diagram of solar system and planetary orbits 
THE DISCOVERY OF A WORLD IN THE MOON.  


Saturnus ♄  
Jupiter ♃  
Mars ♂  
Ceres et Proserpina ● ☽  
Venus ♀  
Mercu●s ☿   Sua fovent 
 Mutuo se illuminant 
 Vniversun ornant  ☉ 
Am omnes    

OR, A DISCOURSE 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. Praef. ad 1. Lib. N. Q.  
LONDON, Printed by E. G. for Michael Spark and Edward Forest, 1638.   

Perlegi haec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & novitatis gratiâ typis mandari permitto.  
Mart. 29. 1638. THO. WEEKS R. P. Episc. Lond. Cap. Domest.   

To the Reader.  
IF amongst thy leisure hours thou canst spare any for the perusal of this discourse, and dost look to found somewhat in it which may serve for thy information and benefit: let me then advice thee to come unto it with an equal mind, not swayed by prejudice, but indifferently resolved to assent unto that truth which upon deliberation shall seem most probable unto thy reason, and then I doubt not, but either thou wil● agreed with me in this assertion, or at lest not think it to be as fare from truth, as it is from common opinion.  
Two cautions th●re are which I would willingly admonish thee of in the beginning.  
1. That thou shouldst not here look to found any exact, accurate Treatise, since this discourse was but the fruit of some lighter studies, and those too huddled up in a short time, being first thought of and finished in the space of some few weeks, 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' only probable arguments for the proof of this opinion, and therefore you must not look that every consequence should be of an undeniable dependence, or that the truth of each argument should be measured by its necessity. I grant that some Astronomical appearances may possibly be solved otherwise then here they are. But the thing I aim at is this, that probably they may so be solved, as I have here set them down: Which, if it be granted (as I think it must) than I doubt not, but the indifferent reader will found some satisfaction in the main thing that is to be proved.  
Many ancient Philosophers of the better note, have formerly defended this assertion, which I have here laid down, and it were to be wished, that some of us would more apply our endeavours unto the examination of these old opinions, which though they have for a long time lain neglected by others, yet in them may you find many truths well worthy your pains and observation. 'tis a false conceit, for us to think, that amongst the ancient variety and search of opinions, the best hath still prevailed. Time (saith the learned Verulam) seems to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light, or blown up, but sinketh that which is weighty and solid.  
It is my desire that by the occasion of this discourse, I may raise up some more active spirit to a search after other hidden and unknown truths. Since it must needs be a great impediment unto the growth of sciences, for men still so to plod on upon beaten principles, as to be afraid of entertaining any thing that may seem to contradict them. An unwillingness to take such things into examination, is one of those errors of learning in these times observed by the judicious Verulam. Questionless there are many secret truths, which the ancients have passed over, that are yet left to make some of our age famous for their discovery.  
If by this occasion I may provoke any reader to an attempt of this nature, I shall then think myself happy, and this work successful.  
Farewell.   


The First Proposition, by way of Preface. That the strangeness of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected,- because other certain truths have been formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertained by common consent.  
THere is an earnestness and hungering after novelty, which doth still adhere unto all our natures, and it is part of that primitive image, that wide extent and infinite capacity at first created in the heart of man, for this since its depravation in Adam perceiving itself altogether emptied of any good doth now catch after every new thing, conceiving that possibly it may find satisfaction among some of its fellow creatures. But our enemy the devil (who strives still to pervert our gifts, and beat us with our own weapons) hath so contrived it, that any truth doth now seem distasteful for that very reason, for which error is entertained— Novelty, for let but some upstart heresy be set abroach, and presently there are some out of a curious humour; others, as if they watched an occasion of singularity, will take it up for canonical, and make it part of their creed and profession;- whereas solitary truth cannot any where find so ready entertainment; but the same Novelty which is esteemed the commendation of error and makes that acceptable, is counted the fault of truth, and causes that to be rejected. How did the incredulous World gaze at Columbus when he promised to discover another part of the earth, and he could not for a long time by his confidence, or arguments, induce any of the Christian Princes, either to assent unto his opinion, or go to the charges of an experiment. Now if he who had such good grounds for his assertion, could find no better entertainment among the wiser sort, and upper end of the World; 'tis not likely then that this opinion which I now deliver, shall receive any thing from the men of these days, especially our vulgar wits, but misbelief or derision. It hath always been the unhappiness of new truths in Philosophy, to be derided by those that are ignorant of the causes of things, and rejected by others whose perverseness ties them to the contrary opinion, men whose envious pride will not allow any new thing for truth which they themselves were not the first inventors of. So that I may justly expect to be accused of a pragmatical ignorance, and bold ostentation, especially since for this opinion Xenophanes, a man whose authority was able to add some credit to his assertion could not escape the like censure from others. For Natales 
Mytholog. lib. 3. c. 17.  Comes speaking of that Philosopher, and this his opinion, saith thus, Nonnulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua novo monstra in Philosophian introducunt, ut alicuius rei inventores fuisse appareant. Some there are who least they might seem to know nothing, will bring up monstrous absurdities in Philosophy, that so afterward they may be famed for the invention of somewhat. The same author doth also in another place accuse Anaxagoras 
Lib. 7. c. 1.  of folly for the same opinion, Est enim non ignobilis gradus stultitiae, vel si nescias quid dicas, tamen velle de rebus propositis hanc vel illam partem stabilire.  
'Tis none of the worst kinds of folly, boldly to affirm one side or other, when a man knows not what to say.  
If these men were thus censured, I may justly then expect to be de●ided by most, and to be believed by few or none; especially since this opinion seems to carry in it so much strangeness, so much contradiction to the general consent of others. But how ever, I am resolved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that it is not the common opinion of others that can either add or detract from the truth. For,  
1. Other truths have been formerly esteemed altogether as ridiculous as this can be.  
2 Gross absurdities have been entertained by general opinion.  
I shall give an instance of each, that so I may the better prepare the Reader to consider things without a prejudice, when he shall see that the common opposition against this which I affirm cannot any way derogate from its truth.  
1. Other truths have been formerly accounted as ridiculous as this, I shall specify that of the Antipodes, which have been denied and laughed at by many wise men and great Scholars, 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 he could not forbear laughing to think of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot choose but laugh, (saith he) to see so many men venture to describe the earth's compass, relating those things that are without all sense, as that the Sea flows about the World, and that the earth itself is round as an Orb. But this great ignorance is not so much to be admired in him, as in those learneder men of later times, when all sciences began to flourish in the World. Such was Saint Austin who censures that relation of the Antipodes to be an incredible fable, and 
de Civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 9  with him agrees the eloquent Lactantius, quid illi qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris Antipodes 
Institut. l. 3. c. 24.  putant? num aliquid loquuntur? aut est quispiam tam ineptus, qui credat esse homines, quorum vestigia sunt superiora quàm capita? aut ibi quae apud nos jacent inversa pendere? fruges & arbores deorsum versus crescere, pluvias & nives, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in terram? & miratur aliquis ho●tos pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum Philosophi, & agros & maria, & urbes & montes pensiles faciunt? etc. What (saith he) are they that think there are Antipodes, such as walk with their feet against ours? do they speak any likelihood? or is there any one so foolish as to believe that there are men whose heels are higher than their heads? that things which with us do lie on the ground do hung there? that the Plants and Trees grow downwards, that the hail, and rain, and snow fall upwards to the earth? and do we admire the hanging Orchards amongst the seven wonders, whereas here the Philosophers have made the Field and Seas, the Cities and mountains hanging. What shall we think (saith he in Plutareh) that men do cling to that place like worms, or hung by their claws as Cats, or if we suppose a man a little beyond the Centre, to be digging with a spade? is it likely (as it must be according to this opinion) that the earth which he loosened, should of itself ascend upwards? or else suppose two men with their middles about the centre, the feet of the one being placed where the head of the other is, and so two other men cross them, yet all these men thus situated according to this opinion should stand upright, and many other such gross consequences would follow (saith he) which a false imagination is not able to fancy as possible. Upon which considerations, Bede also denies the being of any 
De ratione temporum, Cap 32.  Antipodes, Neque enim Antipodarum ullatenus est Fabulls accommodandus assensus, Nor should we any longer assent to the Fable of Antipodes. So also Lucretius the Poet speaking of the same subject, says,  Sedvanus stolidis haec omnia finxerit error. 
Denat. rerum, Lib. 1.  
That some idle fancy feigned these for fools to believe. Of this opinion was Procopius Gazaeus, 
Comment. in 1. Cap. Gen.  but he was persuaded to it by another kind of reason; for he thought that all the earth under us was sunk in the water, according to the saying of the Psalmist, He hath founded the 
Psal. 24. 2.  earth upon the Seas, and therefore he accounted it not inhabited by any. Nay Tostatus a man of later years and general learning doth also confidently deny that there are any such Antipodes, though the reason which he urges for it be not so absurd as the former, for the Apostles, saith he, traveled through the whole 
Comment. in 1. Genes.  habitable world, but they never passed the Equinoctial; and if you answer that they are said to go through all the earth, because they went through all the known world, he replies, that this is not sufficient, since Christ would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth, and therefore 
1 Tim. 2. 4.  'tis requisite that they should have traveled thither also, if there had been any inhabitants, especially since he did expressly command them to go and teach all nations, and preach the Gospel through the whole 
Mat. 28. 19  world, and therefore he thinks that as there are no men, so neither are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniency for habitation: 'tis commonly related of one Virgilius, that he was excommunicated and condemned for a Heretic by Zachary Bishop of Rome, because he was not of the same opinion. But Baronius says, it was because he 
Annal. Eccles. A. D. 748.  thought there was another habitable world within ours. How ever, you may well enough discern in these examples how confident many of these great Scholars were in so gross an error, how unlikely, what an incredible thing it seemed to them, that there should be any Antipodes, and yet now this truth is as certain and plain, as sense or demonstration can make it. This then which I now deliver is not to be rejected, though it may seem to contradict the common opinion.  
2. Gross absurdities have been entertained by general consent. I might instance in many remarkable examples, but I will only speak of the supposed labour of the Moon in her eclipses, because this is nearest to the chief matter in hand, and was received as a common opinion amongst many of the ancients, and therefore Plutarch speaking of a Lunary eclipse, relates, that at such times 'twas a custom amongst the Romans (the most civil and learned people in the world) to sound brass Instruments, and 
In vita Paul. Aemil.  hold great torches toward the heaven. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for by this means they supposed the Moon was much eased in her labours, and therefore Ovid 
Metam. Lib. 4.  calls such loud Instruments the auxiliaries or helps of the Moon Cum frustra resonant aera auxiliaria Lunae. and therefore the Satirist too describing a loud scold, says, she was able to make noise enough to deliver the labouring Moon.  una laboranti poterit s●ccurrere Lunae. 
juven. Sat. 6  
Now the reason of all this their ceremony, was, because they feared the world would fall asleep, when one of its eyes began to wink, and therefore they would do what they could by loud sounds to rouse it from its drowsiness, and keep it awake by bright torches, to bestow that light upon it which it began to loose. Some of them thought hereby to keep the Moon in her orb, whereas otherwise she would have fallen down upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights, for the credulous people believed, that Enchanters and Witches could bring the Moon down, which made Virgil say, Can●us & è coelo possunt deducere Lunam. And those Wizards knowing the times of her eclipses, would then threaten to show their skill, by pulling her out of her orb. So that when the silly multitude saw that she began to look read, they presently feared they should loose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a great noise that she might not hear the sound of those Charms, which would otherwise bring her down, and this is rendered for a reason of this custom by Pliny and Propertius: 
Nat. Hist. Lib. 2. c. 12.   
Cantus & è curru lunam deducere tentant,  
Et facerent, si non aera repulsasonent.  
Plutarch gives another reason of it, and he says, 'tis because they would hasten the Moon out of the dark shade wherein she was involved, that so she might bring away the souls of those Saints that inhabit within her, which cry out by reason they are then deprived of their wont happiness, and cannot hear the music of the Spheres, but are forced to behold the torments, and wailing of those damned souls which are represented to them as they are tortured in the region of the air, but whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition, yet certainly 'twas a very ridiculous custom, and bewrayed a great ignorance of those ancient times, especially since it was not only received by the vulgar, such as were men of less note and learning, but believed also, by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were those great Poets, Stesichorus and Pindar. And not only amongst the more sottish heathens, who might accounted that Planet to be one of their Gods, but the primitive Christians also were in this kind guilty, which made S. Ambrose so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said, Tum turbatur carminibus Globus Lunae, quando calicibus turbantur & oculi. When your heads are troubled with cups, than you think the Moon to be troubled with charms.  
