replies, that this is not sufficient, since Christ would haveall men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth, [4] andtherefore ’tis requisite that they should have travelled thither also, if there had been any inhabitants, especially since he did expresselycommand them to goe and teach all nations, and preach the Gospellthrough the whole world, [5] and therefore he thinkes that as there areno men, so neither are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniencyfor habitation: ’tis commonly related of one _Virgilius_, that he wasexcommunicated and condemned for a Heretique by _Zachary_ Bishop of_Rome_, because hee was not of the same opinion. But _Baronius_saies, [6] it was because hee thought there was another habitable worldwithin ours. How ever, you may well enough discerne in these exampleshow confident many of these great Schollars were in so grosse an errour, how unlikely, what an incredible thing it seemed to them, that thereshould be any Antipodes, and yet now this truth is as certaine andplaine, as sense or demonstration can make it. This then which I nowdeliver is not to be rejected; though it may seeme to contradict thecommon opinion. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Comment. In 1. Cap. Gen. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Psal. 24. 2. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Comment. In_ 1. Genes. ]

 [Sidenote 4: 1 Tim. 2. 4. ]

 [Sidenote 5: Mat. 28. 19]

 [Sidenote 6: _Annal. Eccles. A. D. 748. _]

2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall consent. Imight instance in many remarkeable examples, but I will onely speake ofthe supposed labour of the Moone in her eclipses, because this isneerest to the chiefe matter in hand, and was received as a commonopinion amongst many of the ancients, and therefore _Plutarch_ speakingof a Lunary eclipse, relates, that at such times ’twas a custome amongstthe _Romanes_ (the most civill and learned people in the world) to soundbrasse Instruments, and hold great torches toward the heaven. Τῶν δὲΡωμαίων (ὥσπερ ἐστω ἐνομισμένον) χαλκοῦ τε πατάγοις ἀνακαλουμένωντὸ φῶς αὐτὸς καὶ πυρὰ πολλὰ δαλοῖς καὶ δασσὶν ἀνεχόντων πρὸς τὸνοὐρανὸν, [1] for by this meanes they supposed the Moone was much easedin her labours, and therfore _Ovid_ calls such loud Instruments theauxiliaries or helpes of the Moone. [2]

 _Cum frustra resonant æra auxiliaria Lunæ. _

and therefore the Satyrist too describing a loud scold, saies, she wasable to make noise enough to deliver the labouring Moone. [3]

 _Vna laboranti poterit succurrere Lunæ. _

 [Sidenote 1: _In vita Paul. Æmil. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Metam. L. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Iuven. Sat. 6_]

Now the reason of all this their ceremonie, was, because they feared theworld would fall asleepe, when one of its eyes began to winke, andtherefore they would doe what they could by loud sounds to rouse it fromits drowsinesse, and keepe it awake by bright torches, to bestow thatlight upon it which it began to lose. Some of them thought hereby tokeepe the Moone in her orbe, whereas otherwise she would have fallendowne upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights, for the credulous people believed, that Inchanters, and Witches couldbring the Moone downe, which made _Virgil_ say, _Cantus & è cœlo possunt deducere Lunam. _

And those Wizards knowing the times of her eclipses, would then threatento shew their skill, by pulling her out of her orbe. So that when thesilly multitude saw that she began to looke red, they presently fearedthey should lose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a greatnoise that she might not heare the sound of those Charmes, which wouldotherwise bring her downe, and this is rendered for a reason of thiscustome by _Pliny_ and _Propertius_:

 _Cantus & è curru lunam deducere tentant, Et facerent, si non æra repulsa sonent. _[1]

 [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Hist. Lib. 2. C. 12. _]

_Plutarch_ gives another reason of it, and he sayes, ’tis because theywould hasten the Moone out of the darke shade wherein shee was involv’d, that so she might bring away the soules of those Saints that inhabitwithin her, which cry out by reason they are then deprived of theirwonted happinesse, and cannot heare the musicke of the Spheares, but areforced to behold the torments, and wailing of those damned soules whichare represented to them as they are tortured in the region of the aire, but whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition, yet certainly ’twas a very ridiculous custome, and bewrayed a greatignorance of those ancient times, especially since it was not onelyreceived by the vulgar, such as were men of lesse note and learning, butbelieved also, by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were thosegreat Poets, _Stesichorus_ and _Pindar_. And not onely amongst the moresottish heathens, who might account that Planet to be one of their Gods, but the primitive Christians also were in this kinde guilty; which madeS. _Ambrose_ so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said, _Tum turbatur carminibus Globus Lunæ, quando calicibus turbantur & oculi_. 

“When your heads are troubled with cups, then you thinke the Moone to betroubled with charmes. ”

And for this reason also did _Maximus_ a Bishop, [1] write a Homilyagainst it, wherein hee shewed the absurditie of that foolishsuperstition. I remember, that _Ludovicus Uives_ relates a moreridiculous story of a people that imprisoned an Asse for drinking up theMoone, whose image appearing in the water was covered with a cloud, asthe Asse was drinking, for which the poore beast was afterward broughtto the barre to receive a sentence according to his deserts, where thegrave Senate being set to examine the matter, one of the Counsell(perhaps wiser than the rest) rises up, and out of his deepe judgement, thinkes it not fit that their Towne should lose its Moone, but thatrather the Asse should be cut up, and that taken out of him, whichsentence being approved by the rest of those Politicians, as thesubtillest way for the conclusion of the matter was accordinglyperformed. But whether this tale were true or no I will not question, however there is absurdity enough in that former custome of theancients, that may confirme the truth to be proved, and plainly declarethe insufficiency of common opinion to adde true worth or estimationunto any thing. So that from that which I have said may be gathered thusmuch. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Turinens. Episc. _]

1. That a new truth may seeme absurd and impossible not onely to the vulgar, but to those also who are otherwise wise men, and excellent schollers; and hence it will follow, that every new thing which seemes to oppose common Principles is not presently to 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 discovery. 

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 bee lesse trodden and more obscure. 

True indeed, the strangeness of this opinion will detract much from itscredit; but yet we should know that nothing is in its selfe strange, since every naturall effect has an equall dependance upon its cause, andwith the like necessity doth follow from it, so that ’tis our ignorancewhich makes things appeare so, and hence it comes to passe that manymore evident truths seeme incredible to such who know not the causes ofthings: you may as soone perswade some Country peasants that the Mooneis made of greene Cheese (as wee say) as that ’tis bigger than hisCart-wheele, since both seeme equally to contradict his sight, and heehas not reason enough to leade him farther than his senses. Nay, suppose(saith _Plutarch_) a Philosopher should be educated in such a secretplace, where hee might not see either Sea or River, and afterwardsshould be brought out where one might shew him the great Ocean tellinghim the quality of that water, that it is blackish, salt, and notpotable, and yet there were many vast creatures of all formes living init, which make use of the water as wee doe of the aire, questionlesse hewould laugh at all this, as being monstrous lies & fables, without anycolour of truth. Just so will this truth which I now deliver appeareunto others; because we never dreamt of any such matter as a world inthe Moone, because the state of that place hath as yet been vailed fromour knowledge, therefore wee can scarcely assent to any such matter. Things are very hardly received which are altogether strange to ourthoughts and our senses. The soule may with lesse difficulty be broughtto believe any absurdity, when as it has formerly beene acquainted withsome colours and probabilities for it, but when a new, and an unheard oftruth shall come before it, though it have good grounds and reasons, yetthe understanding is afraid of it as a stranger, and dares not admit itinto its beliefe without a great deale of reluctancy and tryall. Andbesides things that are not manifested to the senses, are not assentedunto without some labour of mind, some travaile and discourse of theunderstanding, and many lazie soules had rather quietly reposethemselves in an easie errour, then take paines to search out the truth. The strangenesse then of this opinion which I now deliver will be agreat hinderance to its beliefe, but this is not to be respected byreason it cannot bee helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface, because that prejudice which the meere title of the booke may begetcannot easily be removed without a great deale of preparation, and Icould not tell otherwise how to rectifie the thoughts of the Reader foran impartiall survey of the following discourse. 

I must needs confesse, though I had often thought with my selfe that itwas possible there might be a world in the Moone, yet it seemed such anuncouth opinion that I never durst discover it, for feare of beingcounted singular and ridiculous, but afterward having read _Plutarch_, _Galilæus_, _Keplar_, with some others, and finding many of mine ownethoughts confirmed by such strong authority, I then concluded that itwas not onely possible there might bee, but probable that there wasanother habitable world in that Planet. In the prosecuting of thisassertion, I shall first endeavour to cleare the way from such doubts asmay hinder the speed or ease of farther progresse; and because thesuppositions imply’d in this opinion may seeme to contradict theprinciples of reason or faith, it will be requisite that I first removethis scruple, shewing the conformity of them to both these, and provingthose truths that may make way for the rest, which I shall labour toperforme in the second, third, fourth, and fifth Chapters, and thenproceede to confirme such Propositions, which doe more directly belongto the maine point in hand. 

Proposition 2. 

_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason or faith. _

Tis reported of _Aristotle_ that when hee saw the bookes of _Moses_ hecommended them for such a majesticke stile as might become a God, butwithall hee censured that manner of writing to be very unfitting for aPhilosopher because there was nothing proved in them, but matters weredelivered as if they would rather command than perswade beliefe. And’tis observed that hee sets downe nothing himselfe, but he confirmes itby the strongest reasons that may be found, there being scarce anargument of force for any subject in Philosophy which may not bee pickedout of his writings, and therefore ’tis likely if there were in reason anecessity of one onely world, that hee would have found out some suchnecessary proofe as might confirme it: Especially since hee labours forit so much in two whole Chapters. But now all the arguments which hehimselfe urges in this subject, [1] are very weake and farre enough fromhaving in them any convincing power. Therefore ’tis likely that aplurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason. However, I will set downe the two chiefe of his arguments from his owneworkes, and from them you may guesse the force of the other. The 1. Isthis, [2] since every heavy body doth naturally tend downwards, and everylight body upwards, what a hudling and confusion must there bee if therewere two places for gravity and two places for lightnesse: for it isprobable that the Earth of that other World would fall downe to thisCenter, and so mutually the aire and fire here ascend to those Regionsin the other, which must needes much derogate from the providence ofnature, and cause a great disorder in his workes. To this I answere, that if you will consider the nature of gravity, you will plainely seethere is no ground to feare any such confusion, for heavinesse isnothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in ’its subjectto tend downewards towards its owne Centre, so that for some of thatearth to come hither would not bee said a fall but an ascension, sinceit moved from its owne place, and this would bee impossible (saith_Ruvio_) because against nature, [3] and therefore no more to bee fearedthan the falling of the Heavens. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De Cœlo_ l. 1. C. 8. 9. ]

 [Sidenote 2: _Ibid. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _De Cœlo_ l. 1. C. 9. Q. 1. ]

Another Argument hee had from his master _Plato_, [1] that there is butone World, because there is but one first mover, God. [2]

 [Sidenote 1: _Metaphys. _ l. 12. C. 8. ]

 [Sidenote 2: _Diog. Laert. Lib. _ 3. ]

But here I may deny the consequence, since a plurality of worlds dothnot take away the unity of the first mover. 

 _Vt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam materiam_

(saith a Countreyman of ours. )[1] As the substantiall forme, so theefficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particularmatter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Argumentsmore fully answered by _Plutarch_ in his Booke (why Oracles are silent)and _Iacob Carpentarius_ in his comment on _Alcinous_. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Nic. Hill. De Philosop. Epic. Partic. 379. _]

But our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often doe_jurare in verba magistri_) will grant that there is not any strength inthese consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could notconvince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont tobee swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I shouldrather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assentto this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it wasbecause hee feared to displease his scholler _Alexander_, of whom ’tisrelated[1] that he wept to heare a disputation of another world, sincehe had not then attained the Monarchy of this, his restlesse wide heartwould have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if therehad beene another, which made the Satyrist say of him, _Æstuat infœlix angusto limite mundi. _[2]

 “That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend up in a narrow roome, when hee was confin’d but to one world. ”

Before he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee haddone his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhapssuperiour Kings. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. De tranq. Anim. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Iuvenal. _]

It may be, that _Aristotle_ was moved to this opinion, that hee mightthereby take from _Alexander_ the occasion of this feare and discontent, or else, perhaps, _Aristotle_ himselfe was as loth to hold thepossibility of a world which he could not discover, as _Alexander_ wasto heare of one which he could not conquer. Tis likely that some suchby-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments he urges forit are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be verysleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now toprove, 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 dangerousto admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of_Aristotle_, which all the world hath so long followed?

This question is much controverted by the _Romish_ Divines; _Campanella_hath writ a Treatise[1] in defence of it, in whom you may see manythings worth the reading and notice. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo. _]

To it I answer, that this position in Philosophy, doth not bring anyinconvenience to the rest, since tis not _Aristotle_, but truth thatshould be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both foundtogether, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Master _Plato_, ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν

 [Greek: amphoin gar ontoin philoin, hosion protiman tên alêtheian]. [1]

 “Though _Plato_ were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to truth than him. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _Ethic. L. 1. C. 6. _]

I must needs grant, that wee are all much beholden to the industry ofthe ancient Philosophers, and more especially to _Aristotle_, for thegreater part of our learning, but yet tis not ingratitude to speakeagainst him, when hee opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers wouldbe very guilty, especially _Iustin_, who hath writ a Treatise purposelyagainst him. 

But suppose this opinion were false, yet ’tis not against the faith, andso it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; thesparkes of errour, being forc’d out by opposition, as the sparkes offire, by the striking of the flint and steele. But suppose too that itwere hereticall, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with thesame priviledge as _Aristotle_, from whom many more dangerous opinionshave proceeded: as that the world is eternall, that God cannot havewhile to looke after these inferiour things, that after death there isno reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies, which strikedirectly at the fundamentalls of our Religion. 

So that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superstitiousin these daies, as to sticke closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as ifhis Philosophy were the onely foundation of all divine truths. 

Upon these grounds both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_ _de firmo_ (as Ihave seene them quoted) thinke that _Aristotle_ was the viol of Godswrath, which was powred out upon the waters of Wisedome by the thirdAngel;[1] But for my part, I thinke the world is much beholden to_Aristotle_ for all its sciences. But yet twere a shame for these laterages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, asif they had informed us of all things to be knowne, and when wee are setupon their shoulders, not to see further then they themselves did. ’Twere a superstitious, a lazie opinion to thinke _Aristotles_ workesthe bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there couldbe no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things leftto discovery, and it cannot be any inconvenience for us, to maintaine anew truth, or rectifie an ancient errour. 

 [Sidenote 1: Rev. 16. 4. ]

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

1. _Moses_ tells us but of one world, and his History of the creationhad beene very imperfect if God had made another. 

2. Saint _John_ speaking of Gods workes, saies he made the world, in thesingular number, and therefore there is but one:[1] ’tis the argument of_Aquinas_, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with_Democritus_ esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence tobe the framer of all things. 

 [Sidenote 1: Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3. ]

3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient time beene accounted aheresie, and _Baronius_ affirmes that for this very reason, _Virgilius_was cast out of his Bishopricke, and excommunicated from the Church. [1]

 [Sidenote 1: _Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748. _]

4. A fourth argument there is urged by _Aquinas_, if there be moreworlds than one, then they must either be of the same, or of a diversenature, but they are not of the same kinde, [1] for this were needlesse, and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfectionthan the other; not of divers kinds, for then one of them could not becalled the world or universe, since it did not containe universallperfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood uponby _Iulius Cæsar la Galla_, [2] one that has purposely writ a Treatiseagainst 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 Idare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see thisAuthor in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of oneworld, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlessepaines to dispute against _Democritus_, who thought that the world wasmade by the casuall concourse of _atoms_ in a great _vacuum_. It shouldseeme, that either his cause, or his skill was weake, or else he wouldhave ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I haveset 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 truththat I have delivered. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Ibid. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _De Phænom. In orbe lunæ. _]

Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority ofScripture is not prevalent in those things which are not thefundamentalls of Religion. 

But you’le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet ’tisprobable if there had beene another world, wee should have had somenotice of it in Scripture. 

I answer, ’tis as probable that the Scripture should have informed us ofthe Planets they being very remarkable parts of the Creation, and yetneither _Moses_ nor _Job_, nor the _Psalmes_ (the places most frequentin Astronomicall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne andMoone, and moreover, you must know, that ’tis besides the scope of theHoly Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale anything unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; ’tis not his intentin the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any waybelong either to the Historicall exegeticall or propheticall parts ofit: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed byour Countrey-man Master WRIGHT. [1]

 _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, but rather to accõmodate themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are wont to use their infants. ”

True indeede, _Moses_ is there to handle the history of the Creation, but ’tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters aswere very hard to be apprehended, for being to informe the common peopleas well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonlynoted, declaring the originall chiefely of those things which wereobvious to the sense, and being silent of other things, which then couldnot well be apprehended. And therefore _Aquinas_ observes, [2] that_Moses_ writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible, thepeople knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for thisvery reason Saint _Austin_ also thinkes that there is nothing exprestconcerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are asremarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as anotherworld. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressionswhich set things forth rather as they appeare, then as they are, [3] aswhen he calls the Moone one of the greater lights המארת הגדלים whereas’tis the least, but one that wee can see in the whole heavens. Soafterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world, [4] hesaies, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to comewith that violence, as if it were, poured out from windows in theFirmament. [5] So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerningthese things are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather asvulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint _Austin_, wherespeaking concerning that in the Psalme, _who stretched the earth uponthe waters_, [6] hee notes, that when the words of Scripture shallseeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to beunderstood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And’tis observed that for want of this rule, some of the ancients havefastened strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint_Ambrose_ esteemed it a heresie, to thinke, that the Sunne and starreswere not very hot, as being against the words of Scripture, [7] _Psalm. _19. 6. Where the _Psalmist_ sayes that there is nothing that is hid fromthe heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavensnot to be round, out of that place, _Psal. _ 104. 2. _Hee stretcheth outthe heavens like a curtaine. _[8] So _Procopius_ also was of opinion, that the earth was founded upon the waters, nay, he made it part of hisfaith, proving it out of _Psal. _ 24. 2. _Hee hath founded the earth uponthe seas, and established it upon the flouds. _ These and such likeabsurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophiein the words of Scripture. So that from what hath beene said, I mayconclude that the silence of Scripture concerning any other world is notsufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two firstarguments. 

 [Sidenote 1: _In Epist. Ad Gilbert. _]

 [Sidenote 2: Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3. ]

 [Sidenote 3: Gen. 1. 16]

 [Sidenote 4: Gen. 11. ]

 [Sidenote 5: Sr. _W. Rawly_ c. 7. §. 6. ]

 [Sidenote 6: l. 2. In Gen. / Psal. 136. 6. ]

 [Sidenote 7: Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. / Ecclus. 43. 3. 4. ]

 [Sidenote 8: _Com. In c. 1. Gen. _]

Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted byothers, to shew the ignorance of those primative times, who didsometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur’dthe lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for hereticall, becausethey themselves could not perceive a reason of it, and therefore theirpractise in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us. 

But lastly I answer to all the above named objections, that the termeWorld, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the wholeUniverse, as it implies in it the elementary and æthereall bodies, thestarres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiourWorld consisting of elements. Now the maine drift of all thesearguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, andif there were any such, it might, perhaps, seeme strange, that _Moses_, or St. _John_ should either not know, or not mention its creation. And_Virgilius_ was condemned for this opinion, because he held, _quòd sitalius mundus sub terrâ, aliusque Sol & Luna_, (as _Baronius_) thatwithin our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne andMoone, and so he might seeme to exclude this from the number of theother creatures. 

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

So that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, whichis all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the secondsense, and so I affirme there may be more nor doe any of the above namedobjections prove the cõtrary. 

Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdome (as _Aquinas_thinkes) but rather advance it, shewing a _compendium_ of providence, that could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world forhabitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of thewhole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onelyfor the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency ofthe whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe, [1]so is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve, as wellfor the conservation of that which is within it, as the helpe of otherswithout it. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Cusanus de doct. Ignor. L. 2. C. 12. _]

I have now in some measure, shewed that a plurality of worlds does notcontradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so clearedthe first part of that supposition which is applied in the opinion. 

It may next be enquired; whether ’tis possible there may be a globe ofelements in that which we call the æthereall parts of the Universe; forif this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged fromany change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine anyelement there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke outsome other place for its situation. The third Proposition thereforeshall be this. 

Proposition 3. 

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

It hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers andPhilosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavensare framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foureelements, as _Aristotle_[1] holds, and with him some of the lateSchoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute tothose vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore theythemselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinarynature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent, were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confestby their owne[2]* side. It were much to be desired, thst these men hadnot in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things withoutnecessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in thesecrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines tofinde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments, since ’tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessaryconsequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of thebookes _de Cœlo. _

 [Sidenote 1: _De Cœlo. , l. 1. Cap. 2. _]

 [Sidenote 2*: _Colleg. Cannimb. De Cœlo. L. 1. C. 2. Q. 6. Art. 3. _]

But is it the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of_Lombard_, that the heavens consist of the same matter with thesesublunary bodies. St. _Ambrose_ is confident of it, that hee esteemesthe contrary a heresie. [1] True indeed, they differ much amongthemselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, butherein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element orother. For a better confirmation of this, you may see _LudovicusMolina_, _Euseb. Nirembergius_, with divers others. [2] The venerable_Bede_ thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements, and’tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance, [3] as willbe shewed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the argumentsfor either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile_Aristotle_, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proofof their corruptibility. 

 [Sidenote 1: _In Hexam. Lib. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _In opere 6. Dierum. Disput. 5. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _In lib. De Mundi constit. _]

The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of acorruptible nature, [1]not whether they can be destroyed by God, forthis Scripture puts out of doubt. 

 [Sidenote 1: 2 Pet. 3. 12. ]

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. [1] Butwhether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as thisinferiour world is liable unto. 

 [Sidenote 1: By Doctor _Hackwell_ _Apol. _]

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

Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stoodin need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continuallyfed, and so had divers alterations by reason of their food, this isfathered on _Heraclitus_, [1] followed by that great Naturalist_Pliny_, [2] and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see_Seneca_ expressely to this purpose in these words, _Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis dividuntur, hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sydera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu. _[3]

Speaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment isdivided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hencewere sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both dayand night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also _Lucan_ sings, _Necnon Oceano pasci Phœbumque polumque credimus. _

 [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. De plac. Philos. L. 2. C. 17. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Nat. Hist. L. 2. C. 9. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Quæst. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. _]

Unto these _Ptolome_[1] also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree, whenhe affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than anyof the other Planets, by reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaledunto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so farre fromthis imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies theystood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they couldnot subsist. 

 [Sidenote 1: _I{o} Apost. _]

But _Aristotle_ and his followers were so farre from this, [1] that theythought those glorious bodies could not containe within them any suchprinciples, as might make them lyable to the least change or corruption, and their chiefe reason was, because we could not in so long a spacediscerne any alteration amongst them; but unto this I answer. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De cœlo. L. 1. Cap. 3. _]

1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow[1] that therewere none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; forspeaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, hee sayes ’tis veryimperfect and difficult, by reason of the vaste distance of those bodiesfrom us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are noteither bigge enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehensionand observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe beedeceived in his assertions concerning these particulars. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De Cœlo. L. 2. Cap. 3. _]

2. Though we could not by our senses see such alterations, yet ourreason might perhaps sufficiently convince us of them. Nor can we wellconceive how the Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet notproduce some alteration of heate. _Diogenes_ the Philosopher was henceperswaded that those scorching heates had burnt the Moone into the formeof a Pumice-stone. 

3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there;witnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. So thatthough _Aristotles_ consequence were sufficient, when hee proved thatthe heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changesbeing observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent, that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so manyalterations observed there; but of these together with a fartherconfirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speakeafterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that workeof _Scheiner_ a late Jesuit which hee titles his _Rosa Vrsina_, [1] wherehee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavenslargely handled and sufficiently confirmed. 

 [Sidenote 1: _lib. 4. P. 2. Cy. 24, 35. _]

There are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion toenlarge my selfe, but because they are directly handled by many others, and doe not immediately belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shalltherefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofeof them my selfe, as defining all possible brevity. 

1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbes. If there be ahabitable World in the Moone (which I now affirme) it must follow, thather Orbe is not solid, as _Aristotle_ supposed; and if not her, why anyof the other? I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhapsaereous) substance. Saint _Ambrose_, and Saint _Basil_[1] did endeavourto prove this out of that place in _Isay_, [2] where they are compared tosmoake, as they are both quoted by _Rhodiginus_, _Eusebius_, _Nierembergius_[3] doth likewise from that place confute the solidityand incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the sameinterpretation the authority of _Eustachius_ of _Antioch_; and Saint_Austin_, [4] I am sure seemes to assent unto this opinion, though hedoes often in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of otherFathers to this purpose you may see in _Sixtus Senensis. L. 5. Biblioth. Annot. 14. _ but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre youto the above named _Scheiner_ in his _Rosa Ursina_, [5] in whom you maysee both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly setdowne for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which heeadjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of _Fredericus Cæsius Lynceus_a Noble Prince written to _Bellarmine_, containing divers reasons to thesame purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by _JohannesPena_ in his preface to _Euclids Opticks_, and _Christoph. Rothmannus_, both who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble_Tycho_[6] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds, _Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit hæc opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quæ cœlum 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 Orbes. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _Isa. 51. 6. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Ant. Lect. L. 1. C. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Hist. Nat. L. 2. C. 11. 13. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _In lib. Sup. Gen. Ad lit. _]

 [Sidenote 5: _lib. 4. P. 11, 2. C. 7. 26, 30. _]

 [Sidenote 6: _De stella. 15. 72. L. 6. C. 9. _]

2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinionhere delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it willfollow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where ’tis usuallyplaced in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thingat all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs, that by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see_Cardan_, _Iohannes Pena_ that learned _Frenchman_, the noble _Tycho_, with divers others who have purposely handled this proposition. 

3. I might adde a third, _viz. _ that there is no Musicke of thespheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any suchsound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because_Plutarch_ speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare thatharmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that heesaid this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessaryconsequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world wouldhave no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at sometimes we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede _Philo_ the Jew[1]thinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at aneasie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no othernourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was _Moses_ enabled totarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating anything, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens, --_Risumteneatis_. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred andprophane authours, such as _Ambrose_, _Bede_, _Boetius_, _Anselme_, _Plato_, _Cicero_ and others, but because it is not now, I thinkeaffirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time inarguing against it. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De somniis. _]

It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the twomore necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. Ishall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, toknow whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make itpossible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it moreneerely agrees with our earth. 

Proposition 4. 

_That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body. _

I shall not need to stand long in the proofe of this proposition, sinceit is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most andthe best Philosophers. 

1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayre, for how otherwisecould it beare backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?

But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her lightupon us by the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the superficies ofher body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirmethis latter part. So _Averroes_, _Cælius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius Cæsar_, _&c. _ and their reason is because this light is discerned in manyplaces, [1] whereas those bodies which give light by reflexion can thereonely be perceived where the angle of reflexion is equall to the angleof incidence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glassethose beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in everyplace where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye isplaced on the same line whereon the beames are reflected. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De cœlo. L. 2. Com. 49. _ _Ant. Lection. L. 20. C. 4. _ _De phænom. Lunæ. C. 11. _]

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

2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance. [1] But this isdenied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, whoheld the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, andthis, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeareswithin her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames beingrefracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily berepresented under such a colour. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plut. De pla. Phil. L. 2. C. 13. _ _Opt. L. 4. _ _Com. Purbac. Theo. P. 164. _]

But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she notappeare under the same forme when she is about a sextile aspect, and thedarkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the samerayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood should producethe same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted fromus, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet mustthe colour still remaine visible in her body, [1] and besides accordingto this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, asthe various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beamesdid passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? whydoth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with along flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beamesthat is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. § 13. _]

3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall orglasse, [1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe ofpure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plut. De fa. Lunæ. _]

1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light isdispersed through all her body?

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or causesuch great eclipses as have turned day into night, [1] that havediscovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a suddendarknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related indivers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse whichfell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦοὐρανοῦ ἕδρην ἀφανὴς ἦν. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in theheavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, ascould not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some thereare who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions, and the noble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipseshould cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can nevertotally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all otherAstronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appearebigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Thucid. _ _Livii. _ _Plut. De fa. Lunæ. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Herodot. L. 7 c. 37. _]

But here _Julius Cæsar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our passage. TheMoone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because ’tis still of thesame nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: andhis reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of thosepurer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for heestops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre ananswere, till hee hath made up his argument. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De phænom. Lunæ. C. 11. _]

We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as ourearth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the likenatures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; andthis was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature, [1] because of theiragreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are insome measure perspicuous. 

 [Sidenote 1: _In lib. De animalib. _]

But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogetherunlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath lightof 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. 

_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne. _

Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _RabbiSimeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne, [1] andthat both those planets at their first creation were equall both inlight and quantity, for because God did then call them both greatlights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall inbignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Mooneput up her complaint to God against the Sunne, shewing, that it was notfit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchywould best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this Godcommanded her to contract her selfe into a narrower compasse, but shebeing much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spokenthat which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? Thissentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason wasshee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrowmight be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheere, because herpriviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he shouldappeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but hermelancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that thatalas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that hispeople the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daiesby a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath stillreserved much light of her owne. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen. _ _Hieron. De 5. Hide. _ _Hebræonia l. 2. C. 4. _]

Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, theone halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe beingdarke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, ashe is cited by _Vitruvius_, [1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it wasprobable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with theformer, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicalltruths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequentand easie experience, for ’tis observed, that that spot which isperceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may bediscern’d in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it mustfollow, that the same part which was before darkened, is afterinlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the otherlight 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 whichis already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath anypatrons, and therefore need no confutation. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architecturæ. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum. _]

’Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of herlight from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no shehath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. _Cardan_amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any ofus were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse, [1]

 _Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis cæcutiremus_;

“wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that wouldblind us with the meere sight, ” and when shee is enlightened by theSunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke uponher. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing anyproofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the argumentsthat are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either fromScripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15. _where it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another gloryof the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22. _ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, _The Moone shall not give herlight_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. Lib. 3. _]

But to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spokenof, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in manyother instances. 

The arguments from reason are taken either

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

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

1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body agreat rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a remarkeableshade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannotcome from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth, or her ownebody shades her from the Sun-beames, therefore it must proceede from herowne light. 

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

In answering to these objections, I shall first shew, that this lightcannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true reason ofit. 

That it is not her own, appeares

1. From the variety of it at divers times; for ’tis commonly observed, that sometimes ’tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, nowredder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation ofthis variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1]and many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such analteration: So that thus I may argue. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. C. 7. Num. 3. _]

If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planetappeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest tothe earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is inher Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer anyenlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are thespecies and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of ouradversaries, and they are the very words of noble _Tycho_, [1]

 _Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terræ esset, illud non amitteret, sed eò evidentiùs exereret, omne enim lumen intenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non præpeditur. _

If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it inthe earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every lightappeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a moreperspicuous brightnesse. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. C. 10. _]

But now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation dothmanifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearingwith a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in herApoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she isin her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of herowne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the properlight of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from herinherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, anopinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in thefore-cited place, _Nec umbra terræ corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia, aut lunæ lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro præripere, sed est quædam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum corpus terræ. _

Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, thatit can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, butit is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of theinterposition of the earths opacous body. 