And for this reason also did Maximus a Bishop, writ a 
Turinens. Episc.  Homily against it, wherein he shown the absurdity of that foolish superstition. I remember that Ludovicus Vives relates a more ridiculous story of a people that imprisoned an Ass for drinking up the Moon, whose image appearing in the water was covered with a cloud as the Ass was drinking, for which the poor beast was afterward brought to the bar to receive a sentence according to his deserts, where the grave Senate being set to examine the matter, one of the Counsel (perhaps wiser than the rest) rises up, and out of his deep judgement thinks it not fit that their Town should loose its Moon, but that rather the Ass should be cut up and that taken out of him, which sentence being approved by the rest of those Politicians, as the subtlest way for the conclusion of the matter was accordingly performed. But whether this tale were true or no I will not question, however there is absurdity enough in that former custom of the ancients that may confirm the truth to be proved, and plainly declare the insufficiency of common opinion to add true worth or estimation unto any thing. So that from that which I have said may be gathered thus much.  
1. That a new truth may seem absurd and impossible not only to the vulgar, but to those also who are otherwise wise men and excellent scholars; and hence it will follow that every new thing which seems to oppose common principles is not presently to be rejected, but rather to be pried into with a diligent enquiry, since there are many things which are yet hid from us, and reserved for future discovery.  
2. That it is not the commonness of an opinion that can privilege it for a truth, the wrong way is sometime a well beaten path, whereas the right way (especially to hidden truths) may be less trodden and more obscure.  
True indeed, the strangeness of this opinion will detract much from its credit; but yet we should know that nothing is in its self strange, since every natural effect has an equal dependence upon its cause, and with the like necessity doth follow from it, so that 'tis our ignorance which makes things appear so, and hence it comes to pass that many more evident truths seem incredible to such who know not the causes of things: you may as soon persuade some Country peasants that the Moon is made of green Cheese (as we say) as that 'tis bigger than his Cartwheel since both seem equally to contradict his sight, and he has not reason enough to lead him farther than his senses. Nay suppose (saith Plutarch) a Philosopher should be educated in such a secret place, where he might not see either Sea or River and afterwards should be brought out where one might show him the great Ocean telling him the quality of that water that it is brackish salt and not potable, and yet there were many vast creatures of all forms living in it, which make use of the water as we do of the air, questionless he would laugh at all this as being monstrous lies, and fables without any colour of truth. Just so will this truth which I now deliver appear unto others; because we never dreamt of any such matter as a world in the Moon, because the state of that place hath as yet been vailed from our knowledge, therefore we can scarcely assent to any such matter. Things are very hardly received which are altogether strange to our thoughts and our senses. The soul may with less difficulty be brought to believe any absurdity, when as it has formerly been acquainted with some colours and probabilities for it, but when a new, and an unheard of truth shall come before it, though it have good grounds and reasons, yet the understanding is afraid of it as a stranger, and dares not admit it into its belief without a great deal of reluctanty and trial. And besides things that are not manifested to the senses, are not assented unto without some labour of mind, some travail and discourse of the understanding, and many lazy souls had rather quietly repose themselves in an easy error, then take pains to search out the truth. The strangeness then of this opinion which I now deliver will be a great hindrance to its belief, but this is not to be respected by reason it cannot be helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface, because that prejudice which the mere title of the book may beget cannot easily be removed without a great deal of preparation, and I could not tell otherwise how to rectify the thoughts of the reader for an impartial survey of the following discourse.  
I must needs confess, though I had often thought with myself that it was possible there might be a world in the Moon, yet it seemed such an uncouth opinion that I never durst discover it, for fear of being counted singular and ridiculous, but afterward having read Plutarch, Galileus, Keplar, with some others, and finding many of mine own thoughts confirmed by such strong authority, I then concluded that it was not only possible there might be, but probable that there was another habitable world in that Planet. In the prosecuting of this assertion I shall first endeavour to clear the way from such doubts as may hinder the speed or ease of farther progress; and because the suppositions employed in this opinion may seem to contradict the principles of reason or faith, it will be requisite that I first remove this scruple showing the conformity of them to both these, and proving those truths that may make way for the rest, which I shall labour to perform in the second, third, fourth, and fifth Chapters, and then proceed to confirm such propositions, which do more directly belong to the main 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 he saw the books of Moses he commended them for such a majestic style as might become a God, but withal he censured that manner of writing to be very unfitting for a Philosopher because there was nothing proved in them, but matters were delivered as if they would rather command than persuade belief. And 'tis observed that he sets down nothing himself, but he confirms it by the strongest reasons that may be found, there being scarce an argument of force for any subject in Philosophy which may not be picked out of his writings, and therefore 'tis likely if there were in reason a necessity of one only world, that he would have found out some such necessary proof as might confirm it: Especially since he labours for it so much in two whole Chapters. But now all the arguments which he himself urges in this subject, 
De Coelo l. 1. c. 8. 9  are very weak and fare enough from having in them any convincing power. Therefore 'tis likely that a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason. However, I will set down the two chief of his arguments from his own works, and from them you may guess the force of the other. The 1 is this, since every heavy 
ibid.  body doth naturally tend downwards, and every light body upwards, what a huddling and confusion must there be if there were two places for gravity and two places for lightness: for it is probable that the earth of that other world would fall down to this Centre, and so mutually the air and fire here ascend to those Regions in the other, which must needs much derogate from the providence of nature, and 'cause a great disorder in his works. To this I answer, that if you will consider the nature of gravity, you will plainly see there is no ground to fear any such confusion, for heaviness is nothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in ' its subject to tend downwards towards its own Centre, so that for some of that earth to come hither would not be said a fall but an ascension, since it moved from its own place, and this would be impossible (saith Ruvio) because against nature, and therefore no more to be feared 
De Coelo l. 1. c 9 q. 1.  than the falling of the Heavens.  
Another argument he had 
Metaphys. l. 12. c. 8. Diog. Laert. lib. 3.  from his master Plato, that there is but one world, because there is but one first mover, God.  
But here I may deny the consequence, since a plurality of worlds doth not take away the unity of the first mover.  enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam 
Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379.  materiam (saith a Countryman of ours.) As the substantial form, so the efficient cause hath only an appearing multiplicity from its particular matter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Arguments more fully answered by Plutarch in his book (why Oracles are silent) and jacob Carpentarius in his comment on Alcinous.  
But our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often do jurare in verba magistri) will grant that there is not any strength in these consequences, and certainly their such weak arguments could not convince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont to be swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should rather think that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent to this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was because he feared to displease his scholar Alexander, of whom 'tis related 
Plutarch. de tranq. anim.  that he wept to hear a disputation of another world, since he had not then attained the Monarchy of this, his restless wide heart would have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there had been another, which made the Satirist say of him,  Aestuat infoelix angusto limit mundi. 
juvenal.  
That he did vex himself and sweat in his desires, as being penned up in a narrow room, when he was confined but to one world. Before he thought to seat himself next the Gods, but now when he had done his best, he must be content with some equal, or perhaps superior Kings.  
It may be, that Aristotle was moved to this opinion, that he might thereby take from Alexander the occasion of this fear and discontent, or else, perhaps, Aristotle himself was as loath to hold the possibility of a world which he could not discover, as Alexander was to hear of one which he could not conquer. 'tis likely that some such by-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments he urges for it are confessed by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very sleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to prove, that there is not any evidence in the light of natural reason, which can sufficiently manifest that there is but one world.  
But however some may object, would it not be inconvenient and dangerous to admit of such opinions that do destroy those principles of Aristotle, which all the world hath so long followed?  
This question is much controverted by the Romish Divines; 
Apologia pro Galileo.  Campanella hath writ a Treatise in defence of it, in whom you may see many things worth the reading and notice.  
To it I answer, that this position in Philosophy, doth not bring any inconvenience to the rest, since 'tis not Aristotle, but truth that should be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both found together, we may say to him, as he said to his 
Ethic. l. 1. c. 6.  Master Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though Plato were his friend, yet he would rather adhere to truth than him.  
I must needs grant, that we are all much beholden to the industry of the ancient Philosophers, and more especially to Aristotle for the greater part of our learning, but yet 'tis not ingratitude to speak against him, when he opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers would be very guilty, especially justin, who hath writ a Treatise purposely against him.  
But suppose this opinion were false, yet 'tis not against the faith, and so it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the sparks of error, being forced out by opposition, as the sparks of fire by the striking of the flint and steel. But suppose too that it were heretical, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the same privilege as Aristotle, from whom many more dangerous opinions have proceeded: as that the world is eternal, that God cannot have while to look after these inferior things, that after death there is no reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies, which strike directly at the fundamentals of our Religion.  
So that it is justly to be wondered why some should be so superstitious in these days, as to stick closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as if his Philosophy were the only foundation of all divine truths.  
Upon these grounds both St. Vincentius and Senafinus de firmo (as I have seen them quoted) think that Aristotle was the viol of God's wrath, which was poured out upon the waters of Wisdom by the third Angel; But 
Rev. 16. 4.  for my part, I think the world is much beholden to Aristotle for all its sciences. But yet 'ttwere a shame for these later ages to rest ourselves merely upon the labours of our Forefathers, as if they had informed us of all things to be known, and when we are set upon their shoulders, not to see further than they themselves did. 'Twere a superstitious, a lazy opinion to think Aristotle's works the bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could be no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things left to discovery, and it cannot be any inconvenience for us, to maintain a new truth or rectify an ancient error.  
But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture, for  
1. Moses tells us but of one world, and his History of the creation had been very imperfect if God had made another.  
2. Saint john speaking of God's works, says he made the world, in the singular number, and therefore there is but one: '●is the argument of Aquinas, and he thinks 
Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3.  that none will oppose it, but such who with Democritus esteem some blind chance, and not any wise providence to be the framer of all things.  
3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient times been accounted a heresy, and Baronius affirms that for this very reason Virgilius was cast out of his Bishopric, and excommunicated from the Church. 
Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748.   
4. A fourth argument there is urged by Aquinas, if there be more worlds than one, than they must either be of the same or of a divers nature, but they are not of the same kind, for this were 
ibid.  needless and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection than the other; not of diverse kinds, for then one of them could not be called the world or universe, since it did not contain universal perfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon by julius Caesar la Galla, one that has purposely 
De Phaenom in orbe Lunae  writ a Treatise against this opinion which I now deliver, but the dilemma is so blunt that it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weak that I dare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see this author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one world, doth leave the chief matter in hand, and take much needless pains to dispute against Democritus, who thought that the world was made by the casual concourse of atoms in a great vacuum. It should seem that either his cause or his skill was weak, or else he would have ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have set down are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject, and yet the best of these hath not force enough to endanger the truth that I have delivered.  
Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of Scripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the fundamentals of Religion.  
But you'll reply, though it do not necessarily conclude, yet 'tis probable if there had been another world, we should have had some notice of it in Scripture.  
I answer, 'tis as probable that the Scripture should have informed us of the planets, they being very remarkable parts of the Creation, and yet neither Moses nor job, nor the Psalms (the places most frequent in Astronomical observations) mention any of them but the Sun and Moon, and moreover you must know that 'tis beside the scope of the Holy Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveal any thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; 'tis not his intent in the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any way belong either to the Historical exegetical or prophetical parts of it: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by our Countryman Master WRIGHT. Non Mosis 
In Epist. ad Gilbert.  aut Prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum & loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese accommodare. 'Tis not the endeavour of Moses or the Prophets to discover any Mathematical or Philosophical subtleties, but rather to accommodate themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are wont to use their infants. True indeed, Moses is there to handle the history of the Creation, but 'tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as were very hard to be apprehended, for being to inform the common people as well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly noted, declaring the original chiefly of those things which were obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things which then could not well be apprehended. And therefore Aquinas observes that 
Part 1. Q. 68, Art. 3.  Moses writes nothing of the air, because that being invisible the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason, Saint Austin also thinks that there is nothing expressed concerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as remarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be known as another world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions which set things forth rather as they appear, then as they are, as when he calls the Moon one of the greater 
Gen. 1. 16.  lights 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas 'tis the jest, but one that we can see in the whole heavens. So afterwards speaking of the 
Gen. 11.  great rain which drowned the world, he says, the windows of heaven were opened, because it seemed to come with that violence, as if it were poured out from windows in the Firmament. 