 [Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. In Purb. Theor. Pag. 164. _]

2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be, either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or elsesuch 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 ofthese may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither ofthese, therefore she hath none of her owne. 

1. ’Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why canwee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer partsof 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 wontedrednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greaterbrightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? nor can therebe any reason given why that greater light should represent her bodyunder a false colour. 

2. ’Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part ofher body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne, for then why does shee appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shadecannot choose such variety, for ’tis the nature of darknesse by itsopposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and clearebrightnesse then they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yetthose parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, andtherefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither ofthese lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Noris this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, suchwas _Macrobius_, [1] who being for this quoted of _Rhodiginus_, he callshim _vir reconditissimæ scientiæ_, [2] a man who knew more than ordinaryPhilosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Authour. To him assents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath thiscomparison. [3] As the Looking-glasse represents not any image within itselfe, unlesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not anylight, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed _AlbertusMagnus_, _Scaliger_, _Mæslin_, and more especially _Mulapertius_, [4]whose words are more pat to the purpose then others, and therefore Ishall set them downe as you may finde them in his Preface to hisTreatise concerning the _Austriaca sydera_;

 _Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humidæ sunt substantiæ ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra. _

The Moone, _Venus_, and _Mercurie_ (saith he) are of an earthly andmoyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, thenthe earth hath. Nay, some there are who thinke that all the otherStarres doe receive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us fromthe Sunne, so _Ptolomie_, _Isidore Hispalensis_, _Albertus Magnus_ and_Bede_, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light. [5]

 [Sidenote 1: _Somn. Scip. L. 1. C. 20. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Lect. Antiq. L. 1. C. 15. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _In lib. De natur. Rerum. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _De 4r. Coævis. Q. 4ª. Art. 21. _ _Exercit. 62. _ _1. Epitome. Astron. Lib. 4. P. 2. _]

 [Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. C. 60. _ _De Cœlo. L. 2. _ _De ratione tempor. C. 4. _]

But enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first Ipromised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It remaines in thenext place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke’tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipsesis nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passethrough the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this secondlight with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times appearesunto us. I may call it _Lumen crepusculum_, the _Aurora_ of the Moone, or such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he isneere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thickervapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and thereflexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare veryred. 

The Moabites in _Iehorams_ time when they rose early in the morning, andbeheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood. [1]

 _Et causa hujus est, quia radius solaris in aurora contrahit quandam rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem terræ, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere locum aquarum, in quo est repercussio esse rubrum_, saith _Tostatus_. [2] The reason is, because of his rayes, which being inthe lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed light upon thewaters. Thus the Moone being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beameswhich are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body, yet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, makeher appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest, when shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge, of greatest distance from us, because then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refractionis made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must berepresented under a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she isinvolved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so therefraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needes beweaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the reason maybe of that light which we discerne in the darker part of the new Moone:I answer, ’tis reflected from our earth which returnes as great abrightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall haveoccasion to prove afterward. 

 [Sidenote 1: 2 King. 3. 22. ]

 [Sidenote 2: _2ª. Quæst. In hoc cap. _]

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

Proposition 6. 

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

Since this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall thereforefirst confirme it by sufficient authority of divers authours, bothancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from theprejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an absolute errour. This is bysome attributed to _Orpheus_, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, whospeaking of the Moone, saies thus, ἡ πολλ᾽ οὔρεα ἔχει, πολλ᾽ ἄστεα, πολλὰ μέλαθρα, [1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and housesin it. To him assented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and_Heraclitus_, [2] all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like toour earth, [3] containing in it many large fields, champion grounds, anddivers inhabitants, unto these agreed _Pythagoras_, who thought that ourearth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne, [4](as _Aristotle_ relates it of him) and the _Pythagoreans_ in generalldid affirme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she wasinhabited as this lower world. That those living creatures & plantswhich are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the sameproportion, as their daies are longer than ours: _viz. _ by 15 times. This _Pythagoras_[5] was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, asappeares especially by his valuation amongst the _Romans_ who beingcõmanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest _Grecian_, theSenate determined[6] _Pythagoras_ to be meant, preferring him in theirjudgements before the divine _Socrates_, whom their Gods pronounc’d thewisest. Some think him a _Iew_ by birth, but most agree that hee wasmuch conversant amongst the learneder sort, & Priests of that Nation, by whom he 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 solidreason. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plut. De plac. Phil. L. 2. C. 13. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Ibid. C. 25. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Diog. Laert. L. 2. & l. 9. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _De Cœlo. L. 2. Cap. 13. _]

 [Sidenote 5: _Plut. Ibid. Cap. 30. _]

 [Sidenote 6: _Plin. Nat. Hist. L. 34. Cap. 6. _]

To this opinion of _Pythagoras_ did _Plato_ also assent, when heeconsidered 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. Andtherefore wee may often reade in him and his followers, [1] of an_ætherea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an æthereall earth, andinhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with manyridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries impliedin the number 3. Concluded that there must necessarily bee a Trinity ofworlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whoseelement of water is represented by the spheare of _Mercury_, the aire by_Uenus_, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe mightthe better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that _Mars_shall be a spheare of the fire, _Iupiter_ of aire, _Saturne_ of water;and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant placesappointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that eithernever were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from anycommerce with the body. _Scaliger_[2] speaking of this _Platonicke_fancie, _quæ in tres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit_, thinks ’tisconfutation enough, to say, ’tis _Plato’s_. However for the first partof this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason ofthe grossnesse and inequality of this planet, ’twas frequently called_quasi terra cœlestis_, as being esteemed the sediment and moreimperfect part of those purer bodies, you may see this proved by_Plutarch_, [3] in that delightfull work which he properly made for theconfirmition of this particular. With him agreed _Alcinous_[4] and_Plotinus_, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfecttestimony of _Mahomet_, whose authority of grant can adde but littlecredit to this opinion, because hee was an ignorant imposter, but yetconsider that originall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge, and then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probablity. He iscommonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by theJewes in the secrets of their Philosophy, [5] and perhaps, learned thisfrom those Rabbies, for in his _Alcaron_, hee talkes much of mountaines, pleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he wasfor the maine very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing sodistinctly as he was informed. [6] The Cardinall _Cusanus_ and _IornandusBunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one ofthem defining our earth, he saies, it is

 _stella quædam nobilis, quæ lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;

a “noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all therest. ” Unto this _Nichol. Hill_, a country man of ours was inclined, when he said _Astrea terræ natura probabilis est_: “That ’tis probablethe earth hath a starry nature. ”[7]

 [Sidenote 1: _Plat. De conviviis. _ _Macrob. Somn. Scip. Lib. 1. Ca. 11. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Exercit. 62. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _De facie Lunæ. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _Instit. Ad discip. _ Plat. _Cæl. Rhodig. L. 1. C. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 5: _Azoara. 57. & 65. _]

 [Sidenote 6: _Cusa. De doct. Ign. L. 2. Cap. 12. _]

 [Sidenote 7: _Philos. Epicur. Part. 434. _]

But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by_Mæslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilæus_, each of them late writers, andfamous men for their singular skill in Astronomy. [1] As for those workesof _Mæslin_ and _Keplar_ wherein they doe more expresly treate of thisopinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However theiropinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and thetestimony of others concerning them. But _Iulius Cæsar_, whom I haveabove quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for thisopinion, [2] _viz. _ _Keplar_ and _Galilæus_ affirmes that to hisknowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerningthis, and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so muchas dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then hispretended knowledge. 

 [Sidenote 1: _In Thesibus_ _dissertatio cum Nic. Hill. _ _Nuncius Sydereus. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _De phænom. Lunæ. C. 4. _]

’Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the mainescope of those discourses, ’tis as manifest they seriously meant it, asany indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure _Campanella_(a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as_Cæsar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides ’tisvery likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galilæus_ would never havesuffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledgewhich hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confidence (I saynot presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them maywell derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome’s__Hypothesis_ he pronounces this verdict, _Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet. _

 “The position of _Excentricks_ and _Epicycles_ is altogether impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to thinke it true. ”

I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine anyother Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematicks, as to deny thatany good Authour held this. For I would faine know whether there werenever any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that therewere such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplyed; if so, then _Cæsar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions areequally true, that _Galilæus_ and _Keplar_ did not hold this, and thatthere were none which ever held that other. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Cap. 7. _]

But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of_Galilæus_, the inventour of that famous perspective, whereby we maydiscerne the heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others haveformerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discoveredbeyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latterages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebratedby posterity. ’Tis related of _Eudoxus_, that hee wished himselfe burntwith _Phaeton_, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate itsnature; had hee lived in these daies, he might have enjoyed his wish atan easie rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainelyhave discerned what hee so much desired. _Keplar_ considering thosestrange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choosebut cry out in a προσωποπεία and rapture of admiration. 

 _O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?_

And _Johannes Fabricius_[1] an elegant writer, speaking of the sameglasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those formertimes of greater ignorance, saies thus;

 _Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronunciatu de missam 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 magical charms to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a more familiar view behold her condition. ”

And because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of thoseexperiments, which I shal afterwards urge from it; I will therefore setdowne the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beeneaccounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed _Cæsar laGalla_, [2] whose words are these:

 _Mercurium caduceum gestantem, cœlestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilæum verò novum Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducæo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra ætas videt & admiratur. _

Wise antiquity fabled _Mercury_ carrying a rodde in his hand to relatenewes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hathbeene the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire _Galilæus_the new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfoldthe nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancientPhilosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of thisexcellent invention. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De macula in sole obser. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _De phænom. C. 1. _]

Now if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight ofsuch things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you, [1]when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all beediscerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, mightplainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that asthey were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifyingat all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, ourmore happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farrewith these eyes which _Galilæus_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yetdoubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour mayconfirme you, [2] when hee saies they were shewed, _Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis & opticis præceptis, optimè instructis sedulâ ac diligenti inspectione_. 

 “Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well vers’d in Mathematickes and Opticks, and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent inspection. ”

And least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke themen who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they camewith credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addesthat it was shewed, [3]

 _vius qui ad experimenta hæc contradicendi animo accesserant_. 

 “To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction. ”

Thus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken bythis glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shallborrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries whichwere made by it. 

 [Sidenote 1: _ibid. C. 5. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5. _]

I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who havedirectly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in theproposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others:such were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many otherlater writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_, _David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe_Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others bothEnglish and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodiesdid move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is itlikely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation inOpticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo. _]

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

Thus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceedefarther, ’tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shallfollow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World inthe Moone. 

The order by which I shall bee guided will be that which _Aristotle_[1]uses in his booke _De mundo_ (if that booke were his. )

 [Sidenote 1: _à 1º. Cap. Ad 10m. _]

First, περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not theelementary and æthereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belongto the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, περὶ αὐτὴν παθῶν, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as theseasons, meteors and inhabitants. 

Proposition 7. 

_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea and Land in that other World. _

For the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first reckon up andrefute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of thosespots, 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 verymany, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkeable. 

Some there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any deformityof the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distancediscerne an equall light in that planet, but these do but onely say it, and shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others think[1]that there be some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping offthe lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots whichwee there discerne. 

 [Sidenote 1: So _Bede_ in _d. De Mund. Constit. _]

Others would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here belowrepresented there as in a looking-glasse. But none of those fancies canbee true, because the spots are stil the same, & not varied according tothe difference of places, and besides, _Cardan_ thinks it is impossiblethat any image should be conveyed so farre as there to be representedunto us at such a distance, [1] but tis commonly related of _Pythagoras_, that he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexiõ of thesame species, would make those letters to appeare in the circle of theMoone, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that timebe some miles distant from him. [2]* _Agrippa_ affirmes this to bepossible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, withsome others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the likemeanes performe those strange conclusions which hee professes in his_Nuncius inanimatus_, where hee pretends that hee can informe hisfriends 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 minutes space, or little more, quicker than the Sunne can move. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De subtil. Lib. 3. _]

 [Sidenote 2*: _Occulta ad Philos. L. 1. Cap. 6. _]

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

The *[1]Stoicks held that planet to be mixed of fire and aire, and intheir opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots:_Anaxagoras_ thought all the starres to be of an earthly nature, mixedwith some fire, and as for the Sunne, hee affirmed it to be nothing elsebut a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the _Athenians_ sentenc’dhim to death;[2] those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy, to make their God a stone, whereas not withstanding, they were sosenslesse in their adoration of Idolls, as to make a stone their God, this _Anaxagoras_ affirmed the Moone to be more terrestriall then theother, but of a greater purity then any thing here below, and the spotshee thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled withthe light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above destroyed thesupposition on which this fancy is grounded: _Pliny_[3] thinkes theyarise from some drossie stuffe, mixed with that moysture which the Mooneattracts unto her selfe, but hee was of their opinion, who thought thestarres were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonlysee refuted in the _Commentators_ on the bookes, _de Cœlo_. 

 [Sidenote 1*: _Plut. De placit. Phil. L. 2. C. 25. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Iosephus l. 2. Con. App. _ _August. De civit. Dei. L. 18. C. 41. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Hist. Lib. 2. C. 9. _]

_Vitellio_ and _Reinoldus_[1] affirme the spots to be the thicker partsof the Moone, into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light, and this(say they) is the reason, why in the Sunnes eclipses, the spots andbrighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, because theSunne beames are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, asthey may through the thinner parts of the Planet. Of this opinion alsowas _Cæsar la Galla_, whose words are these, [2]

 “The Moone doth there appeare clearest, where shee is transpicuous, not onely through the superficies, but the substance also, and there she seemes spotted, where her body is most opacous. ”

The ground of this his assertion was, because hee thought the Moone didreceive and bestow her light by illumination onely, and not at all byreflexion, but this, together with the supposed penetration of the Sunnebeames, and the perspicuity of the Moones body I have above answered andrefuted. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Lib. 9. _ _Comment. In Purb. Pag. 164. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Ex qua parte luna est transpicua non totum secundum superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur. _ _De Phænom. Cap. 11. _]

The more common and generall opinion[1] is, that the spots are thethinner parts of the Moone, which are lesse able to reflect the beamesthat they receive from the Sunne, and this is most agreeable to reason, for if the starres are therefore brightest, because they are thicker andmore solid then their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts ofthe Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thickenesse. It wasthe providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet tohave these spots within it, for since that is neerest to those lowerbodies which are so full of deformity, ’tis requisite that it should insome measure agree with them, and as in this inferiour world the higherbodies are the most compleat, so also in the heavens perfection isascended unto by degrees, and the Moone being the lowest, must be theleast pure, and therefore _Philo_ the Jew[2] interpreting _Iacobs_dreame concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory shew, how that in thefabricke of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher, and this is the reason (saith hee) why the Moone doth not consist of anypure simple matter, but is mixed with aire, which shewes so darkelywithin her body. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Albert. Mag. De coævis. Q. 4. Art. 21. _ _Colleg. Con. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _De Somniis. _]

But this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true thatnature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it astrue, that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office towhich shee intends it. Now, had she intended the Moone meerly to reflectthe Sunne beames and give light, the spots then had not so much arguedher providence, as her unskilfulnesse and imperfection, [1] as if in thehaste of her worke shee could not tell how to make that body exactlyfit, for that office to which she appointed it. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Scalig. Exercit. 62. _]

Tis likely then that she had some other end which moved her to producethis variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it afit body for habitation with the same conveniencies of sea and land, asthis inferiour world doth partake of. For since the Moone is such avast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved)why may it not be probable, that those thinner and thicker partsappearing in her, doe shew the difference betwixt the sea and land inthat other world; and _Galilæus_ doubts not, but that if our earth werevisible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it. 

As for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke theyrepresent a man, and the Poets guesse ’tis the boy _Endimion_, whosecompany shee loves so well, that shee carries him with her, others willhave 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 tailetowards the East, and his head the West, and [1]*some others havethought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly ’tis as much like aLyon as that in the _Zodiake_, or as _Vrsa major_ is like a Beare. 

 [Sidenote 1*: Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat. Lib. 8. C. 15. _]

I should guesse that it represents one of these as well as another, andany thing else as well as any of these, since ’tis but a strongimagination, which fancies such images as schoole-boyes usually doe inthe markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such similitude in thespots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land, appeares under a rugged and confused figure, and doth not represent anydistinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the forme itmay be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may shew thedistinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world. 

Proposition 8. 

_The spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. _

When I first compared the nature of our earth and water with thoseappearances in the Moone; I concluded contrary to the proposition, thatthe brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; ofthis opinion likewise was _Keplar_ at the first; but my second thoughts, and the reading of others, [1] have now convinced me (as after he was) ofthe truth of that Proposition which I have now set downe. But before Icome to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which atfirst made mee doubt of the truth of this opinion. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astro. C. 6. Num. 9. _ _Dissert. Cum nuncio Gal. _]

1. It may be objected, ’tis probable, if there be any such sea and landas ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but nowthis Proposition takes away all likenesse betwixt them, for whereas thesuperficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface inthe globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as _Scaliger_[1]observes) yet here according to this opinion, the Sea should be lessethen the Land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as ther isof the enlightened parts, wherefore ’tis probable, that either there isno such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Exercit. 38. _]

2. The water, by reason of the smoothnesse of its superficies, seemesbetter able to reflect the Sun beames then the earth, which in mostplaces is so full of ruggednesse of grasse and trees, and such likeimpediments of reflection, and besides, cõmon experience shewes, thatthe water shines with a greater and more glorious brightnesse then theearth, therefore it should seeme that the spots are the earth, and thebrighter parts the water. 

But to the first it may be answered. 

1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because ’tisso with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moone, forsince 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. _Fromondus_[1] with others, thinke, that the superficies of the Sea andLand in so much of the world as is already discovered, is equall, and ofthe same extension. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De Meteoris l. 5. C. 1. Art. 1. _]

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

To the second it may be answered, that though the water be of a smoothsuperficies, and so may seeme most fit to reverberate the light, yetbecause ’tis of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beames must sinkeinto it, and cannot so strongly and clearely be reflected. _Sicut inspeculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit_, (saith _Cardan_) as inLooking-glasses where part of the lead is raized off, and nothing leftbehind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe throughand not backe againe; so it is where the beames penetrate and sinke intothe substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strongreflection as when they are beate backe from the superficies, andtherefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land thenupon the water. Now as for that experiment, where ’tis said, that thewaters have a greater brightness then the Land: I answer, ’tis trueonely there where they represent the image of the Sunne or some brightcloud, and not in other places, as is very plaine by common observation. 

So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this Proposition may remainetrue, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Ofthis opinion was _Plutarch_: unto him assented _Keplar_ and _Galilæus_, whose words are these, _Si quis veterum Pythagoræorum sententiam excuscitare velit, lunam scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam superficiem, obscurior verò aqueam magis congruè repræsentet. Mihi autem dubium fuit numquam terrestris globi à longè conspecti, atque a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem, obscuriorem verò aqueam sese in conspectum daturam. _[1]

 “If any man have a minde to renew the opinion of the _Pythagoreans_, that the Moone is another earth, then her brighter parts may fitly represent the earths superficies, and the darker part the water: and for my part, I never doubted 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. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _De facie lun. _ _Dissertatio. _ _Nunc. Syd. _]

The reasons may be. 

1. That which I urged about the foregoing Chapter, because the water isthe thinner part, and therefore must give the lesse light. 

2. Because observation tels us, that the spotted parts are alwaiessmooth and equall, having every where an equality of light, when oncethey are enlightened by the Sunne, whereas the brighter parts are fullof rugged gibbosities and mountaines having many shades in them, as Ishall shew more at large afterwards. 

That in this Planet there must be Seas, _Campanella_[1] indeavours toprove out of Scripture interpreting the _waters above the Firmament_spoken of in _Genesis_ to be meant of the Sea in this world. For (saithhe) ’tis not likely that there are any such waters above the Orbes tomoderate that heate which they receive from their swift motion (as someof the Fathers thinke) nor did _Moses_ meane the Angells which may becalled spirituall waters, as _Origen_ and _Austin_[2] would have it, forboth these are rejected by the generall consent: nor could he meane anywaters in the second region, as most Commentators interpret it. Forfirst there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwardsturned into water, yet while they remaine there, they are onely thematter of that element, which may as well be fire or earth, or aire. 2. Those vapors are not above the _expansum_, but in it. So that heethinkes there is no other way to salve all, but by making the Planetsseverall worlds with Sea & Land, with such Rivers and Springs, as weehave here below: Especially since _Esdras_[3] speakes of the springsabove the Firmament, but I cannot agree with him in this, nor doe Ithinke that any such thing can be proved out of Scripture. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Confession. L. 13. C. 32. _]

 [Sidenote 3: 2 Esdr. 4. 7. ]

Before I proceede to the next Position, I shall first answer some doubtswhich might be made against the generality of this truth, whereby it mayseeme impossible that there should be either Sea or Land in the Moone;for since she moves so swiftly as Astronomers observe, why then doesthere nothing fall from her, or why doth shee not shake something out bythe celerity of her revolution? I answer, you must know that theinclination of every heavie body, to its proper Center doth sufficientlytie it unto its place, so that suppose any thing were separated, yetmust it necessarily returne againe, and there is no more danger of theirfalling into our world then there is feare of our falling into theMoone. 

But yet there are many fabulous relations of such things as have droppedthence. There is a tale of the Nemean Lyon that _Hercules_ slew, whichfirst rushing among the heards out of his unknowne den in the Mountaineof _Cytheron_ in _Bœotia_, the credulous people thought he was sent fromtheir Goddesse the Moone. And if a whirle-winde did chance to snatch anything up, and afterwards raine it downe againe, the ignorant multitudeare apt to believe that it dropt from Heaven. Thus _Avicenna_ relatesthe story of a Calfe which fell downe in a storme, the beholdersthinking it a Moone-calfe, and that it fell thence. So _Cardan_travelling upon the Apennine Mountaines, a sudden blast tooke off hishat, which if it had beene carryed farre, he thinkes the peasants whohad perceived it to fall, would have sworne it had rained hats. Aftersome such manner many of our prodigies come to passe, and the people arewilling to believe anything, which they may relate to others as a verystrange and wonderfull event. I doubt not but the Trojan _Palladium_, the Romane _Minerva_, and our Ladies Church at _Loretto_, with manysacred reliques preserved by the Papists might droppe from the Moone aswell as any of these. 

But it may be againe objected, suppose there were a bullet shot up inthat world, would not the Moone runne away from it, before it could falldowne, since the motion of her body (being every day round our earth) isfarre swifter than the other, and so the bullet must be left behinde, and at length fall downe to us? To this I answer, 1. If a bullet could be shot so farre till it came to the circumferenceof those things which belong to our center, then it would fall downe tous. 

2. Though there were some heavie body a great height in that ayer, yetwould the motion of its centre by an attractive vertue still hold itwithin its convenient distance, so that whether their earth moved orstood still, yet would the same violence cast a body from it equallyfarre. That I may the plainer expresse my meaning, I will set downe thisDiagramme. 

 [Illustration as described in text]

Suppose this earth were A, which was to move in the circle C, D. And letthe bullet be supposed at B. Within its proper verge; I say, whetherthis earth did stand stil or move swiftly towards D, yet the bulletwould still keepe at the same distance by reason of that Magnetickevertue of the center (if I may so speake) whereby all things within itsspheare are attracted with it. So that the violence to the bullet, beingnothing else but that whereby ’tis removed from its center, therefore anequall violence can carry a body from its proper place, but at an equalldistance whether or no the center stand still or move. 

The impartiall Reader may finde sufficient satisfaction for this andsuch other arguments as may be urged against the motion of that earth inthe writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers, unto whom for brevitiessake I will referre them. 

Proposition 9. 

_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plains in the body of the Moone. _

Though there are some who thinke Mountaines to bee a deformity in theearth, as if they were either beate up by the flood, or else cast uplike so many heaps of rubbish left at the creation, yet if wellconsidered, they will be found as much to conduce to the beauty andconveniency of the universe as any of the other parts. Nature (saith_Pliny_[1]) purposely framed them for many excellent uses: partly totame the violence of greater Rivers, to strengthen certaine joyntswithin the veines and bowels of the earth, to breake the force of theSeas inundation, and for the safety of the earths inhabitants, whetherbeasts or men. That they make much for the protection of beasts thePsalmist[2] testifies, _The highest hils are a refuge for the wildeGoats, and the rockes for Conies_. The Kingly Prophet had learned thesafety of these by his owne experience, when he also was faine to make amountaine his refuge from the fury of his Master _Saul_, who persecutedhim in the wildernesse. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Hist. L. 36. C. 1. _]

 [Sidenote 2: Psal. 104. V. 18. ]

True indeed, such places as these keepe their neighbours poore, asbeeing most barren, but yet they preserve them safe, as being moststrong, witnesse our unconquered _Wales_ and _Scotland_, whose greatestprotection hath beene the naturall strength of their Countrey, sofortified with Mountaines, that these have alwaies been unto them sureretraites from the violence and oppression of others, wherefore a goodAuthour doth rightly call them natures bulwarkes cast up at GodAlmighties owne charges, the scornes and curbs of victorious armies, which made the Barbarians in _Curtius_ so confident of their ownesafety, when they were once retired to an inaccessible mountaine, thatwhen _Alexanders_ Legate had brought them to a parley and perswadingthem to yeeld, told them of his masters victories, what Seas andWildernesses hee had passed, they replyed that all that might be, butcould _Alexander_ fly too? Over the Seas he might have ships, and overthe land horses, but hee must have wings before he could get up thither. Such safety did those barbarous nations conceive in the mountaineswhereunto they were retyred, certainely then such usefull parts were notthe effect of mans sinne, or produced by the Worlds curse the flood, butrather at the first created by the goodnesse and providence of theAlmighty. 

So that if I intend to prove that the Moone is such a habitable world asthis is, ’tis requisite that I shew it to have the same conveniences ofhabitation as this hath, and here if some Rabbi or Chymicke were tohandle the point they would first prove it out of Scripture, from thatplace in _Moses_ his blessing, [1] where hee speakes of the ancientmountaines and lasting hils, _Deut. _ 33 הררי קדם וגבעות עולם for havingimmediately before mentioned those blessings which should happen unto_Ioseph_ by the influence of the Moone, he does presently exegeticallyiterate thẽ in blessing him with the chiefe things of the ancientMountaines and lasting hils; you may also see the same expression usedin _Iacobs_ blessing of _Ioseph_. [2]

 [Sidenote 1: Deut. 33. 15]

 [Sidenote 2: Gen. 49. 26]

But however we may deale _pro_ or _con_ in Philosophy, yet we must notjest with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronize any fancy ofour owne, though, perhaps, it be truth. For the better proofe of thisproposition, I might here cite the testimony of _Diodorus_, who thoughtthe Moone to bee full of rugged places, _vel ut terrestribus tumulissuperciliosam_, but he erred much in some circumstances of this opinion, especially where he saies, there is an Iland amongst the _Hyperboreans_, wherein those hils may to the eye bee plainely discovered, and for thisreason. [1]*_Cælius_ calls him a fabulous Writer, but you may see moreexpresse authority for the proofe of this in the opinions of_Anaxagoras_ and _Democritus_, [2] who held that this Planet was full ofchampion grounds, mountains and vallies, and this seemed likewiseprobable unto _Augustinus Nifus_, whose words are these:

 _Forsitan non est remotum dicere, lunæ partes esse diversas, veluti sunt partes terræ, quarum aliæ sunt vallosæ, aliæ montosæ, ex quarum differentia effici potest facies illa lunæ; nec est rationi dissonum, nam luna est corpus imperfectè Sphæricum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo cœlo 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 perfectly 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, [3] andby him confirmed with with divers reasons. _Keplar_ hath observed in theMoones eclipses, [4] that the division of her enlightened part from theshaded, was made by a crooked unequall line, of which there cannot beany probable cause conceived, unlesse it did arise from the ruggednesseof that planet, for it cannot at all be produc’d from the shade of anymountains here upon earth, because these would be so lessned before theycould reach so high in a conicall shadow, that they would not be at allsensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated) nor can it beconceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sunne. Wherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to doe ineclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a varietyof parts in the Moone it selfe, and what can there be but itsgibbosities? Now if you should aske a reason why there should be such asimilitude of these in that Planet, the same _Keplar_ shall jest you outan answere, for supposing (saith he) those inhabitants are bigger thanany of us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours, viz. By fifteen times it may bee for want of stones to erect such vasthouses as were requisite for their bodies, they are faine to digge greatand round hollowes in the earth, where they may both procure water fortheir thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those greatheats which otherwise they would be lyable unto; or if you will give_Cæsar la Galla_ leave to guesse in the same manner, he would ratherthink that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so great heaps ofearth in digging of their wine cellars, but this onely by the way. 

 [Sidenote 1*: _Lect. Aut l. 1. C. 15. _ _Plut. De plac. L. 2. C. 25. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _De cœlo. L. 2. P. 49. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _De Mundi fab. Pars 3ª. C. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 4: _Astron. Opt. C. 6. Num 9. _]

I shall next produce the eye-witnesse of _Galilæus_, [1] on which I mostof all depend for the proofe of this Proposition, when he beheld the newMoone through his perspective, it appeared to him under a rugged andspotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightned parts dividedby a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance fromthe other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easilyperceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which arecommonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what Ideliver, I will set downe the Figure as I find it in _Galilæus_:

 [Sidenote 1: _Nuncius Sydereus. _]

 [Illustration: Crescent Moon]

Suppose ABCD to represent the appearance of the Moones body being in asextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distancefrom the other, which can bee nothing else but a reflexion of theSunne-beames upon some parts that are higher then the rest, and thoseobscure gibbosities which stand out towards the enlightened parts mustbee such hollow and deepe places whereto the rayes cannot reach, butwhen the Moone is got further off from the Sunne, and come to thatfulnesse, as this line BD doth represent her under, then doe these partsalso receive an equall light, excepting onely that difference which dothappeare betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consider how anyrugged body would appeare, being enlightned, you would easily conceivethat it must necessarily seeme under some such gibbous unequall forme, as the Moone is here represented. Now for the infallibility of theseappearances, I shall referre the reader to that which hath beene said inthe 6th Proposition. 