Sr. W. Rawly c. 7. §. 6.  So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things are not to be understood in a literal sense; but rather as vulgar expressions, and this rule is set down by Saint Austin, where 
l. 2. in Gen. Psal 136. 6  speaking concerning that in the Psalm, who stretched the earth upon the waters, he notes that when the words of Scripture shall seem to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be understood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And 'tis observed that for want of this rule some of the ancients have fastened strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint Ambrose esteemed it a heresy to think that the Sun and Stars were not very hot, as 
Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.  being against the words of Scripture, Psalm. 19 6. where the Psalmist says that there is nothing that is hid from the heat of the Sun. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to be round, out of that place, Psal. 104. 2. He stretched out the 
Com. in c. 1. Gen.  heavens like a curtain. So Procopius also was of opinion that the earth was founded upon the waters, nay he made it part of his faith, proving it out of Psal. 24. 2. He hath founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. These and such like absurdities have followed, when men look for the grounds of Philosophy in the words of Scripture. So that, from what hath been said, I may conclude that the filence of Scripture concerning any other world is not sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two first arguments.  
Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by others, to show the ignorance of those primitive times, who did sometimes condemn what they did not understand, and have often censured the lawful & undoubted parts of Mathematics for heretical, because they themselves could not perceive a reason of, it and therefore their practice in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us.  
But lastly, I answer to all the above named objections, that the term World, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole Universe, as it implies in it the elementary and aethereal bodies, the stars and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferior World consisting of elements. Now the main drift of all these arguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, and if there were any such, it might, perhaps, seem strange, that Moses, or St. john should either not know, or not mention its creation. And Virgilius was condemned for this opinion, because he held quòd sit alius mundus sub terrâ, aliusque Sol & Luna, (as Baronius) that within our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sun and Moon, and so he might seem to exclude this from the number of the other creatures.  
But now there is no such danger in this opinion, which is here delivered, since this world is said to be in the Moon, whose creation is particularly expressed.  
So that in the first sense I yield, that there is but one world, which is all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second sense, and so I affirm there may be more, nor do any of the above named objections prove the contrary.  
Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdom (as Aquinas thinks) but rather advance it, showing a compendium of providence, that could make the same body a world, and a Moon; a world for habitation, and a Moon for the use of others, and the ornament of the whole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not only for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of the 
Cusanus de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12.  whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves itself, so is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve as well for the conservation of that which is within it, as the help of others without it.  
I have now in some measure, shown that a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so cleared the first part of that supposition which is implied in the opinion.  
It may next be enquired, whether 'tis possible there may be a globe of elements in that which we call the aethereal parts of the Universe; for if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be privileged from any change or corruption, it will be in vain then to imagine any element there, and if we will have another world, we must then seek out some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore shall be this.   

Proposition. 3. That the heavens do not consist of any such pure matter which can privilege them from the like change and corruption, as these inferior bodies are liable unto.  
IT hath been often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and Philosophers, what kind of matter that should be so, which the heavens are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the four elements, as Aristotle holds, and with him some of 
De coelo. li. 1. cap. 2.  the late Schoolmen, whose subtle brains could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies, but common materials, and therefore they themselves had rather take pains to prefer them to some extraordinary nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent, were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confessed by their own 
* Colleg. Connimb. de coelo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3.  side. It were much to be desired, that these men had not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without necessity, and as if there had not been enough to be known in the secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their own brains to find more work for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments, since 'tis already confessed, that they are none of them of any necessary consequence, and beside, you may see them set down in any of the books, de Coelo.  
But it is the general consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of Lombard, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these sublunary bodies. Saint Ambrose is 
In Hexam. lib. 4.  confident of it, that he esteems the contrary a heresy. True indeed, they differ much among themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but herein they generally agreed, that they are all framed of some element or other. For a better confirmation of this, you may see Ludovicus Molina, Euseb. Nirembergius, with diverse others. The 
In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5.  venerable Bede thought the Planets to consist of all the four elements, and 'tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance, 
In lib. de Mundi constit.  as will be showed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments for either, I have only urged these Authorities to countervail Aristotle, and the Schoolmen, and the better to make way for a proof of their corruptibility.  
The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a corruptible nature, not whether 
2 Pet. 3. 12.  they can be destroyed by God, for this Scripture puts out of doubt.  
Nor whether or no in a long time they would wear away and grow worse, for from any such fear they have been lately privileged. But whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, 
By Doctor Hackwel Apol.  as this inferior world is liable unto.  
The two chief opinions concerning this, have both erred in some extremity, the one side going so fare from the other, that they have both gone beyond the right, whilst Aristotle hath opposed the truth, as well as the Stoics.  
Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood in need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually seed, and so had diverse alterations by reason of their food, this is fathered on Heraclitus, followed by that great 
Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9  Naturalist Pliny, and in general attributed to all the Stoics. You may see Seneca expressly to this purpose in these words, Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis dividuntur, hinc 
Nat. Quaest. lib. 2. cap. 5.  profertur quo sustincantur tot Sydera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu. Speaking of the earth, he says, from thence it is, that nourishment is divided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Stars, hence were sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day and night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also Lucan sings, Necnon Oceano pasci Phoebumque  polumque credimus. 
Unto these Ptolemy also that learned Egyptian seemed to agreed, 
10. Apostel.  when he affirms that the body of the Moon is moister, and cooler than any of the other Planets, by reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaled unto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so fare from this imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they stood in need of some continual nourishment without which they could not subsist.  
But Aristotle and his followers 
De coelo. li. 1. cap. 3.  were so fare from this, that they thought those glorious bodies could not contain within them any such principles, as might make them liable to the lest change or corruption, and their chief reason was, because we could not in so long a space discern any alteration amongst them▪ but unto this I answer.  
1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow that there were none, as he himself in effect doth confess in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, 
De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 3.  he says 'tis very imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vast distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not either big enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observation of our senses; no wonder then if he himself be deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars.  
2. Though we could not by our senses see such alterations, yet our reason might perhaps sufficiently convince us of them. Nor can we well conceive how the Sun should reflect against the Moon, and yet not produce some alteration of heat. Diogenes the Philosopher w●● hence persuaded that those scorching heats had burnt the Moon into the form of a Pumicestone.  
3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there; witness those comets which have been seen above the Moon. So that though Aristotle's consequence were sufficient, when he proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes been observed in it, yet this by the same reason must be as prevalent, that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have been so many alterations observed there; but of these together with a farther confirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speak afterwards; In the mean space, I will refer the Reader to that work of Scheiner a late Jesuit which he titles his Rosa Vrsina, where he may see this point concerning the 
lib. 4. par. 2. cy. 24, 35.  corruptibility of the Heavens largely handled and sufficiently confirmed.  
There are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion to enlarge myself, but because they are directly handled by many others, and do not immediately belong to the chief matter in hand, I shall therefore refer the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proof of them my s●lfe, as desiring all possible brevity.  
1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbs. If there be a habitable world in the Moon (which I now affirm) it must follow, that her Orb is not solid as Aristotle supposed; and if not her, why any of the other. I rather think that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint Ambrose, and Saint Basil did endeavour 
Isa. 51. 6.  to prove this out of that place in Isay, where they are compared 
Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4.  to smoke, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus, Eusebius, Nicrembergius doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and 
Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13  incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cities for the same interpretation the authority of Eustachius of Antioch; and Saint Austin, I am sure seems to assent unto 
In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit.  this opinion, though he does often in his other works contradict it. The testimony of other Fathers to this purpose you may see in Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall refer you to the above named Scheiner in his Rosa 
lib. 4. p. 11. 2 cap. 7. 26, 30.  Vrsina, in whom you may see both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set down for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which he adjoins also some authentical Epistles of Fredericus Caesius Lynceus a Noble Prince written to Bellarmine, containing diverse reasons to the same purpose, you may also see the same truth set down by johannes Pena in his preface to Euclids Optics, and Christoph. Rothmannus, both who thought the Firmament to be only air: and though the noble Tycho do 
De stella. 15 72. l. 1. c. 9  dispute against them, yet he himself holds, Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quae coelum pluribus realibus atque imperviis orbibus cipra rem replevit. That this opinion comes nearer to the truth than that common one of Aristotle which hath to no purpose filled the Heavens with such real and impervious Orbs.  
2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion here delivered; for if we suppose a world in the Moon, than it will follow, that the sphere of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually placed in the concavity of his Orb, or else that there is no such thing at all, which is most probable since there are not any such solid Orbs, that by their swift motion might heat and enkindle the adjoining air, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see Cardan, johannes Pena that learned Frenchman, the noble Tycho, with diverse others who have purposely handled this proposition.  
3. I might add a third, viz. that there is no Music of the spheres, for if they be not solid, how can their motion 'cause any such sound as is conceived? I do the rather meddle with this, because Plutarch speaks as if a man might very conveniently hear that harmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moon. But I guess that he said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary consequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would have no great loss in being deprived of this Music, unless at sometimes we had the privilege to hear it: Than indeed Philo the Jew thinks 
De somniis.  it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an easy rate by feeding at the ear only, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (says he) was Moses enabled to tarry forty days and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens, - Risum teneatis. I know this Music hath had great patrons both sacred and profane authors, such as Ambrose, Bede, Boetius, Anselme, Plato, Cicero and others, but because it is not now, I think affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either pains or time in arguing against it.  
It may suffice that I have only named these three last, and for the two more necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I shall in the next place proceed to the nature of the Moon's body, to know whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more nearly agrees with our earth.   

Proposition 4. That the Moon is a solid, compacted, opacous body.  
I Shall not need to stand long in the proof of this proposition, since it is a truth already agreed on by the general consent of the most and the best Philosophers.  
1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the air, for how otherwise could it beat back the light which it receives from the Sun?  
But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moon bestow her light upon us by the reflection of the Sunbeams from the superficies of her body, or else by her own illumination. Some there are who affirm this latter part. So Averro, Caelius Rhodiginus, julius Caesar, etc. and their reason is because this light is discerned in many places, whereas 
De Coelo l. 2. come. 49. Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4. de phaenom. lunae. c. 11.  those bodies which give light by reflection can there only be perceived where the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, and this is only in one place, as in a lookingglass those beams which are reflected from it cannot be perceived in every place where you may see the glass, but only there where your eye is placed on the same line whereon the beams are reflected.  
But to this I answer, that the argument will not hold of such bodies, whose superficies is full of unequal parts and gibbosities as the Moon is. Wherhfore it is as well the more probable as the more common opinion, that her light proceeds from both these causes, from reflection and illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth since that also hath some light by illumination: for how otherwise would the parts about us in a Sunshine day appear so bright, when as all the rays of reflection cannot enter into our eye?  
2. It is compact, and not a spongy 
Plut. de pla. phillip l. 2. c. 13. Opt. lib. 4. Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164.  and porous substance. But this is denied by Diogenes, Vitellio, and Reinoldus, and some others, who held the Moon to be of the same kind of nature as a Pumice stone, and this, say they, is the reason why in the Sun's eclipses there appears within her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sun beams being refracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be represented under such a colour.  
But I reply, if this be the cause of her redness, then why doth she not appear under the same form when she is about a sextile aspect, and the darkened part of her body is discernible? for then also do the same rays pass through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce the same effect, and notwithstanding those beams are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a straight line, yet must the colour still remain visible in her body, and besides according to this opinion, the spots would not always be the same, but diverse as the various distance of the Sun requires. Again, if the Sun beams did 
Scaliger exercit. 80. § 13.  pass through her, why then hath she not a tail as the Comets? why doth she appear in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, sicne it is merely this penetration of the Sun beams that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing stars.  