But _Cæsar la Galla_ affirmes, that all these appearances may consistwith a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to besome of them, _Diaphanous_, and some opacous; and if you object that thelight which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficiesmust be by a continued line, whereas here there appeare many brighterparts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this heanswers, it may arise from some secret conveyances and channels withinher body, that doe consist of a more diaphanous matter which beingcovered over with an opacious superficies, the light passing throughthem may breake out a great way off, whereas the other parts betwixt maystill remaine darke. Just as the River _Arethusa_ in _Sicile_ whichrunnes under ground for a great way, and afterwards breakes out againe. But because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby hee thinkes heehath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore setdowne his answere in his owne words, lest the Reader might suspect morein them then I have expressed. [1]

 _Non est impossibile cœcos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opacâ superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c. _

But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two enlightened partsremaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwaies be darke, and the Sunne could not make it partake of light more then it could ofperspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in_Galilæus_, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes nearer to hisopposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightned as wellas either. Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse, for he confesseshimselfe that he saw this by the glasse. He had said before that he cameto see those strange sights discovered by _Galilæus_ his glasse with anintent of contradiction, and you may reade that confirmed in theweakenesse of this answere, which rather bewrayes an obstinate then aperswaded will, for otherwise sure hee would never have undertooke tohave destroyed such certaine proofes with so groundlesse a fancy. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Cap. 11. _]

But it may bee objected, that ’tis almost impossible, and altogetherunlikely that in the Moone thete should be any mountaines so high asthose observations make them, for doe but suppose according to thecommon principles, that the Moones diameter unto the Earths is veryneere to the proportion of 2. To 7, suppose withall that the Earthsdiameter containes about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moones 2000 (as iscommonly granted) now _Galiæus_ hath observed that some parts have beenenlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distantfrom the common terme of illumination, so that hence it must necessarilyfollow that there may bee some Mountaines in the Moone so high, thatthey are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that soundslike a prodigie or a fiction; wherefore ’tis likely that either thoseappearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountaines, or elsethose are fallible observations, from whence may follow such improbableinconceiveable consequences. 

But to this I answere:

1. You must consider the height of the Mountaines is but very little, ifyou compare them to the length of their shadowes. Sr. _WalterRawleigh_[1] observes that the Mount _Athos_ now called _Lacas_ castsits shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount isnone of the highest, nay _Solinus_[2] (whom I should rather believe inthis kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his shadow quite over theSea, from _Macedon_ to the Ile of _Lemnos_ which is 700 furlongs or 84miles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4miles upwards, in its perpendicular height. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Hist. L. 1. C. 7. § 11. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Poly. Histor. C. 21. _]

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

Whereas ’tis the common opinion and found true enough by observation, that _Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_, with many others are muchabove this height. _Tenariffa_ in the Canary Ilands is proved bycomputation to bee above 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height isthe mount _Perjacaca_ in _America_. Sr. _Walter Rawleigh_ seemes tothinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles upright: nay_Aristotle_[1] speaking of _Caucasus_ in _Asia_, affirmes it to beevisible for 560 miles, as some interpreters finde by computation, fromwhich it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicularly high, as youmay see confirmed by _Jacobus Mazonius_, [2] and out of him in_Blancanus_ the Jesuite. [3] But this deviates from the truth more inexcesse then the other doth in defect. However though these in the mooneare not so high as some amongst us, yet certaine it is they are of agreat height, and some of them at the least foure miles perpendicular. This I shall prove from the observation of _Galilæus_, whose glasse canshew this truth to the senses, a proofe beyond exception and certainethat man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not believehis owne eye. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Meteor. L. 1. C. 11. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Comparatio Arist. Cum Platone, Sect. 3. C. 5. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Exposi. In loc. Math. Artis. Loc. 148. _]

By that perspective you may plainely discerne some enlightned parts(which are the mountaines) to be distant from the other about thetwentieth part of the diameter. From whence it will follow, that thosemountaines must necessarily be at the least foure Italian miles inheight. 

 [Illustration]

For let BDEF be the body of the moone, ABC will be a ray or beame of theSunne, which enlightens a mountaine at A and _B_ is the point ofcontingency, the distance betwixt A and B must bee supposed to be thetwentieth part of the diameter which is an 100 miles, for so far aresome enlightened parts severed from the common terme of illumination. Now the aggregate of the quadrate from A _B_ a hundred, and _B_ _G_ a1000 will bee 1010000, unto which the quadrate arising from A G must beequall according to the 47th proposition in the first booke of elements. Therefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104, and thedistance betwixt H A must be above 4 miles, which was the thing to beproved. 

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

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

But it may be replied, if there were any such remarkeable hils, why doesnot the limbe of the moone appeare like a wheele with teeth to those wholooke upon it through the great perspective on whose witnesse you somuch depend? or what reason is there that she appeares as exactly roundthrough it as shee doth to the bare eye? certainely then either there isno such thing as you imagine, or else the glasse failes much in thisdiscovery. 

To this I shall answere out of _Galilæus_. 

1. You must know that there is not meerely one ranke of mountaines aboutthe 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 cansee the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves arelifted up, yet all may appeare plaine enough to one that stands at theshore. So where there are so many hils, the inequality will be lesseremarkable, if it be discerned at a distance. 

2. Though there be mountains in that part which appeares unto us, to bethe limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the brightvapours hide their appearance: for there is an orbe of thicke vaporousaire that doth immediatly compasse the body of the Moone, which thoughit have not so great opacity, as to terminate the sight, yet being onceenlightened by the Sunne, it doth represent the body of the Moone undera greater forme, and hinders our sight from a distinct view of her truecircumference. But of this in the next Chapter. 

I have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moone, andhence it may seeme likely that there is also a world, for sinceprovidence hath some speciall end in all its workes, certainly thenthese mountaines were not produced in vaine, and what more probablemeaning can wee conceive there should be, than to make that placeconvenient for habitation. 

Proposition 10. 

_That there is an Atmo-sphæra, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire, immediately encompassing the body of the Moone. _

As that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thickersubstance than the other, by reason tis alwaies mixed with some vapours, which are continually exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, thatif there be a world in the Moone, that the aire about that should bealike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orbe of grosseaire, was first of all (for ought I can reade) observed by _Meslin_, afterwards assented unto by _Keplar_ and _Galilæus_, [1] and since by_Baptistae Cisatus_, _Sheiner_ with others, all of them confirming it bythe same arguments which I shall onely cite, and then leave thisProposition. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Vide_ Euseb. Nierem. _de Nat. Hist. L. 2. C. 11. _]

1. ’Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightened, isalwaies part of a bigger circle then that which is darker. Theirfrequent experience hath proved this, and an easie observation mayquickely confirme it. But now this cannot proceede from any other causeso probable, as from this orbe of aire, especially when we consider howthat planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not send forth any suchrayes as may make her appearance bigger then her body. 

2. ’Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a greattrepidation about the body of the Moone, from which we may likewiseargue an Atmo-sphæra, since we cannot well conceive what so probable acause there should be of such an appearance as this, _Quod radii Solares à vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint intercisi_, [1]

that the Sun beames were broken and refracted by the vapours thatencompassed the Moone. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Scheiner. Ros. Vrs. L. 4. Pars 2. C. 27. _]

3. I may adde the like argument taken from another observation whichwill be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, weediscerne the Moone as shee is in her owne naturall bignesse, but thenshe appeares somewhat lesse then when shee is in the full, though she bein the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle, and therefore_Tycho_ hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the divers newMoones. 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 be enlightened by the reflected beames, and through which thedirect raies may easily penetrate. 

But some may object that this will not consist with that which wasbefore 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 beas bright as any of the other parts, when as tis the thinnest of all?

I answer, if the light be received by reflection, then the thickest bodyhath most because it is best able to beare backe the raies, but if thelight be received by illumination[1] (especially if there be an opacousbody behinde, which may double the beames by reflexion) as it is here, then I deny not but a thinne body may retaine much light, and perhaps, some of those appearances which wee take for fiery comets, are nothingelse but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there maybe such aire without the Moone, and hence it comes to passe, that thegreater spots are onely visible towards her middle parts, and none neerethe circumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts aselse where, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of thosebrighter vapours which hide them. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Hist. L. 1. C. 7. § 11. _]

Proposition 11. 

_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone. _

I have already handled the first thing that I promised according to theMethod which _Aristotle_ uses in his Booke _de Mundo_, and shew’d youthe necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moone. In the nextplace ’tis requisite that I proceed to those things which areextrinsecall 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 thattheir seasons should be some way correspondent unto ours, that theyshould have Winter and Summer, night and day, as wee have. 

Now that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and Summer isaffirmed by _Aristotle_ [1] himselfe, since there is one hemisphearethat hath alwaies heate and light, and the other that hath darknesse andcold. True indeed, their daies and yeeres are alwaies of one and thesame length, but tis so with us also under the Poles, and therefore thatgreat difference is not sufficient to make it altogether unlike ours, nor can we expect that every thing there should be in the same manner asit is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about herpurposes. Wee may easily see what great differences there are amongstus, betwixt things of the same kinde. Some men (say they) [2] there are, who can live onely upon smells, without eating any thing, and the samePlant, saith _Besoldus_, hath sometimes contrary effects. _Mandragora_which growes in _Syria_ inflames the lust, wheras _Mandragora_ whichgrows in other places doth coole the blood & quench lust. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De gen. Animal. L. 4. 12. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Plat. De fac. _ _De naturâ populorum. C. 3. _]

Now if with us there be such great difference betwixt things of the samekinde, we have no reason then to thinke it necessary that both theseworlds should be altogether alike, but it may suffice if they beecorrespondent in something onely, however it may be questioned whetherit doth not seeme to be against the wisedome of providence, to make thenight of so great a length, when they have such a long time unfit forworke? I answere no, since tis so, and more with us also under thepoles; and besides, the generall length of their night is somewhatabated in the bignesse of their Moone which is our earth. For thisreturnes as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it. Butfor the better proofe of this, I shall first free the way from suchopinions as might otherwise hinder the speede of a clearer progresse. 

_Plutarch_[1] one of the chiefe patrons of this world in the Moone, dothdirectly contradict this proposition; affirming, that those who livethere may discerne our world as the dregges and sediment of all othercreatures, appearing to them through clouds and foggy mists, and thataltogether devoid of light, being base and unmoveable, so that theymight well imagine the darke place of damnation to be here situate, andthat they onely were the inhabiters of the world, as being in the midstbetwixt Heaven and Hell. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plut. De fac. Lunæ. _]

To this I may answere, ’tis probable that _Plutarch_ spake thisinconsiderately, and without a reason, which makes him likewise fallinto another absurditie, when he sayes our earth would appeareimmoveable, whereas questionlesse though it did not, yet would it seemeto move, and theirs to stand still, as the Land doth to a man in aShippe; according to that of the Poet:

 _Provehimur portu, terræque urbesque recedunt. _

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

2. Unto him assents _Macrobius_, whose words are these;

 _Terra accepto solis lumine clarescit, tantummodò, non relucet. _

 “The earth is by the Sunne-beames made bright, but not able to enlighten any thing so farre. ”

And his reason is, because this being of a thicke and grosse matter, thelight is terminated in its superficies, and cannot penetrate into thesubstance; whereas the moone doth therefore seeme so bright to us, because it receives the beames within it selfe. But the weaknesse ofthis assertion, may bee easily manifest by a common experience, forpolished steele (whose opacity will not give any admittance to therayes) reflects a stronger heate then glasse, and so consequently agreater light. 

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

Unto this it may be answered:

That it is indeed the common consent, that the reflexion of theSunne-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 _Cælius_, [1]

 _Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis subjiciatur terræ moles aquis circumfusa, & solis syderumque radiis illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis modo visatur lunaris globi species. _

 “If you did conceive your selfe to bee in some such high place, where you might discerne the whole Globe of the earth and water, when it was enlightned by the Sunnes rayes, ’tis probable it would then appeare to you in the same shape as the moone doth now unto us. ”

Thus also _Carolus Malapertius_, whose words are these, [2]

 _Terra hæc nostra si in luna constituti essemus, splendida prorsus quasi non ignobilis planeta, nobis appareret. _

 “If wee were placed in the moone, and from thence beheld this our earth, it would appeare unto us very bright, like one of the nobler Planets. ”

Unto these doth _Fromondus_ assent, when he sayes, [3]

 _Credo equidem quod si oculus quispiam in orbe lunari foret, globum terræ & aquæ instar ingentis syderis à sole illustrem conspiceret. _

 “I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like some great Starre to any one, who should looke upon it from the moone. ”

Now this could not be, nor could it shine so remarkably, unlesse thebeames of light, were reflected from it. And therefore the same_Fromondus_ expresly holds, that the first region of ayre is thereterminated, where the heate caused by reflexion begins to languish, whereas the beames themselves doe passe a great way further. The chiefeargument which doth most plainely manifest this truth, is taken from acommon observation which may be easily tryed. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Ant. Lect. L. 1. C. 4. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Præfat. Ad Austrica syd. _]

 [Sidenote 3: _Meteor. L. 1. C. 2. Art. 2. _]

If you behold the Moone a little before or after the conjunction, whenshe is in a sextile with the Sunne, you may discerne not onely the partwhich is enlightned, but the rest also to have in it a kind of a duskishlight, but if you chuse out such a scituation, where some house orchimney (being some 70 or 80 paces distant from you) may hide from youreye the enlightned hornes, you may then discerne a greater and moreremarkeable shining in those parts unto which the Sunne beames cannotreach; nay there is so great a light, that by the helpe of a goodperspective you may discerne its spots. Inso much that _Blancanus_ theJesuite speaking of it sayes[1]

 _Hæc experientia ita me aliquando fefellit, ut in hunc fulgorem casu ac repente incidens, existimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore adolescentis lunæ factum esse plenilunium. _

 “This experiment did once so deceive mee, that happening upon the sight of this brightnesse upon a sudden, I thought that by some new miracle the Moone had beene got into her full a little after her change. ””

 [Sidenote 1: _De mundi fab. P. 3ª. C. 3. _]

But now this light is not proper to the Moone, it doth not proceed fromthe rayes of the Sunne which doth penetrate her body, nor is it causedby any other of the Planets and Starres. Therefore it must necessarilyfollow, that it comes from the earth. The two first of these I havealready proved, and as for the last, it is confidently affirmed by_Cælius_, [1]

 _Quod si in disquisitionem evocet quia, an lunari syderi lucem fœnerent planetæ item alii, asseveranter astruendum non fœnerare_. 

“If any should aske whether the other Planets lend any light to theMoone; I answer they doe not. ” True indeed, the noble _Tycho_[2]discussing the reason of this light attributes it to the Planet _Uenus_, and I grant that this may convey some light to the Moone; but that it isnot the cause of this whereof wee now discourse, is of itselfesufficiently plaine, because _Uenus_ is sometimes over the Moone, whenas shee cannot convey any light to that part which is turned from her. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Progym. 1. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _l. 20. C. 5. _]

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

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

And as loving friends equally participate of the same joy and griefe, sodoe these mutually partake of the same light from the Sunne, and thesame darkenesse from the eclipses, being also severally helped by oneanother in their greatest wants: For when the Moone is in conjunctionwith the Sunne, and her upper part receives all the light, then herlower Hemispheare (which would otherwise be altogether darke) isenlightened by the reflexion of the Sunne beames from the earth. Whenthese two planets are in opposition, then that part of the earth whichcould not receive any light from the Sunne beames, is most enlightenedby the Moone, being then in her full; and as she doth most illuminatethe earth when the Sunne beames cannot, so the gratefull earth returnesto her as great, nay greater light when shee most wants it; so thatalwaies that visible part of the Moone which receives nothing from theSunne, is enlightened by the earth, as is proved by _Galilæus_, withmany more arguments, in that Treatise which he calls _Systema mundi_. True indeed, when the Moone comes to a quartile, then you can neitherdiscerne this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, but the reasonis, because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. _Quippeillustratum medium speciem recipit valentiorem_, [1] the clearerbrightnesse involves the weaker, it being with the species of sight, asit is with those of sound, and as the greater noise drownes the lesse, so the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But they doealwaies in their mutuall vicissitudes participate of one anothers light;so also doe they partake of the same defects and darknings, for when ourMoone is eclipsed, then is their Sunne darkened, and when our Sunne iseclipsed, then is their Moone deprived of its light, as you may seeaffirmed by _Mæslin_. [2]

 _Quod si terram nobis ex alto liceret intueri, quemadmodum deficientem lunam ex longinquo spectare possumus, videremus tempore eclipsis solis terræ aliquam partem lumine solis deficere, eodem planè modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit_, “If wee might behold this globe of earth at the same distance as we doe the Moone in her defects, wee might discerne some part of it darkened in the Sunnes eclipses, just so as the Moone is in hers. ”

For as our Moone is eclipsed by the interposition of our earth, so istheir Moone eclipsed by the interposition of theirs. The manner of thismutuall illumination betwixt these two you may plainly discerne in thisFigure following. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Scal. Exerc. 62. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Epit. Astro. L. 4. Part. 2. _]

 [Illustration as described in text: sun, crescent moon and gibbous earth]

Where A represents the Sun, B the Earth, and C the Moone; Now supposethe Moone C to be in a sextile of increase, when there is onely onesmall part of her body enlightened, then the earth B will have such apart of its visible Hemispheare darkened, as is proportionable to thatpart 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 aproportionall part of the earth which shines upon it, as you may plainlyperceive by the Figure. 

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

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

1. Perhaps, the upper Hemispheare of the Moone doth receive a sufficientlight from those planets about it, and amongst these _Venus_ (it may be)bestowes a more especiall brightnesse, since _Galilæus_ hath plainlydiscerned that she suffers the same increase and decreases, as the Moonehath, and ’tis probable that this may be perceived there without thehelp of a glasse, because they are farre neerer it than wee. When_Venus_ (saith _Keplar_) lies downe in the Perige or lower part of hersupposed Epicycle, then is she in conjunction with her husband theSunne, from whom after she hath departed for the space of ten moneths, shee gets _plenum uterum_, and is in the full. 

But you’ll reply, though _Venus_ may bestow some light when she is overthe Moone, and in conjunction, yet being in opposition, she is notvisible to them, and what shall they then doe for light?

I answer, then they have none: nor doth this make so great a differencebetwixt those two Hemispheares as there is with us, betwixt the placesunder the poles, and the line, but if this bee not sufficient, then Isay in the second place that

2. Perhaps there may be some other enlightened body above the Moonewhich we cannot discerne, nor is this altogether improbable becausethere is almost the like observed in Saturne, who appeares through thisglasse with two lesser bodies on each side, which may supply the officeof Moones, unto each hemispheare thus:

 o O o

So in this world also there may be some such body, though wee cannotdiscerne it, because the Moone is alwaies in a streight line, betwixtour eye and that. Nor is it altogether unlikely that there should beemore moones to one Orbe, because _Jupiter_ also is observed to havefoure such bodies that move round about him. 

But it may seeme a very difficult thing to conceive, how so grosse anddarke a body as our earth, should yeeld such cleare light as proceedesfrom the Moone, and therefore the Cardinall _de Cusa_[1] (who thinkesevery Starre to be a severall world) is of opinion that the light of theSunne is not able to make them appeare so bright, but the reason oftheir shining is, because wee behold them at a great distance throughtheir regions of fire which doe set a shining lustre upon those bodiesthat of themselves are darke. 

 _Vnde si quis esset extra regionem ignis, terra ista in circumferentia suæ regionis per medium ignis lucida stella appareret. _

 “So that if man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would appear through that as a bright Starre. ”

But if this were the onely reason then would the Moone bee freed fromsuch increases and decreases as shee is now lyable unto. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De doct. Ig. L. 2. C. 12. _]

_Keplar_ thinkes that our earth receives that light whereby it shinesfrom the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended clearebrightnesse as the Moone is capable of, and therefore hee guesses, thatthe earth there is of a more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_, andso is better able to reflect a stronger light, whereas our earth mustsupply this intention with the quantity of its body, but this I conceiveto be a needlesse conjecture, since our earth if all things were wellconsidered, will be found able enough to reflect as great a light. For

1. Consider its opacity, if you marke these sublunary things, you shallperceive that amongst them, those that are most perspicuous, are not sowell able to reverberate the Sunne beames as the thicker bodies. Therayes passe singly through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacoussubstance they are doubled in their returne and multiplyed by reflexion. Now if the moone and the other Planets can shine so clearely by beatingbacke the Sunne beames, why may not the earth also shine as well, whichagrees with them in the cause of this brightnesse their opacity?

2. Consider what a cleare light wee may discerne reflected from theearth in the middest of Summer, and withall conceive how much greaterthat must bee which is under the line, where the rayes are more directlyand strongly reverberated. 

3. Consider the great distance at which wee behold the Planets, for thismust needs adde much to their shining and therefore _Cusanus_ (in theabove cited place) thinkes that if a man were in the Sunne, that Planetwould not appeare so bright to him, as now it doth to us, because thenhis eye could discerne but little, whereas here wee may comprehend thebeames as they are contracted in a narrow body. _Keplar_ beholding theearth from a high mountaine when it was enlightned by the Sunneconfesses that it appeared unto him of an incredible brightnesse, whereas then the reflected rayes entered into his sight obliquely; buthow much brighter would it have appeared if hee might in a direct linebehold the whole globe of earth and these rayes gathered together? Sothat if wee consider that great light which the earth receives from theSunne in the Summer, and then suppose wee were in the Moone, where weemight see the whole earth hanging in those vast spaces where there isnothing to terminate the sight, but those beames which are therecontracted into a little compasse; I say, if wee doe well consider this, wee may easily conceive, that our earth appeares as bright to thoseother inhabitants in the Moone, as theirs doth to us. 

Proposition 12. 

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

_Plutarch_ discussing this point affirmes that it is not necessary thereshould be the same meanes of growth and fructifying in both theseworlds, since nature might in her policy finde out more waies then onehow to bring about the same effect. But however he thinks its probablethat the Moone her selfe sendeth forth warme winds, and by theswiftnesse of her motion there should breathe out a sweet andcomfortable ayer, pleasant dewes and gentle moysture, which might servefor the refreshing and nourishment of the inhabitants and plants in thatother world. 

But since they have all things alike with us, as sea and land, andvaporous ayer encompassing both, I should rather therefore thinke thatnature there should use the same way of producing meteors as she dothwith us (and not by a motion as _Plutarch_ supposes) because shee dothnot love to vary from her usuall operations without some extraordinaryimpediment, but still keepes her beaten path unlesse she be driventhence. 

One argument whereby I shall manifest this truth, may be taken fromthose new Starres which have appeared in divers ages of the world, andby their parallax have beene discerned to have been above the _M_oone, such as was that in _Cassiopeia_, that in _Sagittarius_, with manyothers betwixt the Planets. _Hipparchus_ in his time tooke especiallnotice of such as these, [1] and therefore fancied out suchconstellations in which to place the Starres, shewing how many therewere in every asterisme, that so afterwards posterity might know, whether there were any new Starre produced or any old one missing. Nowthe nature of these Comets may probably manifest, that in this otherworld there are other meteors also; for these in all likelihood arenothing else but such evaporations caused by the Sunne, from the bodiesof the Planets. I shall prove this by shewing the improbabilities andinconveniences of any other opinion. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Plin. Nat. Hist. L. 2. C. 26. _]

For the better pursuite of this ’tis in the first place requisite that Ideale with our chiefe adversary, _Cæsar la Galla_, who doth mostdirectly oppose that truth which is here to bee proved. Hee endeavouringto confirme the incorruptibility of the Heavens, and being there tosatisfie the argument which is taken from these comets, He answers itthus:

 _Aut argumentum desumptum ex paralaxi non est efficax, aut si est efficax, eorum instrumentorum usum decipere, vel ratione astri vel medii, vel distantiæ, aut ergo erat in suprema parte aeris, aut si in cœlo, tum forsan factum erat ex reflectione radiorum Saturni & Jovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant. _

 “Either the argument from the paralax is not efficacious, or if it be, yet the use of the instruments might deceive either in regard of the starre or the _medium_, or the distance, and so this comet might be in the upper regions of the aire, or if it were in the heavens, there it might be produced by the reflexion of the rayes from _Saturne_ and _Jupiter_, who were then in conjunction. ”

You see what shifts hee is driven to, how he runnes up and downe to manystarting holes, that hee may find some shelter, and in stead of thestrength of reason, he answers with a multitude of words, thinking (asthe Proverbe is) that hee may use haile, when hee hath no thunder, _Nihil turpius_ (saith [1]*_Seneca_)

 _dubio est incerto, pedem modo referente, modo producente. _

 “What can there bee more unseemely in one that should be a faire disputant, then to be now here, now there, and so uncertaine, that one cannot tell where to find him. ”

He thinkes that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there maybe many other reasons of such appearances, but what he knowes not, perhaps (he saies) that argument from the parallax is not sufficient, orif it be, then there may be some deceit in the observation. To this Imay safely say, that hee may justly be accounted a weake Mathematicianwho mistrusts the strength of this argument, nor can hee know much inAstronomy, who understands not the parallax, which is the foundation ofthat Science, and I am sure that hee is a timorous man, who dares notbelieve the frequent experience of his senses, or trust to ademonstration. 

 [Sidenote 1*: _Epist. 95. _]

True indeed, I grant tis possible, that the eye, the _medium_, and thedistance may al deceive the beholder, but I would have him shew which ofall these was likely to cause an error in this observation? Meerely tosay they might be deceived is no sufficient answer, for by this I mightconfute the positions of all Astronomers, and affirme the starres arehard by us, because ’tis possible they may be deceived in theirobserving that distance. But I forbeare any further reply; my opinion isof that Treatise, that either it was set forth purposely to tempt aconfutation, that hee might see the opinion of _Galilæus_ confirmed byothers, or else it was invented with as much haste and negligence as itwas printed, there being in it almost as many faults as lines. 

Others thinke that these are not any new Comets, but some ancientstarres that were there before, which now shine with that unusuallbrightnesse, by reason of the interposition of such vapors which doemultiply their light, and so the alteration will be here onely, and notin the heavens. Thus _Aristotle_ thought the appearance of the milkieway was produced, for he held that there were many little starres, whichby their influence did constantly attract such a vapour towards thatplace of heaven, so that it alwaies appeared white. Now by the samereason may a brighter vapor be the cause of these appearances. 

But how probable soever this opinion may seeme, yet if well considered, you shall finde it to be altogether absurd and impossible: for, 1. These starres were never seene there before, and tis not likely thata vapour being hard by us can so multiply that light which could notbefore be at all discerned. 

2. This supposed vapour cannot be either contracted into a narrowcompasse or dilated into a broad: 1. It could not be within a littlespace, for then that starre would not appeare with the same multipliedlight to those in other climates: 2. It cannot be a dilated vapour, forthen other starres which were discerned through the same vapour wouldseeme as bigg as that; this argument is the same in effect with that ofthe paralax, as you may see in this Figure. 

 [Illustration]

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

Tis necessary therefore that the cause of this appearance should be inthe heavens. And this is granted by the most and best Astronomers. But, say some, this doth not argue any naturall alteration in those purerbodies, since tis probable that the concourse of many little vagabondstarres by the union of their beames may cause so great a light. Of thisopinion were _Anaxagoras_ and _Zeno_ amongst the ancient, and _BaptistaCisatus_, _Blancanus_, with others amongst our moderne Astronomers. For, say they, when there happens to be a concourse of some few starres, thendoe many other flie unto them from all the parts of heaven like so manyBees unto their King. But 1. Tis not likely that amongst those which weecount the fixed starres there should be any such uncertaine motions, that they can wander from all parts of the heavens, as if Nature hadneglected them, or forgot to appoint them a determinate course. 2. Ifthere be such a conflux of these, as of Bees to their King, then whatreason is there that they doe not still tarry with it, that so the Cometmay not be dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see itconfuted by many other arguments. Others there are, who affirme these tobe some new created stars, produced by an extraordinary supernaturallpower. I answer, true indeed, tis possible they might be so, but howevertis not likely they were so, since such appearances may be salved someother way, wherefore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a greatinjury to nature, and to derogate from her skill, an indignitie muchmis-becomming a man who professes himselfe to be a Philosopher, _Miraculum_ (saith one) _est ignorantiæ Asylum_, a miracle often servesfor the receptacle of a lazy ignorance which any industrious Spiritwould be ashamed of, it being but an idle way to shift off the labour ofany further search. But here’s the misery of it, wee first tie ourselves unto _Aristotles_ Principles, and then conclude, that nothingcould contradict them but a miracle, whereas ’twould be much better forthe Common-wealth of learning, if we would ground our Principles ratherupon the frequent experiences of our owne, then the bare authority ofothers. 

Some there are, who thinke that these Comets are nothing else, butexhalations from our earth, carried up into the higher parts of theHeaven. So _Peno_, _Rothmannus_ & _Galilæus_, [1] but this is notpossible, since by computation ’tis found that one of them is above 300times bigger than the whole Globe of Land and Water. Others thereforehave thought that they did proceed from the body of the Sun, and thatthat Planet onely is

 _Cometarum officina, unde tanquam emissarii & exploratores emitterentur, brevi ad solem redituri_:

The shop or forge of Comets from whence they were sent, like so manyspies, that they might in some short space returne againe, but thiscannot be, since if so much matter had proceeded from him alone, itwould have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble _Tycho_therefore thinkes that they consist of some such fluider parts of theHeaven, as the milkie way is framed of, which being condenst together, yet not attaining to the consistency of a Starre, is in some space oftime rarified againe into its wonted nature. But this is not likely, forif there had beene so great a condensation as to make them shine sobright, and last so long, they would then sensibly have moved downewardstowards some center of gravity, because whatsoever is condenst mustnecessarily grow heavier, whereas these rather seemed to ascend higher, as they lasted longer. But some may object, that a thing may be of thesame weight, when it is rarified, as it had while it was condenst: sometalls, when they are melted, and when they are cold: so water alsowhen it is frozen, and when it is fluid, doth not differ in respect ofgravity. But to these I answer: First, Metalls are not rarified bymelting, but molified. Secondly, waters are not properly condensed, butcongealed into a harder substance, the parts being not contracted closertogether, but still possessing the same extension. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Tycho Progym. L. 1. Cap. 9. _]

And beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this condensation, unlesse there be such qualities there, as there are in our ayre, andthen why may not the Planets have the like qualities, as our earth? andif so, then ’tis more probable that they are made by the ordinary way ofnature, as they are with us, and consist of exhalations from the bodiesof the Planets. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed mostlikely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_, _Fromondus_, [1] withsome others. But if you aske whither all these exhalations shallreturne, I answer, every one into his owne Planet: if it be againeobjected, [2] that then there will be so many centers of gravity, andeach severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, perhaps all ofthem are so except the Sunne, though _Cusanus_ thinkes there is onealso, and later times have discovered some lesser Planets moving roundabout him. But as for _Saturne_, he hath two Moones on each side. _Jupiter_ hath foure, that incircle his body with their motion. _Venus_is observed to increase and decrease as the Moone. _Mars_, and all therest, derive their light from the Sunne onely. Concerning _Mercury_, there hath beene little or no observation, because for the most part, he lies hid under the Sunne beames, and seldome appeares by himselfe. So that if you consider their quantity, their opacity, or these otherdiscoveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them maybe a severall world. But this would be too much for to vent at thefirst: the chiefe thing at which I now ayme in this discourse, is toprove that there may be one in the Moone. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De Comet. L. 5. C. 4. _ _Apolog. _ _Meteor. L. 3. C. 2. Art. 6. _]

 [Sidenote 2: _Iohan. Fabr. _ _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc. _ _Scheiner. Rosa Vrsina. _]

It hath beene before confirmed that there was a spheare of thickevaporous aire encompasing the Moone, as the first and second regions doethis earth. I have now shewed, that thence such exhalations may proceedeas doe produce the Comets: now from hence it may probably follow, thatthere may be wind also and raine, with such other Meteors as are commonamongst us. This consequence is so dependant, that _Fromondus_[1] daresnot deny it, though hee would (as hee confesses himselfe) for if theSunne be able to exhale from them such fumes as may cause Comets, whynot then such as may cause winds, and why not such also as cause raine, since I have above shewed, that there is Sea and Land as with us. Nowraine seemes to be more especially requisite for them, since it mayallay the heate and scorchings of the Sunne, when he is over theirheads. And nature hath thus provided for those in _Peru_, with the otherinhabitants under the line. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De meteor. L. 3. C. 2. Art. 6. _]

But if there be such great, and frequent alterations in the Heavens, whycannot wee discerne them?