3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Crystal or glass, as Empedocles thought, 
Plut. de fancy lunae.  who held the Moon to be a globe of pure congealed air, like hail enclosed in a sphere of fire, for then,  
1. Why does she not always appear in the full? since the light is dispersed through all her body?  
2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or 'cause such great eclipses as have 
Thucid. Livii. Plut. de fancy Lunae.  turned day into night, that have discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden darkness, that they fell down upon the earth, as it is related indivers Histories. And therefore Herodotus tellin of an eclipse which fell in Xerxes' time, describes it thus: 
Herodot. l. 7. c. 37.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Sun leaving his wont seat in the heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darkness, as could not have been, if her body had been perspicuous. Yet some there are who interpret all these relations to be hyperbolical expressions, and the noble Tich● thinks it naturally impossible, that any eclipse should 'cause such darkness, because the body of the Moon can never totally cover the Sun; however, in this he is singular, 〈◊〉 other Astronomers (if I may believe Keplar) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moon does for the most part appear bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sun.  
But here Julius Caesar once more, putteth in to hinder our passage. 
De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11.  The Moon (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the same nature with the heavens, which are incapable of total opacity: and his reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those purer bodies, and this he thinks must necessarily be granted, for he stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall defer an answer, till he hath made up his argument.  
We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sun, as our earth doth the Moon; since then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like natures, that is alike opacous, which is the thing to be showed; and this was the reason (as the Interpreters guess) why 
In lib. de animalib.  Aristotle affirmed the Moon to be of the earth's nature, because of their agreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in some measure perspicuous.  
But the greatest difference which may seem to make our earth altogether unlike the Moon, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light of its own, and the other a gross dark body which cannot shine at all. 'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I clear this doubt, and show that the Moon hath no more light of her own than our earth.   

Proposition. 5. That the Moon hath not any light of her own.  
'twas the fancy of some of the Jews, and more especially of Rabbi Simeon, that the Moon 
Tostatus in 1. Gen. Hieron. de 5. Hide. Haebreoma. l 2. c. 4.  was nothing else but a contracted Sun, and that both those planets at their first creation were equal both in light and quantity, for because God did then call them both great lights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equal in bigness. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moon put up her complaint to God against the Sun, showing, that it was not fit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchy would best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this, God commanded her to contract herself into a narrower compass, but she being much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken that which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This sentence could not choose but much trouble her; and for this reason was she in much distress and grief for a long space, but that her sorrow might be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheer, because her privileges and charter should be greater than the Suns, he should appear in the day time only, she both in the day and night, but her melancholy being not satisfied with this, she replied again, that that alas was no benefit, for in the day time she should be either not seen, or not noted. Wherhfore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should celebrated all their feast and holy days by a computation of her months, but this being not able to content her, she has looked very melancholy ever since; however she hath still reserved much light of her own.  
Others there were, that did think the Moon to be around globe, the one half of whose body was of a bright substance, the other half being dark, and the diverse conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was Berosus, as he is cited 
Lib. 9 Architecturae in enarrat. Psal morum.  by Vitruvius, and St. Austin thought it was probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophical truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent and easy experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is perceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be discerned in the same place when she is in the full: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after enlightened, and that the one part is not always dark and the other light of itself, but enough of this, I would be loath to make an enemy, that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that, which is already granted, I suppose now, that neither of them hath any patrons, and therefore need no confutation.  
'tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sun, but the chief controversy is, whether or no she hath any of her own? The greater multitude affirm this. Cardan amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinks that 
De Subtle. lib. 3.  if any of us were in the Moon at the time of her greatest eclipse, Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus; we should perceive so great a brightness of her own, that would blind us with the mere sight, and when she is enlightened by the Sun, than no eagle's eye if there were any there, is able to look upon her. This Cardan says, and he doth but say it without bringing any proof for its confirmation. However I will set down the arguments that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from Scripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, 1 Cor. 15. where it is said, There is one glory of the Sun, and an●ther glory of the Moon. Ulysses' Albergettus urges that in Math. 24. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Moon shall not give her light: therefore (says he) she hath some of her own.  
But to these we may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken off, may be said to be hers though it be derived, as you may see in many other instances.  
The arguments from reason are taken either  
1. From that light which is discerned in her, when there is a total eclipse of her own body, or of the Sun.  
2. From the light which is discerned in the darker part of her body, when she is but a little distant from the Sun.  
1. For when there are any total eclipses, there appears in her body a great redness, and many times light enough to 'cause a remarkable shade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannot come from the Sun, since at such times either the earth or her own body shades her from the Sunbeams, therefore it must proceed from her own light.  
2. Two or three days after the new Moon, we may perceive light in her whole body, whereas the rays of the Sun reflect but upon a small part of that which is visible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light of her own.  
In answering to these objections, I shall first show, that this light cannot be her own, and then declare that which is the true reason of it.  
That it is not her own, appears  
1. From the variety of it at diverse times; for 'tis commonly observed that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now redder and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of this variety in diverse eclipses, you may see set down by Keplar and 
Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3.  many others, but now this could not be if that light were her own, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an alteration: So that thus I may argue.  
If there were any light proper to the Moon, then would that Planet appear brightest when she is eclipsed in her Perige being nearest to the earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the nearer any enlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the species and the better perceived. This sequel is granted by some of our adversaries, and they are the very words 
De nova stella. lib. 1. c. 10.  of noble Tycho, Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terrae esset, illud non amitteret, sed eo evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepeditur. If the Moon had any light of her own, then would she not loose it in the earth● shadow, but rather shine more clearly, since every light appears greater in the dark, when it is not hindered by a more perspicuous brightness.  
But now the event falls out clean contrary, (as observation 
Reinhold comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164.  doth manifest, and our opposites themselves do grant) the Moon appearing with a more reddish and clear light when she is eclipsed being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish iron colour when she is in her Perige or nearest to us, therefore she hath not any light of her own. Nor may we think that the earth's shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moon from appearing, or take away any thing from her inherent brightness, for this were to think a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether misbecoming a Philosopher, as Tycho grants in the forecited place; Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, out de●sa aliqua substanti, aut lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere, sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum corpus terrae. Nor is the earth's shadow any corporal thing, or thick substance, that it can cloud the Moon's brightness or take it away from our sight, but it is a mere privation of the Sun's light by reason of the interposition of the earth's opacous body.  
2. If she had any light of her own then that would in itself be, either such a ruddy brightness as appears in the eclipses, or else such a leaden duskish light as we see in the darker parts of her body, when she is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of these may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of these, therefore she hath none of her own.  
1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appears in eclipses, for then why can we not see the like redness, when we may discern the obscurer parts of the Moon?  
You will say, perhaps, that then the nearness of that greater light takes away that appearance.  
I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wont redness, when he is near the Moon? or why cannot her greater brightness make him appear white as the other Planets? nor can there be any reason given why that greater light should represent her body under a false colour.  
2. 'Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part of her body, when she is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sun, for then why does she appear read in the eclipses, since the more shade cannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of darkness by its opposition, rather to make things appear of a more white and clear brightness than they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet those parts of the Moon are then in the shade of her body, and therefore in reason should have the like redness. Since then neither of these lights are hers, it follows that she hath none of her own. Nor is this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such was Macrobius, who being for this quoted of Rhodiginus, he calls him 
Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20.  vir re conditissimae scientiae, a man 
Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15.  who knew more than ordinary Philosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Author. To him assents the Venerable Bede, upon whom the gloss hath this comparison. As 
In lib. de nature. rerum  the Looking-glass represents not any image within itself unless it receive some from without; so the Moon hath not any light, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed Albertus Magnus, Scaliger, Maeslin, and more 
De 4r Coaevis. Q. 4a. Art. 21. Exercit. 62. 1. Epitom.. Astron. l. 4. p. 2.  especially Mulapertius, whose words are more pa● to the purpose than others, and therefore I shall set them down as you may find them in his preface to his Treatise concerning the Austriaca sydera; Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humidae sunt substantiae, ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra. The Moon, Venus, and Mercury (saith he) are of an earthly and moist substance, and therefore have no more light of their own, than the earth hath. Nay some there are who think that all the other Stars do receive that light, whereby they appear visible to us from the Sun, so Ptolemy, Isidere Hispalensis, 
Originum l. 3. c. 60. De Coelo: l. 2. De ratione tempor. c. 4.  Albertus Magnus, and Bede, much more than must the Moon shine with a borrowed light.  
But enough of this. I have now sufficiently showed what at the first I promised, that this light is not proper to the Moon. It remains in the next place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I think 'tis probable that the light which appears in the Moon at the eclipses is nothing else but the second species of the Sun's rays which pass through the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second light with the shadow, arises that redness which at such times appears unto us. I may call it Lumen crepusculum, the Aurora of the Moon, or such a kind of blushing light, that the Sun causes when he is near his rising, when he bestows some small light upon the thicker vapours. Thus we see commonly the Sun being in the Horizon, and the reflection growing weak, how his beams make the waters appear very read.  
The Moabites in jehorams' time when they rose early in the morning, 
2 King. 3. 22.  and beheld the waters a fare off, mistook them for blood. Et causa hujus est quia radius solaris in Aurora contrahit quandam rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem terrae, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere locum aquarum, in quo est repercussia esse 
2a. Quaest. in hoc cap.  rubrum saith Tostatus. The reason is, because of his rays, which being in the lower vapours, those do convey an imperfect mixed light upon the waters. Thus the Moon being in the earth's shadow, and the Sun beams which are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body, yet some second rays there are, which passing through the shadow, make her appear in that ruddy colour: So that she must appear brightest, when she is eclipsed, being in her Apoge or greatest distance from us, because then the cone of the earth's shadow is less, and the refraction is made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must be represented under a more dark and obscure form when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige, or nearest to the earth, because than she is involved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the refraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needs be weaker which doth proceed from it. If you ask now what the reason may be of that light which we discorne in the darker part of the new Moon. I answer, 'tis reflected from our earth which returns as great a brightness to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have occasion to prove afterward.  
I have now done with these propositions which were set down to clear the passage, and confirm the suppositions implied in the opinion, I shall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chief matter in hand.   

Proposition 6. That there is a world in the Moon, hath been the direct opinion of many ancient, with some modern Mathematicians, and may probably be deduced from the tenants of others.  
SInce this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall therefore first confirm it by sufficient authority of diverse authors, both ancient and modern, that so I may the better clear it from the prejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an obsolete error. This is by some attributed to Orpheus, one of the most ancient, Greek Poets, who speaking of the Moon, says thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Plut. de plac. phillip l. 2. c. 13  That it hath many mountains and cities, and houses in it. To him assented Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, Democritus, 
Ibid. c. 25.  and Heraclitus, all who thought it to have firm solid ground, like to our earth, containing 
Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9  in it many large fields, champion grounds, and diverse inhabitants, unto these agreed Pythagoras, who thought that our earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sun, (as 
De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13.  Aristotle relates it of him) and the Pythagoreans in general did affirm, that the Moon also was terrestrial, that she was inhabited as this lower world, That those living creature, & plants which are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same proportion, as their days are longer than ours: viz. by 15. times. This Pythagoras 
Plut. ibid. cap. 30.  was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, as appears especially by his valuation amongst the Romans, who being commanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest Grecian, the Senate determined Pythagoras to be meant, preferring 
Plin. Nat. Hist. l 34. cap. 6.  him in their judgements before the divine Socrates, whom their Gods pronounced the wisest. Some think him a Jew by birth, but most agreed that he was much conversant amongst the learneder sort, and 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 solid reason.  
To this opinion of Pythagoras did Plato also assent, when he considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this, that it had no light of its own, 
Plat. de conviviis. Macreb. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. c. 11.  that it was so full of spots. And therefore we may often read in him and his followers, of an aetherea terra, and lunares populi, an aethereal earth, and inhabiters in the Moon; but afterwards this was mixed with many ridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries implied in the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily be a Trinity of worlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moon whose element of water is represented by the sphere of Mercury, the air by Venus, and the fire by the Sun. And that the whole Universe might the better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that Mars shall be a sphere of the fire, jupiter of air, Saturn of water; and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant places appointed for the habitation of those unsported souls, that either never were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any commerce 
Exercit. 62.  with the body. Scaliger speaking of this Platonic fancy, quae intres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit, thinks 'tis confutation enough, to say, 'tis Plato's. However for the first part of this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of the grossness and inequality of this planet, '●was frequently called quasi terra coelestis, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those 
De fancy Lunae.  purer bodies, you may see this proved by Plutarch, in that delightful work which he properly made for the confirmation of this 
Instit. ad discip. Plat. Coel. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4.  particular. With him agreed Alcinous and Plotinus, later Writers. Unto these I might also add the imperfect testimony of Mahomet, whose authority of grant can add but little credit to this opinion, because he was an ignorant imposter, but yet consider that original, from whence he derived most of his knowledge, and then, perhaps, his witness may carry with it some probability. He is commonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the Jews in the secrets of their philosophy and, perhaps, learned this from those Rabbis, for in 
Azoara. 57 & 65.  his Koran, he talks much of mountains, pleasant fields, and clear rivers in the heavens, but because he was for the main very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing so distinctly as he was informed. The Cardinal Cusanus 
Cusa. de dect. ign. l. 2. cap. 12.  and jornandus Brunus, held a particular world in every Star, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he says, it is stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis; a noble star having a distinct light, heat and influence from all the rest. Unto this Nichol. Hill, a country man of ours was inclined, when he said Astrea terrae natura 
Philos. epicur. part. 434.  probabilis est: That 'tis probable the earth hath a starry nature.  