I answer:

1. There may be such, and we not able to perceive them, because of theweaknesse of our eye, and the distance of those places from us, they arethe words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the abovecited place, _Possunt maximæ permutationes in cœlo fieri, etiamsi a nobis non conspiciantur, hoc visus nostri debilitas & immensa cœli distantia faciunt. _

And unto him assents _Fromondus_ himselfe, when a little after heesaies, _Si in sphæris planetarum degeremus, plurima forsan cœlestium nebularum vellere toto æthere passim dispersa videremus, quorum species jam evanescit nimia spatii intercapedine. _

 “If we did live in the spheares of the Planets, wee might there, perhaps, discerne many great clouds dispersed through the whole Heavens, which are not now visible by reason of this great distance. ”

2. _Mæslin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of thesealterations. The words of _Mæslin_ are these (as I finde them cited. )[1]

 _In eclipsi Lunari vespere Dominicæ Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore Lunæ versus Boream, nigricans quædam macula conspecta fuit, obscurior cætero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri figuram repræsentabat; dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tempestuosis imbribus gravida, cujusmodi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliora convallium loca videre non rarò contingit. _

 “In that lunary eclipse which happened in the even of Palme-sunday, in the yeere 1605, there was a certaine blackish spot discerned in the Northerly part of the Moone, being darker than any other part of her body, and representing the colour of red hot yron; 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. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _Disser. 2. Cum nunc. Galil. _]

Unto this I may adde another testimony of _Bapt. Cisatus_, as he isquoted by _Nierembergius_, [1] grounded upon an observation taken 23. Yeeres after this of _Mæslin_, and writ to this _Euseb. Nieremberg. _ ina letter by that diligent and judicious Astronomer. The words of itrunne thus:

 _Et quidem in eclipsi nupra solari quæ fuit ipso die natali Christi, observavi clarè in luna soli supposita, quidpiam quod valde probat id ipsum quod Cometæ quoque & maculæ solares urgent, nempe cœlum non esse à tenuitate & variationibus aeris exemptum, nam circa Lunam adverti esse sphæram seu orbem quendam vaporosum, non secus atque circum terram, adeoque sicut ex terra in aliquam usque sphæram vapores & exhalationes expirant, ita quoque ex luna. _

 “In that late solary eclipse which happened on Christmas day, when the Moone was just under the Sunne, I plainly discerned that in her which may clearely confirme what the Comets and Sunne spots doe seeme to prove, _viz. _ that the heavens are not solid, nor freed from those changes which our aire is liable unto, for about the Moone I perceived such an orbe of vaporous aire, as that is which doth encompasse our earth, and as vapours and exhalations, are raised from our earth into this aire, so are they also from the Moone. ”

 [Sidenote 1: _Hist. Nat. L. 2. C. 11. _]

You see what probable grounds and plaine testimonies have brought forthe confirmation of this Proposition: many other things in this behalfemight be spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and passe unto thenext. 

Proposition 13. 

_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but of what kinde they are is uncertaine. _

I have already handled the Seasons and Meteors belonging to this newWorld: ’tis requisite that in the next place I should come unto thethird thing which I promised, and to say somewhat of the inhabitants, concerning whom there might be many difficult questions raised, aswhether that place be more inconvenient for habitation then our World(as _Keplar_ thinkes) whether they are the seed of _Adam_, whether theyare there in a blessed estate, or else what meanes there may be fortheir salvation, with many other such uncertaine enquiries, which Ishall willingly omit, leaving it to their examination, who have moreleisure and learning for the search of such particulars. 

Being for mine own part content only to set downe such notes belongingunto these which have observed in other Writers. 

 _Cum tota illa regio nobis ignota sit, remanent inhabitores illi ignoti penitus_, (saith _Cusanus_)[1] since we know not the regions of that place, weemust be altogether ignorant of the inhabitants. There hath not yet beeneany such discovery concerning these, upon which wee may build acertainty, or good probability: well may wee guesse at them, and thattoo very doubtfully, but we can know nothing, for if we doe hardlyguesse aright at things which be upon earth, if with labour wee doefinde the things that are at hand, [2]how then can wee search out thosethings that are in Heaven? What a little is that which wee know? inrespect of those many matters contained within this great Universe, thiswhole globe of earth and water? though it seeme to us to be of a largeextent, yet it beares not so great a proportion unto the whole frame ofNature, as a small sand doth unto it; and what can such little creaturesas wee discerne, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can theyin the Moone know of us? If wee understand any thing (saith _Esdras_[3])’tis nothing but that which is upon the earth, and hee that dwellethabove in the Heavens, may onely understand the things that are above inthe heighth of the heavens. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De doct. Ign. L. 2. C. 12. _]

 [Sidenote 2: Wisd. 9. 16. ]

 [Sidenote 3: 2 Esd. 4. 22. ]

So that ’twere a very needelesse thing for us, to search after anyparticulars, however, wee may guesse in the generall, that there aresome inhabitans in that Planet: for why else did Providence furnish thatplace with all such conveniences of habitation as have beene abovedeclared?

But you will say, perhaps, is there not too great and intollerable aheate, since the Sunne is in their Zinith every moneth, and doth tarrytheir so long before hee leaves it?

I answer, 1. This may, perhaps, be remedied (as it is under the line) bythe frequencie of mid-day showers, which may cloud their Sunne, andcoole their earth: 2. The equality of their nights doth much temper thescorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes from the one, require some space before it can be dispelled by the other, so that theheate spending a great while before it can have the victory, hath notafterwards much time to rage in. Wherfore notwithstanding this, yet thatplace may remaine habitable. And this was the opinion of the _Cardinalde Cusa_, when speaking of this Planet, he saies, [1]

 _Hic locus Mundi est habitatio hominum & animalium atque vegetabilium_. 

 “This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes. ”

To him assented _Campanella_, but hee cannot determine whether therewere men, or rather some other kinde of creatures. If they were men, then he thinkes they could not be infected with _Adams_ sinne; yet, perhaps, they had some of their owne, which might make them liable tothe same misery with us, out of which, perhaps, they were delivered bythe same means as we, the death of Christ, and thus he thinkes thatplace of the _Ephesians_ may be interpreted, where the Apostle saies, [2]_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 hee saies, [3] that _it pleased the Father toreconcile all things unto himselfe by Christ, whether they be things inearth, or things in heaven_. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De doct. Ign. L. 2. C. 12. _]

 [Sidenote 2: Eph. 1. 10. ]

 [Sidenote 3: Col. 1. 20. ]

But I dare not jest with Divine truthes, or apply these places accordingas fancy directs. As I thinke this opinion doth not any where contradictScripture, so I thinke likewise, that it cannot be proved from it, wherefore _Campanella’s_ second conjecture may be more probable, thatthe inhabitants of that world, are not men as wee are, but some otherkinde of creatures which beare some proportion and likenesse to ournatures, and _Cusanus_ too thinkes they differ from us in many respects;I will set downe his words as they may bee found in the abovecitedplace, _Suspicamus in regione solis magis esse solares, claros & illuminatos intellectuares habitatores, spiritu aliores etiam quam in lunâ, ubi magis lunatici, & in terra, magis materiales, & grossi, ut illi intellectualis naturæ solares sint multum in actu & parum in potentia; terreni vero magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influentia ignili solis aquatica simul & aeria lunæ, & gravedine materiali terræ, & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes, nullam habitatoribus carêre, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales omnius universi, quot sunt stellæ quarum non est numerus, nisi apud eum qui omnia in numero creavit. _

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

For he held that the stars were not all in one equall Orbe as wecommonly suppose, but that some were farre higher than others which madethem appeare lesse and that many others were so farre above any ofthese, that they were altogether invisible unto us. An opinion (which asI conceive) hath not any great probability for it, nor certainty againstit. 

The Priest of _Saturne_ relating to _Plutarch_ (as he faignes it) thenature of the Selenites, told him they were of divers dispositions, somedesiring to live in the lower parts of the Moone, where they might lookedownewards upon us, while others were more surely mounted aloft, all ofthem shining like the rayes of the Sun, and as being victorious arecrowned with garlands made with the wings of _Eustathia_ or_Constancie_. 

It hath beene the opinion amongst some of the Ancients, that theirHeavens and Elysian fields were in the Moone where the aire is mostquiet and pure. Thus _Socrates_, thus _Plato_, [1] with his followers, did esteeme this to bee the place where those purer soules inhabit, whoare freed from the Sepulchre, and contagion of the body. And by theFable of _Ceres_, continually wandring in search of her daughter_Proserpina_, is meant nothing else but the longing desire of men, wholive upon _Ceres_ earth, to attaine a place in _Proserpina_, the Mooneor Heaven. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Com. Lib. 3. C. 19. _]

_Plutarch_ also seemes to assent unto this, but hee thinkes moreover, that there are two places of happinesse answerable to those two partswhich hee fancies to remaine of a man when hee is dead, the soule andthe understanding; the soule he thinkes is made of the Moone, and as ourbodies doe so proceede from the dust of this earth, that they shallreturne to it hereafter, so our soules were generated out of thatPlanet, and shall bee resolved into it againe, whereas the understandingshall ascend unto the Sunne, out of which it was made where it shallpossesse an eternity of well being, and farre greater happinesse thanthat which is enjoyed in the Moone. So that when a man dies, if hissoule bee much polluted, then must it wander up and downe in the middleregions of the aire where hell is, and there suffer unspeakable tormentsfor those sinnes whereof it is guilty. Whereas the soules of better men, when they have in some space of time beene purged from that impuritywhich they did derive from the body, then doe they returne into theMoone, where they are possest with such a joy, as those men feele whoprofesse holy misteries, from which place (saith he) some are sent downeto have the superintendance of Oracles, being diligent either in thepreservation of the good, either from or in all perils, and theprevention or punishment of all wicked actions, but if in theseimployments they mis-behave themselves, then are they againe to beimprisoned in a body, otherwise they remaine in the Moone till theirbody be resolved into it, & the understanding being cleared from allimpediments, ascends to the Sunne which is its proper place. But thisrequires a diverse space of time according to the diverse affections ofthe soule. As for those who have beene retired and honest, addictingthemselves to a studious and quiet life, these are quickly preferred toa higher happinesse. But as for such who have busied themselves in manybroyles, or have beene vehement in the prosecution of any lust, as theambitious, the amorous, the wrathfull man, these still retaine theglimpses and dreames of such things as they have performed in theirbodies, which makes them either altogether unfit to remaine there wherethey are, or else keepes them long ere they can put off their soules. Thus you see _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning the inhabitants andneighbours of the Moone, which (according to the manner of theAcademickes) hee delivers in a third person; you see he makes thatPlanet an inferiour kind of heaven, and though hee differ in manycircumstances, yet doth hee describe it to be some such place, as weesuppose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concerning theplace of 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 OrthodoxWriters have agreed with him. As for the place of hell, many thinke itmay be in the aire as well as any where else. 

True indeed, Saint _Austin_ affirmes that this place cannot beediscovered;[1] But others there are who can shew the situation of it outof Scripture; Some holding it to bee in some other world without this, because our Saviour calls it σκότος ἐξώτερον, outward darkenesse. [2] Butthe most will have it placed towards the Center of our earth, because’tis said, [3] Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, andsome of these are so confident, that this is its situation, that theycan describe you its bignes also, and of what capacity it is. _FrancisRibera_ in his Comment on the _Revelations_, speaking of those words, where ’tis said, [4] that the blood went out of the Wine-presse, evenunto the horses bridles by the space of one thousand and sixe hundredfurlongs, interprets them to bee meant of Hell, and that that numberexpresses the diameter of its concavity, which is 200 _Italian_ miles;but _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome inhell, [5] and therefore hee guesses that ’tis not so wide; for (saithhee) the diameter of one league being cubically multiplied, will make aspheare capable of 800000 millions of damned bodies, allowing to eachsixe foote in the square, whereas (saies hee) ’tis certaine that thereshall not be one hundred thousand millions in all that shall bee damned. You see the bold _Iesuit_ was carefull that every one should have butroome enough in hell, and by the strangenesse of the conjecture, you mayguesse that he had rather bee absurd, than seeme either uncharitable orignorant. I remember there is a relation in _Pliny_, how that_Dionisiodorus_ a Mathematician, being dead, did send a letter from hisplace to some of his friends upon earth, to certifie them what distancethere was betwixt the center and superficies: hee might have done wellto have prevented this controversie, and enformed them the utmostcapacity of that place. However, certaine it is, that that number cannotbee 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 beein the regions of the aire as well as in the center; but of this onelyoccasionally, and by reason of _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning those thatare round about the Moone; as for the Moone it selfe, hee esteemes itto bee a lower kinde of Heaven, and therefore in another place hee calsit a terrestriall starre, [6] and an Olympian or celestiall earthanswerable, as I conceive, to the paradise of the Schoolemen, and thatParadise was either in or neere the Moone, is the opinion of some laterWriters, who derived it (in all likelihood) from the assertion of_Plato_, and perhaps, this of _Plutarch_. _Tostatus_[7] laies thisopinion upon _Isioder. Hispalensis_, and the venerable _Bede_; and_Pererius_[8] fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_ his Master. Some would have it to bee situated in such a place as could not bediscovered, which causes the penman of _Esdras_ to make it a hardermatter to know the outgoings of Paradise, then to weigh the weight ofthe fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call againe a day that ispast. [9] But notwithstanding this, there bee some others who thinke thatit is on the top of some high mountaine under the line, and theseinterpreted the torrid Zone to be the flaming Sword whereby Paradisewas guarded. ’Tis the consent of divers others, who agree in this, thatParadise is situated in some high and eminent place. [10] So _Tostatus_:

 _Est etiam Paradisus situ altissima, supra omnem terræ altitudinem_, “Paradise is situated in some high place above the earth”:

and therefore in his Cõment upon the 49. Of _Genesis_, hee understandsthe blessing of _Iacob_ concerning the everlasting hills to bee meant ofParadise, and the blessing it selfe to bee nothing else but a promise ofChrists comming, by whose passion the gates of Paradise should beeopened. Unto him assented _Rupertus_, _Scotus_, and most of the otherSchoolemen, as I find them cited by _Pererius_, [11] and out of him inSr. _W. Rawleigh_. Their reason was this: because in probability thisplace was not overflowed by the flood, since there were no sinners therewhich might draw that curse upon it. Nay _Tostatus_ thinkes that thebody of _Enoch_ was kept there, and some of the Fathers, as _Tertullian_and _Austin_ have affirmed, that the blessed soules were reserved inthat place till the day of judgement, and therefore ’tis likely that itwas not overflowed by the flood; and besides, since all men should havewent naked if _Adam_ had not fell, ’tis requisite therefore that itshould be situated in some such place where it might bee priviledgedfrom the extremities of heat and cold. But now this could not bee (theythought) so conveniently in any lower, as it might in some higher aire. For these and such like considerations have so many affirmed thatParadise was in a high elevated place, which some have conceived couldbee no where but in the Moone: For it could not be in the top of anymountaine, nor can we thinke of any other body separated from this earthwhich can bee a more convenient place for habitation than this Planet, therefore they concluded that it was there. 