But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by Maslin Keplar, and Galilaeus, each of them late writers, and famous men for their singular 
In Thesibus dissertatio cum Nic. Hill. Nuncius Sydereus.  skill in Astronomy. As for those works of Maeslin and Keplar wherein they do more expressly treat of this opinion, I have not yet had the happiness to see them. However their opinions appear plain enough from their own writings, and the testimony of others concerning them. But Julius Caesar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this opinion, viz. Keplar and Galilaeus 
De phaenom. lunae. c. 4.  affirms that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they writ concerning this, and as for any such world, he assuredly knows they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their own words, than his pretended knowledge.  
'Tis true indeed, in many things they do but trifle, but for the main scope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as any indifferent Reader may easily discern; otherwise sure Campanella (a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as Caesar was) would never have writ an apology for him. And besides 'tis very likely if it had been but a jest, Galilaeus would never have suffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge which he pretends, you may guess what it was by his confidence (I say not presumption) in other assertions, and his boldness in them may well derogate from 
Cap. 7.  his credit in this. For speaking of Ptolome's Hypothesis he pronounces this verdict, Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquus est ex Mathematicis adeo stultis qui veram illam existimet. The position of Excentrickes and Epicycles is altogether impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a fool as to think it true. I should guess he could not have knowledge enough to maintain any other Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematics, as to deny that any good Author held this. For I would fain know whether there were never any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there were such kinds of motion as is by those feigned Orbs supplied; if so, then Caesar la Calla was much mistaken. I think his assertions are equally true, that Galilaeus and Keplar did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other.  
But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of Galilaeus, the inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the Heaven's hard by us, whereby those things which others have formerly guessed at are manifested to the eye, and plainly discovered beyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latter ages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated by posterity. 'Tis related of Eudoxus, that he wished himself burnt with Phaeton, so he might stand over the Sun to contemplate its nature; had he lived in these days, he might have enjoyed his wish at an easier rate, and scaling the heavens by this glass, might plainly have discerned what he so much desired. Keplar considering those strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose but cry out in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rapture of admiration. O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextra tenet, ille non dominus constitnatur operum Dei? And johannes 
De macula in sole obser.  Fabrieius an elegant writer, speaking of the same glass, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, says thus; Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronunciatu de missam represent âsse putantur nos non tantum innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiuri quodam intuitu ejus quasi conditionem intueamur. So much are we above the ancients, that whereas they were fain by their magical charms to represent the Moon's approach, we cannot only bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a more familiar view behold her condition. And because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of those experiments, which I shall afterwards urge from it; I will therefore setdowne the testimony of an enemy, and such a witness hath always been accounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed Caesar la 
De phaenom. cap. 1.  Galla, whose words are these: Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum vero novum Jovis interpretem Telescopio caducaeo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas videt & admiratur. Wise antiquity fabled Mercury carrying a rod in his hand to relate news from Heaven, and call back the souls of the dead, but it hath been the happiness of our industrious age to see and admire Galilaeus the new Ambassador of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfold the nature of the Stars, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient Philosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteem of this excellent invention.  
Now if you would know what might be done by this glass, in the sight of such things as were nearer at hand, the same Author will tell you, when he says, that by it those things which could 
ibid. c. 5.  scarce at all be discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a half, might plainly and distinctly be perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient Poets were fain to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discern as fare with these eyes which Galilaeus hath bestowed upon us, as Lynceus could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the 
Cap. 1.  same Author may confirm you, when he says they were showed, Non u●i aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed praecipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, ne●●on Mathematicis & opticis praeceptis, optimè instructis sedulâ ac diligenti inspectione. Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well versed in Mathematics and Optics, and that not with a mere glance, but with a sedulous and diligent inspection. And lest any scruple might remain unanswered, or you might think the men who beheld all this though they might be skilful, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easy to be deluded. He adds that it was showed, vires qui 
Cap. 5.  ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant. To such as were come with a great deal of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction. Thus you may see the certainty of those experiments which were taken by this glass. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall borrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.  
I have now cited such Authors both ancient and modern, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenants of others: such were Aristarchus, Philolaus and Copernicus, with many other later writers who assented to their hypothesis, so joach. Rlelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert, and (if I may believe Campanella) Innumeri 
Apologia pro Galileo.  alii Angli & Galli. Very many others, both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sun to be the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move, and how horrid soever this may seem at the first, yet is it likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxim or observation in Optics (saith Pena) that can disprove it.  
Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them) then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?  
Thus have I shown you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceed farther, 'tis requisite that I inform the Reader, what method I shall follow in the proving of this chief assertion, that there is a World in the Moon.  
The order by which I shall be guided will be that which Aristatle 
à 10. cap. ad 10m.  uses in his book De mundo (if that book were his.)  
First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those chief parts which are in it; not the elementary and aethereal (as he doth there) since this doth not belong to the elementary controversy, but of the Sea and Land, etc. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.   

Proposition 7. That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moon, do show the difference betwixt the Sea and Land in that other World.  
FOr the clear proof of this proposition, I shall first reckon up and refute the opinions of others concerning the matter and form of those spots, and then show 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 been very many, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkable.  
Some there are that think those spots do not arise from any deformity of the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance discern an equal light in that planet, but these do but only say it, and show not any reason for the proof of their opinion: Others think that there are some bodies betwixt the Sun and Moon, which keeping off the 
So Bede in li. de Mund. constit.  lights in some parts, do by their shadow produce these spots which we there discern.  
Others would have them to be the figure of the mountains here below represented there as in a lookingglass. But none of those fancies can be true, because the spots are still the same, and not varied according to the difference of places, and beside, Cardan thinks it is impossible that any image should 
De subtle. lib. 3.  be conveyed so fare as there to be represented unto us at such a distance, but 'tis commonly related of Pythagoras, that he by writing, what he pleased in a glass, by the reflection of the same species, would make those letters to appear in the circle of the Moon, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that time be some miles distant from him. 
* Occulta-ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6.  Agrippa affirms this to be possible, and the way of performing it not unknown to himself, with some others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like means perform those strange conclusions which he professes in his Nuncius inanimatus, where he pretends that he can inform his friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant, forte etiam, vel miliare millesimum, they are his own words, and, perhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minute's space, or little more, quicker than the Sun can move.  
Now, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot conceive, unless it be carried with the light, than which we know not any thing quicker; but of this only by the way; however, whether those images can be represented so or not, yet certain it is, those spots are not such representations. Some think that when God had at first created too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow the rest, he placed it in the Moon, which ever since hath so darkened it in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation, since it so much detracts from the divine power and wisdom.  
The 
* Plut. de placit. phillip l. 2. c. 25.  Stoics held that Planet to be mixed of fire and air, and in their opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots: Anaxagoras thought all the stars to be of an earthly nature, mixed with some fire, and as for the Sun, he affirmed it to be nothing else but a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the Athenians 
Joseph●● l. 2. con. App. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 41.  sentenced him to death; those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy, to make their God a stone, whereas notwithstanding, they were so senseless in their adoration of Idols, as to make a stone their God, this Anaxagoras affirmed the Moon to be more terrestrial than the other, but of a greater purity than any thing here below, and the spots he thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with the light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above destroyed the supposition on which this fancy is grounded: Pliny 
Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9  thinks they arise from some drossy stuff, mixed with that moisture which the Moon attracts unto herself, but he was of their opinion who thought the stars were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonly see refuted in the Commentators on the books, d● Coelo.  
Vitellio and Reinoldus affirm 
Opt. lib. 9 comment. in Purb. pag. 164.  the spots to be the thicket parts of the Moon, into which the Sun cannot infuse much light, and this (say they) is the reason, why in the Sun's eclipses, the spots and brighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, because the Sun beams are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, as they may through the thinner parts of that Planet. Of this opinion also was Caesar lafoy Galla, whose words are these, The Moon doth there appear 
Ex qua parte luna est transpicua nonsolum secundum superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur. De Ph●nom. cap. 11.  clearest, where she is transpicuous, not only through the superficies, but the substance also, and there she seems spotted, where her body is most opacous. The ground of this his assertion was, because he thought the Moon did receive and bestow her light by illumination only, and not at all by reflection, but this, together with the supposed penetration of the Sun beams, and the perspicuity of the Moon's body I have above answered and refuted.  
The more common and general opinion is, that the spots are 
Albert. mag. de Coaevis. Q. 4. Art. 21. Colleg. Con.  the thinner parts of the Moon, which are less able to reflect the beams that they receive from the Sun, and this is most agreeable to reason; for if the stars are therefore brightest, because they are thicker and more solid than their orbs, than it will follow, that those parts of the Moon which have less light, have also less thickness. It was the providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to have these spots within it, for since that is nearest to those lower bodies which are so full of deformity, 'tis requisite that it should in some measure agreed with them, and as in this inferior world the higher bodies are the most complete, so also in the heaven's perfection is ascended unto by degrees, and the Moon being the lowest, must be the least pure, and 
De Somniis.  therefore Philo the Jew interpreting jacobs dream concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory show, how that in the fabric of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher, and this is the reason (saith he) why the Moon doth not consist of any pure simple matter, but is mixed with air, which shows so darkly within her body.  
But this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true that nature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it as true that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office to which she intends it. Now, had she intended the Moon merely to reflect the Sun beams and give light, the spots than had not so much argued her providence, as her unskilfulness and imperfection, as if in the haste of her work 
Scalig. exercit. 62.  she could not tell how to make that body exactly fit, for that office to which she appointed it.  
'tis likely then that she had some other end which moved her to produce this variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it a fit body for habitation with the same conveniences of sea and land, as this inferior world doth partake of. For since the Moon is such a vast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved) why may it not be probable, that those thinner and thicker parts appearing in her do show the difference betwixt the sea and land in that other world; and Galilaeus doubts not, but that if our earth were visible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it.  
As for the form of those spots, some of the vulgar think they represent a man, and the Poet's guess 'tis the boy Endymion, whose company she loves so well, that she carries him with her, others will have it only to be the face of a man as the Moon is usually pictured, but Albertus thinks rather, that it represents a Lion with his tail towards the East, and his head the West, and 
* Euscbius Nioremb. Hist. Nat. lib. 8. c. 15.  some others have thought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly 'tis, as much like a Lion as that in the Zodiac, or as Vrsa mayor is like a Bear.  
I should guess that it represents one of these as well as another, and any thing else as well as any of these, since 'tis but a strong imagination, which fancies such images as schoolboys ususual'y do in the marks of a wall, whereas there is not any such similitude in the spots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land, appears under a rugged and confused figure, and do●h not represent any distinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the form it may be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may show the distinction 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 those appearances in the Moon; I concluded contrary to the proposition, that the brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; of this opinion likewise was Keplar at the first, but my second thoughts, and the reading of others, have now 
Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9 Dissert. cum nuncio Gal.  convinced me (as after he was) of the truth of that proposition which I have now see down. But before I come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those seruples which at first made me doubt of the truth of this opinion.  
1. It may be objected, 'tis probable, if there be any such sea and land as ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but now this proposition takes away all likeness betwixt them, for whereas the superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in the globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as Scaliger observes) yet here according to this opinion, the 
Exercit. 38.  Sea should be less than the land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as there is of the enlightened parts, wherefore 'tis probable, that either there is no such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea.  
2. The water, by reason of the smoothness of its superficies, seems better able to reflect the Sun beams then the earth, which in most places is so full of ruggedness of grass and trees, and such like impediments of reflection, and beside, common experience shows, that the water shines with a greater and more glorious brightness than the earth, therefore it should seem that the spots are the earth, and the brighter parts the water.  
But to the first it may be answered.  
1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because 'tis so with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moon, for since there is such a difference betwixt them in diverse other respects, they may not perhaps agreed in this.  
2. That assertion of Sculiger is 
De Meteoris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1.  not by all granted for a truth. Fromondus with others think that the superficies of the Sea and Land in so much of the world as is already discovered is equal and of the same extension.  
3. The Orb of thick and vaporous air which incompasses the Moon, makes the brighter parts of that Planet appear bigger than in themselves they are; as I shall show afterwards.  
To the second it may be answered, that though the water be of a smooth superficies, and so may seem most fit to reverberate the light, yet because 'tis of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beams must sink into it, and cannot so strongly and clearly be reflected. Sicut in speculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit, (saith Cardan) as in Looking-glasses where part of the lead is razed of, and nothing left behind to reverberate the image, the species must there pass through and not back again; so it is where the beams penetrate and sink into the substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strong reflection as when they are beat back from the superficies, and therefore the Sun causes a greater heat by fare upon the Land then upon the water. Now as for that experiment where 'tis said, that the waters have a greater brightness than the Land: I answer, 'tis true only there where they represent the image of the Sun or some bright cloud, and not in other places, as is very plain by common observation.  
So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this proposition may remain true, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Of this opinion was Plutarch: unto him assented Keplar and Galilaeus, whose words are these, Si quis veterum Pythagoreorum sententiam exuscitare 
De facielun. Dissertatio. Nunc. Syd.  velit, lunam scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam superficiem, obscurior verò aqueam magis congruè repraesentet Mihi autem dubium fuit nunquam terrestris globi à longè conspecti, atque aradiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem, obscuriorem vero aqueam seize in conspectum daturam. If any man have a mind to renew the opinion of the Pythagoreans, that the Moon is another earth, than her brighter parts may fitly represent the earth's superficies, and the darker part the water: and for my part, I never doubted but that our earthly globe being shined upon by the Sun, and beheld at a great distance, the Land would appear brightest and the Sea more obscurely. The reasons may be  
1. That which I urged about the foregoing chapter, because the water is the thinner part, and therefore must give less light.  
2, Because observation tells us, that the spotted parts are always smooth and equal, having every where an equality of light when once they are enlightened by the Sun, whereas the brighter parts are full of rugged gibbosities and mountains having many shades in them, as I shall show more at large afterwards.  
That in this Planet there must be Seas, Campanella endeavours to 
Apologia pro Galileo.  prove out of Scripture interpreting the waters above the Firmament, spoken of in Genesis to be meant of the Sea in this world. For (saith he) 'tis not likely that there are any such waters above the Orbs to moderate that heat which they receive from their swift motion (as some of the Fathers think) nor did Moses mean the Angels which may be called 
Confession. l. 13. c. 32.  spiritual waters, as Origen and Austin would have it, for both these are rejected by the general consent: Nor could he mean any waters in the second region, as most Commentators interpret it. For first there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwards turned into water, yet while they remain there, they are only the matter of that element, which may as well be fire or earth or air. 2. Those vapours are not above the expansum but in it. So that he thinks there is no other way to salve all, but by making the Planets several worlds with Sea & Land with such Rivers and Springs as we have here below: Especially since Esdras 
2. Esdr. 4. 7.  speaks of the springs above the Firmament, but I cannot agreed with him in this, nor do I think that any such thing can be proved out of Scripture.  
Before I proceed to the next position, I shall first answer some doubts which might be made against the generality of this truth, whereby it may seem impossible that there should be either Sea or Land in the Moon; for since she moves so swiftly as Astronomers observe, why then does there nothing fall from her, or why doth she not shake something out by the celerity of her revolution? I answer, you must know that the inclination of every heavy body to its proper Centre doth sufficiently tie it unto its place, so that suppose any thing were separated, yet must it necessarily return again, and there is no more danger of their falling into our world then there is fear of our falling into the Moon.  
But yet there are many fabulous relations of such things as have dropped thence. There is a tale of the Nemean Lion that Hercules slew, which first rushing among the herds out of his unknown den in the Mountain of Cithaeron in Boeotia, the credulous people thought he was sent from their Goddess the Moon. And if a whirlwind did chance to snatch any thing up, and afterwards rain it down again, the ignorant multitude are apt to believe that it dropped from Heaven. Thus Avicenna relates the story of a Calf which fell down in a storm, the beholders thinking it a Mooncalf, and that it fell thence. So Cardan travelling upon the Apennine Mountains, a sudden blast took off his hat, which if it had been carried fare, he thinks the peasants who had perceived it to fall, would have sworn it had reigned hats. After some such manner many of our prodigies come to pass, and the people are willing to believe any thing, which they may relate to others as a very strange and wonderful event. I doubt not but the Trojan Palladium, the Roman Minerva, and our Lady's Church at Loretto, with many sacred relics preserved by the Papists might drop from the Moon as well as any of these.  
But it may be again objected, suppose there were a bullet shot up in that world, would not the Moon run away from it, before it could fall down, since the motion of her body (being every day round our earth) is fare swifter than the other, and so the bullet must be left behind, and at length fall down to us. To this I answer,  
1. If a bullet could be shot so fare till it came to the circumference of those things which belong to our centre, than it would fall down to us.  
2. Though there were some heavy body a great height in that air, yet would the motion of its centre by an attractive virtue still holds it within its convenient distance, so that whether their earth moved or stood still, yet would the same violence cast a body from it equally fare. That I may the plainer express my meaning, I will set down this Diagramme.   diagram of Earth, magnetic field, and orbit 
Suppose this earth were A, which was to move in the circle C, D. and let the bullet be supposed at B. within its proper verge; I say, whether this earth did stand still or move swiftly towards D, yet the bullet would still keep at the same distance by reason of that Magnetic virtue of the centre (if I may so speak) whereby all things within its sphere are attracted with it. So that the violence to the bullet, being nothing else but that whereby 'tis removed from its centre, therefore an equal violence can carry a body from its proper place, but at an equal distance whether or no the centre stand still or move.  
The impartial Reader may find sufficient satisfaction for this and such other arguments as may be urged against the motion of that earth in the writings of Copernicus and his followers, unto whom for brevity's sake I will refer them.   

Proposition 9 That there are high Mountains, deep valleys, and spacious plains in the body of the Moon.  
THough there are some who think Mountains to be a deformity to the earth, as if they were either beat up by the flood, or else cast up like so many heaps of rubbish left at the creation, yet if well considered, they will be found as much to conduce to the beauty and conveniency of the universe as any of the other parrs. Nature (saith Pliny) purposely 
Nat. hist. l. 36. c. 1.  framed them for many excellent uses: partly to tame the violence of greater Rivers, to strengthen certain joints within the veins and bowels of the earth, to break the force of the Seas inundation, and for the safety of the earth's inhabitants, whether beasts or men. That they make much for the protection of beasts the Psalmist 
Psal. 104. v. 18.  testifies, The highest hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for coneys. The Kingly Prophet had learned the safety of these by his own experience, when he also was fain to make a mountain his refuge from the fury of his Master Saul, who persecuted him in the wilderness.  
True indeed, such places as these keep their neighbours poor, as being most barren, but yet they preserve them safe, as being most strong, witness our unconquered Wales and Scotland, whose greatest protection hath been the natural strength of their Country, so fortified with Mountains, that these have always been unto them sure retraites from the violence and oppression of others, wherefore a good Author doth rightly call them natures bulwarks cast up at God Almighty's own charges, the scorns and, curbs of victorious armies, which made the Barbarians in Curtius so confident of their own safety, when they were once retired to an inaccessible mountain, that when Alexander's Legate had brought them to a parley and persuading them to yield, told them of his master's victories, what Seas and Wildernesses he had passed, they replied that all that might be, but could Alexander fly too? Over the Seas he might have ships, and over the land horses, but he must have wings before he could get up thither. Such safety did those barbarous nations conceive in the mountains whereunto they were retired, certainly then such useful parts were not the effect of man's si●ne, or produced by the World's cu●se the flood, but rather at the first created by the goodness and providence of the Almighty.  
So that if I intent to prove that the Moon is such a habitable world as this is, 'tis requisite that I show it to have the same conveniences of habitation as this hath, and here if some Rabbi or Chemic were to handle the point they would first prove it out of Scripture, from that place in Moses his blessing, where he 
Deut. 33. 15.  speaks of the ancient mountains and lasting hills, Deut. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for having immediately before mentioned those blessings which should happen unto Joseph by the influence of the Moon, he does presently exegetically iterate them in blessing him with the chief things of the ancient mountains and lasting hills; you may also see the same expression used in jacobs' blessing of joseph. 
Gen. 49. 26.   
But however we may deal pro or con in Philosophy, yet we must not j●st with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronise any fancy of our own, though, perhaps, it be a truth. For the better proof of this proposition, I might here cite the testimony of Diodorus, who thought the Moon to be full of rugged places, vel ut terrestribus tumulis superciliosam, but he erred much in some circumstances of this opinion, espicially where he says, there is an Island amongst the Hyperborcans, wherein those hills may to the eye be plainly discovered, and for this reason 
* Lect. aut l. 1. cap. 15. Plut. de plac. l. 2. c. 25.  Caelius calls him a fabulous Writer, but you may see more express authority for the proof of this in the opinions of Anaxagoras and Democritus, who held that this Planet was full of champion grounds, mountains and valleys, 
De coelo. l. 2. part. 49.  and this seemed likewise probable unto Augustinus Nifus, whose words are these: Forsitan non est remotum dicere lunae partes esse diversas, veluti sunt partes terrae, quarum aliae sunt vallosae, aliae montosae, ex quarum differentia effici pot●st facies illa lunae; nec est raetioni dissonum, nam luna est corpus imperfectè Sphaericum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo coelo elongatum, ut supra dixit Aristoteles. Perhaps, it would not be amiss to say that the parts of the Moon were diverse, as the parts of this earth, whereof some are valleys, and some mountains, from the difference of which, some spots in the Moon may proceed; nor is this against reason, for that Planet cannot be perfectly spherical, since 'tis so remote a bod● from the first orb, as Aristotle had said before. You may see this truth assented unto by Blancanus 
De Mundi fab. pars 3●. c. 4.  the Jesuit, and by him confirmed with diverse reasons. Keplar hath observed in the Moon's 
Astron. Opt. c. 6. num. 9  eclipses, that the division of her enlightened part from the shaded, was made by a crooked unequal line, of which there cannot be any probable cause conceived, unless it did arise from the ruggedness of that planet, for it cannot at all be produced from the shade of any mountains here upon earth, because these would be so lessened before they could reach so high in a conical shadow, that they would not be at all sensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated) nor can it be conceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sun. Wherhfore there being no other body that hath any thing to do in eclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a variety of parts in the Moon itself, and what can there be but its gibbosities? Now if you should ask a reason why there should be such a multitude of these in that Planet, the same Keplar shall jest you out an answer, for supposing (saith he) those inhabitants are ●●gger than any of us in the same proportion, as their days are longer than ours, vix. by fifteen times it may be for want of stones to erect such vast houses as were requisite for their bodies, they are fain to dig great and round hollows in the earth, where they may both procure water for their thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those great heats which otherwise they would be liable unto; or if you will give Caesar la Galla leave to guess in the same manner, he would rather think that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so great heaps of earth in digging of their wine cellars, but this only by the way.  
I shall next produce the eye witness of Galilaeus, on which I 
Nuncius Sydereus.  most of all depend for the proof of this Proposition, when he beheld the new Moon through his perspective it appeared to him under a rugged & spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightened parts divided by a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance from the other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily perceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are commonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what I deliver, I will set down the Figure as I found it in Galilaeus:   diagram of Moon 
Suppose A B C D to represent the appearande of the Moon's body being in a sextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distance from the other, which can be nothing else but a reflection of the Sun beams upon some parts that are higher than the rest, and those obscure gibbosities which stand out towards the enlightened parts must be such hollow and deep places whereto the rays cannot reach, but when the Moon is got farther off from the Sun, and come to that fullness, as this line B D doth represent her under, then do these parts also receive an equal light, excepting only that difference which doth appear betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consider how any rugged body would appear, being enlightened, you would easily conceive that it must necessarily seem under some such gibbous unequal form, as the Moon is here represented. Now for the infallibility of these appearances, I shall refer the reader to that which hath been said in the 6th. Proposition.  