 [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. Lib. 22. Ca. 16. _]

 [Sidenote 2: Mat. 25. 30]

 [Sidenote 3: Eph. 4. 9. ]

 [Sidenote 4: Rev. 14. 20. ]

 [Sidenote 5: _De Morib. Div. L. 13. C. 24. _]

 [Sidenote 6: _Cur silent oracula. _]

 [Sidenote 7: _S. W. Raw. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. § 7. _]

 [Sidenote 8: _in Gen. _]

 [Sidenote 9: 2 Esd. 4. 7. ]

 [Sidenote 10: _In_ Genes. ]

 [Sidenote 11: _Comment. In 2. Gen. V. 8. Lib 1. Cap. 3. § 6 7. _]

It could not bee on the top of any mountaine. 

1. Because wee have expresse Scripture, that the highest of them wasoverflowed. [1]

 [Sidenote 1: Gen. 7. 19. ]

2. Because it must bee of a greater extension, and not some small patchof ground, since ’tis likely all men should have lived there, if _Adam_had not fell. But for a satisfaction of these arguments, together with afarther discourse of Paradise, I shall referre you to those who havewritten purposely upon this subject. Being content for my owne part tohave spoken so much of it, as may conduce to shew the opinion of othersconcerning the inhabitants of the Moone, I dare not my selfe affirme anything of these Selenites, because I know not any ground whereon to buildany probable opinion. But I thinke that future ages will discover more;and our posterity, perhaps, may invent some meanes for our betteracquaintance with these inhabitants. ’Tis the method of providence notpresently to shew us all, but to lead us along from the knowledge of onething to another. ’Twas a great while ere the Planets were distinguishedfrom the fixed Stars, and sometime after that ere the morning andevening starre were found to bee the same, and in greater space I doubtnot but this also, and farre greater mysteries will bee discovered. Inthe first ages of the world the Islanders either thought themselves tobe the onely dwellers upon the earth, or else if there were any other, yet they could not possibly conceive how they might have any commercewith them, being severed by the deepe and broad Sea, but the after-timesfound out the invention of ships, in which notwithstanding none but somebold daring men durst venture, there being few so resolute as to committhemselves unto the vaste Ocean, and yet now how easie a thing is this, even to a timorous & cowardly nature? So, perhaps, there may be someother meanes invented for a conveyance to the Moone, and though it mayseeme a terrible and impossible thing ever to passe through the vastespaces of the aire, yet no question there would bee some men who durstventure this as well as the other. True indeed, I cannot conceive anypossible meanes for the like discovery of this conjecture, since therecan bee no sailing to the Moone, unlesse that were true which the Poetsdoe but feigne, that shee made her bed in the Sea. We have not now any_Drake_ or _Columbus_ to undertake this voyage, or any _Dædalus_ toinvent a conveyance through the aire. However, I doubt not but that timewho is still the father of new truths, and hath revealed unto us manythings which our Ancestours were ignorant of, will also manifest to ourposterity, that which wee now desire, but cannot know. _Veniet tempus_(saith _Seneca_[1])

 _quo ista quæ nunc latent, in lucem, dies extrahet, & longioris ævi diligentia. _

Time will come when the indeavours of after-ages shall bring such thingsto light, as now lie hid in obscurity. Arts are not yet come to theirSolstice, but the industry of future times assisted with the labours oftheir forefathers, may reach unto that height which wee could notattaine to. 

 _Ueniet tempus quo posteri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse mirentur. _

As wee now wonder at the blindnesse of our Ancestors, who were not ableto discerne such things as seeme plaine and obvious unto us. So will ourposterity admire our ignorance in as perspicuous matters. _Keplar_doubts not, but that as soone as the art of flying is found out, some oftheir Nation will make one of the first colonies that shall inhabitethat other world. But I leave this and the like conjectures to thefancie of the reader; Desiring now to finish this Discourse, wherein Ihave in some measure proved what at the first I promised, a world in theMoone. However, I am not so resolute in this, that I thinke tisnecessary there must be one, but my opinion is that ’tis possible theremay be, and tis probable there is another habitable world in thatPlanet. And this was that I undertooke to prove. In the pursuit whereof, if I have shewed much weaknesse or indiscretion; I shall willinglysubmit my selfe to the reason and censure of the more judicious. 

 [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Quæst. L. 7. C. 25. _]

 [Decoration]

The Propositions that are proved in this Discourse. 

Proposition 1. 

_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common consent. _

By way of Preface. 

Prop. 2. 

_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason or faith. _

Prop. 3. 

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

Prop. 4. 

_That the Moone is a solid, compacted opacous body. _

Prop. 5. 

_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne. _

Prop. 6. 

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

Prop. 7. 

_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world. _

Prop. 8. 

_That the spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. _

Prop. 9. 

_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plaines in the body of the Moone. _

Prop. 10. 

_That there is an Atmo-sphæra, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire, immediately encompassing the body of the Moone. _

Prop. 11. 

_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone. _

Prop. 12. 

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

Prop. 13. 

_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but of what kinde they are is uncertaine. _

FINIS. 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Transcriber’s Additional Notes and Errata]

Works and Authors Cited in Sidenotes:

This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. A few sources could notbe identified; others are so well-known, they did not need to be marked. 

The following spellings and name forms are used consistently:

 Austin = Augustine Blancanus the Jesuit(e) = Josephus Blancanus, Giuseppe Biancani Caelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus Tycho = Tycho Brahe Nicholas Hill “a country man of ours”. Hill the early atomist, not Hill (Montanus, van de Bergh) the printer. Keplar = Kepler (Johannes) Julius Caesar = Cæsar la Galla, Giulio Cesare La Galla, Lagalla Mæslin = Maestlin (Michael) Rawleigh, Rawly = Raleigh (Sir Walter) Verulam = Francis Bacon (1st Baron Verulam)

 Note also “sydera” for “sidera”. 

Albertus Magnus: _De quattuor coaequaevis_----: _De caelo et mundo_Aristotle: _De Caelo_Bede: _De ratione temporum_Christopher Besoldus: _De Natura Populorum ejusque variatione, et de Linguarum ortu atque immutatione_ (1632)Josephus Blancanus (Giuseppe Biancani): _Sphaera mundi_ (Full Title: _Sphaera Mundi seu Cosmographia. Demonstrativa, ac facili Methodo tradita: In qua totius Mundi fabrica, una cum novis, Tychonis, Kepleri, Galilaei, aliorumque; Astronomorum adinventis continetur_)----: _Aristotelis loca mathematica ex universes ipsius operibus collecta et explicata_Tycho (Brahe): _Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata_Th. (Tommaso) Campanella: _Apologia pro Galileo_ (1622)Collegium Conimbricenses (Jesuits of Coimbra University): _Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo_ (1592)Cardinal de Cusa, Cusanus (Nicholas of Cusa/Kues, Nicolaus Cryffts): _De Docta Ignorantia_Johannes Fabricius: _De Maculis in Sole Observatis, et Apparente earum cum Sole Conversione Narratio_ (1611) Text not identified by name. Libertus Fromondus (Libert Froidmont): _Meteorologicorum libri sex_ (1627)Galileo: _Nuncius Sidereus_Camillus Gloriosus (Giovanni Camillo Glorioso): _De Cometis dissertatio astronomico-physica_ (1624)Isidore: _Originum_Johannes Kepler: _Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo_ The name “Galileo” (or “Galilei”) is sometimes included in the title, as “Diss. Cum Nunc. Syd. Galil. ”----: _Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae_----: _Astronomiae Pars Optica_Julius Caesar (Giulio Cesare La Galla): _De Phenomenis in Orbe Lunae_ (1612)Leonard Lessius: _De perfectionibus moribusque divinis_ (1620) This work is often cited as “De Moribus”; other early mentions are found in _Tristram Shandy_ and _The Anatomy of Melancholy_. Mæslin (Michael Maestlin): _Epitome Astronomiae_ (1610)Carolus Malapertus, Malapertius (Charles Malapert): _Austriaca sidera heliocyclia astronomicis hypothesibus illigata_ (1633)Jacobus Mazonius (Jacopo Mazzoni): _In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia sive de Comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis_Johannes Eusebius (Juan Eusebio) Nieremberg: _Historia Naturae_ (1635)Augustinus Nifus (Niphus, Agostino Nifo) Quoted text not identified by name. Benedictus Pererius (Benito Pereira): _Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesim tomi quattuor_ (1591-99)Plutarch: _De facie in orbe lunae_----: _De tranquillitate animi_Erasmus Reinhold: Commentary (1542, 1553) on Georg Purbach’s _Theoricae novae planetarum_Caelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus (Lodovico / Luigi Ricchieri): _Lectionum antiquarum libri triginta_Ruvio (Antonio Rubio): Commentary on Aristotle’s _De Caelo_(Julius Caesar) Scaliger: _Exotericae exercitationes ad Hieronymum Cardanum_Christoph Scheiner: _Rosa Ursina sive Sol ex Admirando Facularum & Macularum suarum Phoenomeno varius_Tostatus (Alonso Tostado): _In Genesis_

 * * * * *

Errors and Anomalies:

All but one occurrence of -que is written with a ligature. They havebeen expanded for this e-text. 

though they have for a long time lien neglected _so in original: “lain”?_πολλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐδένα νόον ἔχοντας _text reads πελλοὺς; last vowel in ἔχοντας unclear_both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_ _“Senafinus” could not be identified, but cannot be Serafinus__Aristotle_ was the viol of Gods wrath _spelling “viol” as in original_the world is much beholden to _Aristotle_ for all its sciences _text reads “it sciences”_if there be more worlds than one _text reads “more words”_[Sidenote] Ecclus. 43. 3. 4. _so in original: “Eccles. ”?_[Sidenote to “Ptolome”] _I{o} Apost. _ _reading unclear, text not identified: “I^o. ”?_[Sidenote to “Rosa Vrsina”] _lib. 4. P. 2. Cy. 24, 35. _ _unclear: “ty. ” or error for “cp. ”?__Hebræonia l. 2. C. 4. _ _text unclear: “Hebraeoma”?_and more especially _Malapertius_ _text reads “Mulapertius”_but never confuted by any solid reason _text reads “coufuted”_[Sidenote] ... _dissertatio / cum Nic. Hill. _ ... _so in original: error for “dissertatio cum Nunc[ius] Sid[ereus]” (by Kepler)?_vius qui ad experimenta hæc contradicendi animo accesserant _so in original_it might probably be deduced _text reads “de deduced”_so _Ioach. Rlelicus_ _so in original: “Rheticus”?_Others think[1] that there be some bodies _text reads “that there some bodies”_[Sidenote] So _Bede_ in _d. De Mund. Constit. _ _single letter illegible: could be “fi” or “à”_[Sidenote] Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat. _so in original: “Nieremberg”_sententiam exsuscitare velit _text reads “excuscitare”_that earth in the writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers _spelling as in original_[Sidenote] _Lect. Ant. L. 1. C. 15. _ _text reads “Lect. Aut l. 1”_Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse _text reads “owne-eye-witnesse”_that in the Moone there should be any mountaines _text reads “thete”__Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_ _text unclear; may be “Emus”: for Mt. Aenus?_the 47th proposition in the first booke of elements. Therefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104 _“the 47th proposition” is better known as the Pythagorean theorem. “104” is presumably an error for “1004”; the correct figure is almost 1005_[Sidenote] _Plat. De fac. _ _so in original: “Plut[arch]”?_[Sidenote] _Præfat. Ad Austrica syd. _ _so in original: “Austriaca”_[Sidenote to Cælius] _Progym. 1. _[Sidenote to Tycho] _l. 20. C. 5. _ _notes may be reversed: Tycho Brahe wrote a “Progymnasmata”_because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts _so in original: “exsuperancy”_because they are farre neerer it than wee _text unclear_a more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_ _spelling as in original: “chalky”_in his time tooke especiall notice _text reads “looke” but catchword has “tooke”_such appearances may be salved some other way _so in original_[Sidenote] _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc. _ _so in original: Malapert(i)us_2. _Mæslin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of these alterations. The words of _Mæslin_ are these (as I finde them cited. )[Sidenote] _Disser. 2. Cum nunc. Galil. _ _sidenote is attached to Mæslin quote, but work named is by Kepler_there are some inhabitants in that Planet _text reads “inhabitans”_The equality of their nights doth much temper the scorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes from the one, require some space _wording as in original_This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes. _text reads “Planets”_intellectuares habitatores _so in original: “intellectuales”?_ex influentia ignili solis _adjective “ignilis” may have been invented by author cited_but _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome _text reads “opi/on” at line break_hee cals it a terrestriall starre _text reads “terrestraill”__Pererius_ fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_ _text reads “fathers is”_

Punctuation:

the Cities and Mountaines hanging. ” What shall wee thinke _marginal quotes continue through line beginning “shall wee”_a propension in its subject _text reads “’its” with leading apostrophe_But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture _opening parenthesis missing_Scripturequæ cœlum pluribus realibus atque _“atque” written out (all other -que occurrences use ligature)_more directly proved by _Mæslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilæus_ _no comma after “Mæslin”_it seemed most / likely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_ _text has period (full stop) for comma_too much for to vent at the first: the chiefe thing _text reads “at the first. The”_the words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above cited place, _Possunt maximæ ... _ _text has “... Cited place) _Possunt ... ”_ _could also be:_ the words of _Fienus_ (as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above cited place) _Possunt maximævespere Dominicæ Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore Lunæ _text reads “Anni 1605. In corpore”_And this was the opinion of the _Cardinal de Cusa_ _text reads “de cusa”_but to lead us along from the knowledge of one thing to another _“a/long” printed at line break without hyphen_

Printer’s Errors:

Invisible letters or punctuation marks, supplied from context, are shownin {braces}. 

2{. } Grosse absurdities have beene entertained[Sidenote] _Plutarch. De t{r}anq. Anim. _[Sidenote] _Lib. 9. Architecturæ{. }_[Sidenote] Reinhold _comment. In Purb. Th{e}or. Pag. 164. _[Sidenote] _In lib. De natur. Rerum{. }_[Sidenote] _De 4r. Coævis.... Exercit{. } 62. _[Sidenote] _Plut. De plac. Phil. L. 2. C. 13{. }_][Sidenote] _Ex qua parte luna est transpi{c}ua non totum secundum superfi{ci}em, [Sidenote] _Albert. Mag. De {c}oævis. Q. 4. Art. 21. _[Sidenote] _S{c}alig. Exercit. 62. _some others have thought it to be ver{y} much like a FoxMihi autem dubium fuit nu{m}quam ... Sese in conspectum da{t}uramBut it may be againe obj{e}ctedyet would the motion of i{t}s centre by an attractive vertue still hold it w{it}hin i{t}s convenient distance, so that whether their ear{t}h moved _“within”: “i” missing, “t” invisible_You may see this truth assented unto by _Blancanus_ the J{e}suitand if you obj{e}ct that the light which is conveyedfor he confesses himselfe that he saw this by the glasse{. }our earth appeares a{s} brigh{t}

 * * * * *

Pagination:

_Pages 177-192 (printed as 175-190) are all one error: The eight pagesprinted on one side of the sheet forming signature N were misnumberedby -2. _

118, 120 _read_ 18, 20123 _reads_ 113166 _reads_ 66177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 192 _read_ 175, 178, 179, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190209 _reads_ 107210, 211 _read_ 208, 209212, 213, 214 _no printed number_215 _reads_ 63