But Caesar la Galla affirms, that all these appearances may consast with a plain superficies, if we suppose the parts of the body to be some of them, Diaphanous, and some opacous; and if you object that the light which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plain superficies must be by a continued line, whereas here there appear many brighter parts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this he answers, it may arise from some secret conveyances and channels within her body, that do consist of a more diaphanous matter which being covered over with an opacous superficies, the light passing through them may break out a great way off, whereas the other parts betwixt may still remain dark. Just as the River Arethusa in Sicily which runs under ground for a great way, and afterwards breaks out again. But because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby he thinks he hath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore set down his answer in his own words, lest the Reader might suspect more in them then I have expressed. Non 
Cap. 11.  est impossibile coecos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opacd superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo postmodum interstitio erumpat, etc. But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two enlightened parts remain dark because of its opacity, then would it always be dark, and the Sun could not make it partake of light more than it could of perspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in Galilaeus, who affirms that when the Sun comes nearer to his opposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightened as well as either. Nay this opposes his own eyewitness, for he confesses himself that he saw this by the glass. He had said before that he came to see those strange sights discovered by Galilaeus his glass with an intent of contradiction, and you may read that confirmed in the weakness of this answer, which rather betrays an obstinate than a persuaded will, for otherwise sure he would never have undertook to have destroyed such certain proofs with so groundless a fancy.  
But it may be objected, that '●is almost impossible, and altogether unlikely that in the Moon there should be any mountains so high as those observations make them, for do but suppose according to the common principles, that the Moon's diameter unto the Earth's is very near to the proportion of 2. to 7, suppose withal that the Earth's diameter contains about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moons 2000 (as is commonly granted) now Galilaeus hath observed that some parts have been enlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant from the common term of illumination, so that hence it must necessarily follow that there may be some Mountains in the Moon so high, that they are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that sounds like a prodigy or a fiction; wherefore 'tis likely that either those appearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountains, or else those are fallible observations, from whence may follow such improbable inconceiveable consequences.  
But to this I answer:  
1. You must consider the heighr of the Mountains is but very little, if you compare them to the length of their shadows. Sr. Walter 
Hist. l. 1. c. 7. §. 11.  Raleigh observes that the Mount Athes now called Lacas casts its shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount is none of the highest, nay Solinus (whom I should rather 
Poly. histor. c. 21.  believe in this kind) affirms that this Mountain gives his shadow quite over the Sea, from Macedon to the I'll of Lemnos which is 700 furlongs or 84 miles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4 miles upwards, in its perpendicular height.  
2. I affirm that there are very high Mountains in the Moon. Keplar and Galilaeus think that they are higher than any which are upon our earth. But I am not of their opinion in this, because I suppose they go upon a false ground whilst they conceive that the highest mountain upon the earth is not above a mile perpendicular.  
Whereas 'tis the common opinion and found true enough by observation, that Olympus, Atlas, Taurus and E●us, with many others are much above this height. Tenariffa in the Canary Lands is proved by computation to be above 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height is the mount 
Hist. l. 1. c. 7. §. 11.  Perjacaca in America: Sr. Walter Raleigh seeme● to think, that the highest of these is near 30 miles upright: nay Aristotle speaking 
Meteor. l. 1. c. 11.  of Caucasus in Asia, affirms it to be visible for 560 miles, as some interpreters find by computation, from which it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicularly high, as you may see confirmed 
Comparatio Arist. cum Platone Sect. 3. c. 5.  by Jacobus Mazonius, and out of him in Blancanus the Jesuit. But this deviates from the truth more in excess then the other 
Exposi. in loc. Math. Arlis. loc. 148.  doth in defect. However though these in the moon are not so high as some amongst us, yet certain it is they are of a great height, and some of them at the lest four miles perpendicular. This I shall prove from the observation of Galilaeus, whose glass can show this truth to the senses, a proof beyond exception and certain that man must needs be of a most timorous faith who dares not believe his own eye.  
By that perspective you may plainly discern some enlightened parts (which are the mountains) to be distant from the other about the twentieth part of the diameter. From whence it will follow, that those mountains must necessarily be at the lest four Italian miles in height.   diagram of Moon 
For let BDEF be the body of the moon, ABC will be a ray or beam of the Sun, which enlightens a mountain at A and B is the point of contingency, the distance betwixt A and B must be supposed to be the twentieth part of the diameter which is an 100 miles, for so far are some enlightened parts severed from the common term of illumination. Now the aggregate of the quadrate from A B a hundred, and B G a 1000 will be 1010000, unto which the quadrate arising from A G must be equal according to the 47th proposition in the first book of elements. Therefore the whole line A G is somewhat more than 104, and the distance betwixt H A must be above 4 miles, which was the thing to be proved.  
But it may be again objected, if there be such rugged parts, and so high mountains, why then cannot we discern them at this distance, why doth the moon appear unto us so exactly round, and not rather as a wheel with teeth?  
I answer, by reason of too great a distance, for if the whole body appear to our eye so little, than those parts which bear so small a proportion to the whole will not at all be sensible.  
But it may be replied, if there were any such remarkable hills, why does not the limb of the moon appear like a wheel with teeth to those who look upon it through the great perspective on whose witness you so much depend? or what reason is there that she appears as exactly round through it as she doth to the bore eye? certainly then either there is no such thing as you imagine, or else the glass fails much in this discovery.  
To this I shall answer out of Galilaeus.  
1. You must know that there is not merely one rank of mountains about the edge of the moon, but diverse orders, one mountain behind another, and so there is somewhat to hinder those voided spaces which otherwise, perhaps, might appear.  
Now where there be many hills, the ground seems even to a man that can see the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves are lifted up, yet all may appear plain enough to one that stands at the shore. So where there are so many hills, the inequality will be less remarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.  
2. Though there be mountains in that part which appears unto us, to be the limb of the Moon, as well as in any other place, yet the bright vapours hide their appearance: for there is an orb of thick vaporous air that doth immediately compass the body of the Moon, which though it have not so great opacity, as to terminate the sight, yet being once enlightened by the Sun, it doth represent the body of the Moon under a greater form, and hinders our fight from a distinct view of her true circumference. But of this in the next Chapter.  
I have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moon, and hence it may seem likely that there is also a world, for since providence hath some special end in all its works, certainly then these mountains were not produced in vain, and what more probable meaning can we conceive there should be, than to make that place convenient for habitation.   

Proposition 10. That there is an Atmo-sphaera, or an orb of gross vaporous air, immediately encompassing the body of the Moon.  
AS that part of our air which is nearest to the earth, is of a thicker substance than the other, by reason 'tis always mixed with some vapours, which are continually exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, that if there be a world in the Moon, that the air about that should be alike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orb of gross air, was first of all (for aught I can read) observed by Meslin, afterwards assented unto by Keplar and Galilaeus, and 
Vide Ruseb. Nierem. de Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 11.  since by Baptista Cisatus, Sheiner with others, all of them confirming it by the same arguments which I shall only cite, and then leave this Proposition.  
1. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moon as is enlightened, is always part of a bigger circle than that which is darker. Their frequent experience hath proved this, and an easy observation may quickly confirm it. But now this cannot proceed from any other cause so probable, as from this orb of air, especially when we consider how that planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not sand forth any such rays as may make her appearance bigger than her body.  
2. 'Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a great trepidation about the body of the Moon, from which we may likewise argue an Atmo-sphaera, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a cause there should be of such an appearance as this, Quod radii Solares à vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint intercisi, that the Sun beams were broken and 
Scheiner. Ros. Urs. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27.  refracted by the vapours that encompassed the Moon.  
3. I may add the like argument taken from another observation which will be easily tried and granted. When the Sun is eclipsed, we discern the Moon as she is i● her own natural bigness, but then she appears somewhat less than when she is in the full, though she be in the same place of her supposed eccentric and epicycle, and therefore Tycho hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the diverse new Moons. But now there is no reason so probable to salve this appearance, as to place an or be of thicker air, near the body of that Planet, which may be enlightened by the reflected beams, and through which the directraies may easily penetrate.  
But some may object that this will not consist with that which was before delivered, where I said, that the thinnest parts had lest light.  
If this were true, how comes it to pass then, that this air should be as bright as any of the other parts, when as 'tis the thinnest of all?  
I answer, if the light be received by reflection, than the thickest body hath most, because it is best able to beat back the rays, but if the light be received by illumination (especially if there be an opacous body behind, which may double the beams by reflection) as it is here, than I deny not but a thin body may retain much light, and perhaps, some of those appearances which we take for fiery comets, are nothing else but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there may be such air without the Moon, and hence it comes to pass, that the greater spots are only visible towards her middle parts, and none near the circumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts as else where, but they are not there perceivable, by reason of those brighter vapours which hide them.   

Proposition. 11. That as their world is our Moon, so our world is their Moon.  
I Have already handled the first thing that I promised according to the Method which Aristotle uses in his Book de Mundo, and showed you the necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moon. In the next place 'tis requisite that I proceed to those things which are extrinsecall unto it, as the Seasons, the Meteors, and the Inhabitants.  
1. Of the Seasons;  
And if there be such a world in the Moon, 'tis requisite then that their seasons should be some way correspondent unto ours, that they should have Winter and Summer, night and day, as we have.  
Now that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and Summer is affirmed by Aristotle 
De gen. animal. l. 4. 12.  himself, since there is one hemisphere that hath always heat and light, and the other that hath darkness and cold. True indeed, their days and years are always of one and the same length, but 'tis so with us also under the Poles, and therefore that great difference is not sufficient to make it altogether unlike ours, nor can we expect that every thing there should be in the same manner as it is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about her purposes. We may easily see what great differences there are amongst us, betwixt things of the same 
Plut. de fac. De naturâ populorum c. 3.  kind. Some men (say they) there are, who can live only upon smells, without eating any thing, and the same Plant, saith Besoldus, hath sometimes contrary effects. Mandragora which grows in Syria, inflames the lust, whereas Mandragora which grows in other places doth cool the blood & quench lust.  
Now if with us there be such great difference betwixt things of the same kind, we have no reason then to think it necessary that both these worlds should be altogether alike, but it may suffice if they be correspondent in something only, however it may be questioned whether it doth not seem to be against the wisdom of providence, to make the night of so great a length, when they have such a long time unfit for work? I answer no, since 'tis so, and more with us also under the poles; and beside, the general length of their night is somewhat abated in the bigness of their Moon which is our earth. For this returns as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it. But for the better proof of this, I shall first free the way from such opinions as might otherwise hinder the speed of a clearer progress.  
Plutarch one of the chief patrons 
Plut. de fac. lunae.  trons of this world in the Moon, doth directly contradict this proposition; affirming, that those who live there may discern our world as the dregss and sediment of all other creatures, appearing to them through clouds and foggy mists, and that altogether devoid of light, being base and unmoveable, so that they might well imagine the dark place of damnation to be here situate, and that they only were the inhabiters of the world, as being in the midst betwixt Heaven and Hell.  
To this I may answer, 'tis probable that Plutarch spoke this inconsiderately, and without a reason, which makes him likewise fall into another absurdity, when he says our earth would appear , whereas questionless though it did not, yet would it seem to move, and theirs to stand still, as the Land doth to a man in a Ship; according to that of the Poet:  Provehimur portu, terraeque urbesque recedunt. 
And I doubt not but that ingenuous Author would easily have recanted if he had been but acquainted with those experiences which men of latter times have found out, for the confirmation of this truth.  
2. Unto him assents Macrobius, 
Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 19  whose words are these; Terra accepto solis lumine clarescit, tantummodò, non relucet. The earth is by the Sunbeams made bright, but not able to enlighten any thing so fare. And his reason is, because this being of a thick and gross matter, the light is terminated in its superficies, and cannot penetrate into the substance; whereas the moon doth therefore seem so bright to us, because it receives the beams within itself. But the weakness of this assertion, may be easily manifest by a common experience, for polished steel (whose opacity will not give any admittance to the rays) reflects a stronger heat than glass, and so consequently a greater light.  
3. 'Tis the general consent of Philosophers, that the reflection of the Sunbeams from the earth doth not reach much above half a mile high, where they terminate the first region, so that to affirm they might ascend to the moon, were to say, there were but one region of air, which contradicts the proved and received opinion.  
Unto this it may be answered: That it is indeed the common consent, that the reflection of the Sunbeams reach only to the second region, but yet some there are, and those too Philosophers of good note, who thought otherwise. 
Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4.  Thus Plotinus is cited by Caelius, Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis subjiciatur terrae moles aquis circumfusa, & solis syderumque radiis illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis modo visatur lunaris globi species. If you did conceive yourself to be in some such high place, where you might discern the whole Globe of the earth and water, when it was enlightened by the Sun's rays, 'tis probable ●t would then appear to you in the same shape as the moon doth now unto us. Thus also Carolus Malapertius, whose 
Praefat. ad Austriaca syd.  words are these▪ Terra haec nostra si in luna constituti essemus, splendida prorsus quasi non ignobilis planeta, nobis appareret. If we were placed in the moon, and from thence beheld this our earth, it would appear unto us very bright, like one of the nobler Planets. Unto these doth Fronondus assent, when he says, Credo equidem quod si oculus quispiam in orbe lunari foret, globum 
Meteor. l. 1. c. 2. Art. 2.  terrae & aquae instar ingentis syderis à sole illustrem conspiceret. I believe that this globe of earth and water would appear like some great Star to any one, who should look upon it from the moon. Now this could not be, nor could it shine so remarkably, unless the beams of light, were reflected from it. And therefore the same Fromondus expressly holds, that the first region of air is there terminated, where the heat caused by reflection gins to languish, whereas the beams themselves do pass a great way further. The chief argument which doth most plainly manifest this truth, is taken from a common observation which may be easily tried.  
If you behold the Moon a little before or after the conjunction, when she is in a sextile with the Sun, you may discern not only the part which is enlightened, but the rest also to have in it a kind of a duskishlight, but if you choose out such a situation, where some house or chimney (being some 70 or 80 paces distant from you) may hide from your eye the enlightened horns, you may then discern a greater and more remarkable shining in those parts unto which the Sun beams cannot reach; nay there is so great a light, that by the help of a good perspective you may discern its spots. In so much that Blancanus the Jesuit speaking of it says, Haec experientia ita me 
De mundi sab. p. 3●. c. 3.  aliquando fe fellit, ut in hunc fulgorem casu ac repente incidens, existimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore adolescentis lunae factum esse plenilunium. This experiment did once so deceive me, that happening upon the sight of this brightness upon a sudden, I thought that by some new miracle the Moon had been got into her full a little after her change.  
But now this light is not proper to the Moon, it doth not proceed from the rays of the Sun which doth penetrate her body, nor ●is it caused by any other of the Planets and Stars. Therefore it must necessarily follow, that it comes from the earth. The two first of these I have already proved, and as for the last, it is confidently affirmed by Caelius, Quod si in 
l. 20. c. 5.  disquisitionem evocet quis, an lunari syderi lucem foenerent planetae item alii, asseveranter astruendum non foenerare. If any should ask whether the other Planets lend any light to the Moon; I answer they do not. True indeed, the noble Tycho discussing the reason 
Progym. 1.  of this light attributes it to the Planet Venus, and I grant that this may convey some light to the Moon, but that it is not the cause of this whereof we now discourse, is of itself sufficiently plain, because Venus is sometimes over the Moon, when as she cannot convey any light to that part which is turned from her.  
It doth not proceed from the fixed stars, for than it would retain the same light in eclipses, whereas the light at such times is more ruddy and dull. Than also the light of the Moon would not be greater or lesser, according to its distance from the edge of the earth's shadow, since it did at all times equally participate this light of the stars.  
Now because there is no other body in the whole Universe, save the earth, it remains that this light must necessarily be caused by that which with a just gratitude repaies to the Moon, such illumination as it receives from her.  
And as loving friends equally participate of the same joy and grief, so do these mutually partake of the same light from the Sun, and the same darkness from the eclipses, being also severally helped by one another in their greatest wants: For when the Moon is in conjunction with the Sun, and her upper part receives all the light, than her lower Hemisphere (which would otherwise be altogether dark) is enlightened by the reflection of the Sun beams from the earth. When these two planets are in opposition, than that part of the earth which could not receive any light from the Sun beams, is most enlightened by the Moon, being then in her full; and as she doth most illuminate the earth when the Sun beams cannot, so the grateful earth returns to her as great, nay greater light when she most wants it; so that always that visible part of the Moon which receives nothing from the Sun, is enlightened by the earth, as is proved by Galilaeus, with many more arguments, in that Treatise which he calls Systema mundi. True indeed, when the Moon comes to a quartile, than you can neither discern this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, but the reason is, because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. Quip illustratum medium speciem 
Scal. exerc. 62.  recipit valentiorem, the clearer brightness involves the weaker, it being with the species of sight, as it is with those of sound, and as the greater noise drowns the less, so the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But they do always in their mutual vicissitudes participate of one another's light; so also do they partake of the same defects and darken, for when our Moon is eclipsed, then is their Sun darkened, and when our Sun is eclipsed, then is their Moon deprived of its light, as you may see affirmed by Maeslin. Quod si terram 
Epit. Astro. l. 4. part. 2.  nobis ex alto liceret intueri, quemadmodum deficientem lunam ex longinquo spectare possumus, videremus tempore eclipsis solis terrae aliquam partem lumine solis deficere, eodem planè modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit, If we might behold this globe of earth at the same distance as we do the Moon in her defects, we might discern some part of it darkened in the Sun's eclipses, just so as the Moon is in hers. For as our Moon is eclipsed by the interposition of our earth, so is their Moon eclipsed by the interposition of theirs. The manner of this mutual illumination betwixt these two you may plainly discern in this Figure following.   diagram of Sun, Moon, and Earth 
Where A represents the Sun, B the Earth, and C the Moon; Now suppose the Moon C to be in a sextile of increase, when there is only one small part of her body enlightened, than the earth B will have such a part of its visible Hemisphere darkened, as is proportionable to that part of the Moon which is enlightened; and as for so much of the Moon, as the Sun beams cannot reach unto, it receives light from a proportional part of the earth which shines upon it, as you may plainly perceive by the Figure.  
You see then that agreement and similitude which there is betwixt our earth and the Moon. Now the greatest difference which makes them unlike, is this, that the Moon enlightens our earth round about, whereas our earth gives light only to that Hemisphere of the Moon which is visible unto us, as may be certainly gathered from the constant appearance of the same spots, which could not thus come to pass, if the Moon had such a diurnal motion about its own axis, as perhaps our earth hath. And though some suppose her to move in an epicycle, yet this doth not so turn her body round, that we may discern both Hemispheres, for according to that hypothesis, the motion of her eccentrick, doth turn her face towards us, as much as the other doth from us.  
But now if any question what they do for a Moon who live in the upper part of her body? I answer, the solving of this is the most uncertain and difficult thing that I know of concerning this whole matter. But yet I will give you two probable conjectures.  
1. Perhaps, the upper Hemisphere of the Moon doth receive a sufficient light from those planets about it, and amongst these Venus (it may be) bestows a more especial brightness, since Galilaeus hath plainly discerned that she suffers the same increases and decreases, as the Moon hath, and 'tis probable that this may be perceived there without the help of a glass, because they are fare nearer it than we. When Venus (saith Keplar) lies down in the Perige or lower part of her supposed Epicycle, then is she in conjunction with her husband the Sun, from whom after she hath departed for the space of ten months, she gets plenum uterum, and is in the full.  
But you'll reply, though Venus may bestow some light when she is over the Moon, and in conjunction, yet being in opposition, she is not visible to them, and what shall they then do for light?  
I answer, than they have none: nor doth this make so great a difference betwixt those two Hemispheres as there is with us, betwixt the places under the poles, and the line, but if this be not sufficient, than I say in the second place that  
2. Perhaps there may be some other enlightened body above the Moon which we cannot discern, nor is this altogether improbable because there is almost the like observed in Saturn, who appears through this glass with two lesser bodies on ●ach side, which may supply the office of Moons, unto each hemisphere thus:   depiction of Saturn and Moons 
So in this world also there may be some such body, though we cannot discern it, because the Moon is always in a straight line, betwixt our eye and that. Nor is it altogether unlikely that there should be more moons to one Orb, because Jupiter also is observed to have four such bodies that move round about him.  
But it may seem a very difficult thing to conceive, how so gross and dark a body as our earth, should yield such a clear light as proceeds from the Moon, and therefore the Cardinal de Cusa (who thinks every Star to be 
De doct. ig. l. 2. c. 12.  a several world) is of opinion that the light of the Sun is not able to make them appear so bright, but the re●son of their shining is, because we behold them at a great distance through their regions of fire which do set a shining lustre upon those bodies that of themselves are dark. Vnde si quis esset extra regionem ignis, terra ista in circumferentia suae regionis per medium ignis lucida stella appareret. So that if a man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would appear through that as a bright Star. But if this were the only reason than would the Moon be freed from such increases and decreases as she is now liable unto.  
Keplar thinks that our earth receives that light whereby it shines from the Sun, but this (saith he) is not such an intended clear brightness as the Moon is capable of, and therefore he guesses, that the earth there is of a more chokie soil like the I'll of Crete, and so is better able to reflect a stronger light, whereas our earth must supply this inten●ion with the quantity of its body, but this I conceive to be a needless conjecture, since our earth if all things were well considered will be sound able enough to reflect as great a light. For  
1. Consider its opacity, if you mark these sublunary things, you shall perceive that amongst them, those that are most perspicuous, are not so well able to reverberate the Sun beams as the thicker bodies. The rays pass singly through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacous substance they are doubled in their return and multiplied by reflection. Now if the moon and the other Planets can shine so clearly by beating back the Sun beams, why may not the earth also shine as well, which agrees with them in the cause of this brightness their opacity.  
2. Consider what a clear light we may discern reflected from the earth in the midst of Summer, and withal conceive how much greater that must be which is under the line, where the rays are more directly and strongly reverberated.  
3. Consider the great distance at which we behold the Planets, for this must needs add much to their shining and therefore Cusanus (in the above cited place) thinks that if a man were in the Sun, that Planet would not appear so bright to him, as now it doth to us, because than his eye could discern but little, whereas here we may comprehend the beams as they are contracted in a narrow body. Keplar beholding the earth from a high mountain when it was enlightened by the Sun confesses that it appeared unto him of an incredible brightness, whereas then the reflected rays entered into his sight obliquely; but how much brighter would it have appeared if he might in a direct line behold the whole globe of earth and these rays gathered together. So that if we consider that great light which the earth receives from the Sun in the Summer, and then suppose we were in the Moon, where we might s●e the whole earth hanging in those vast spaces where there is nothing to terminate the sight, but those beams which are there contracted into a little compass; I say, if we do well consider this, we may easily conceive, that our earth appears as bright to those other inhabitants in the Moon, as theirs doth to us.   

Proposition 12. That 'tis probable there may be such Meteors belonging to that world in the Moon, as there are with us.  
PLutarch discussing this point affirms that it is not necessary there should be the same means of growth and fructifying in both these worlds, since nature might in her policy find out more ways than one how to bring about the same effect. But however he thinks it is probable that the Moon herself sendeth forth warm winds, and by the swiftness of her motion there should breathe out a sweet and comfortable air, pleasant dews and gentle moisture, which might serve for the refreshing and nourishment of the inhabitants and plants in that other world.  
But since they have all things alike with us, as sea and land, and vaporous air encompassing both, I should rather therefore think that nature there should use the same way of producing meteors as she doth with us (and not by a motion as Plutarch supposes) because she doth not love to vary from her usual operations without some extraordinary impediment, but still keeps her beaten path unless she be driven thence.  
One argument whereby I shall manifest this truth, may be taken from those new Stars which have appeared in diverse ages of the world, and by their paralax have been discerned to have been above the Moon, such as was that in Cassiopeia, that in Sagittarius, with many others betwixt the Planets. Hipparchus in his time took especial notice of such as 
Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 26  these, and therefore fancied out such constellations in which to place the Stars, showing how many there were in every asteri●me, that so afterwards posterity might know, whether there were any new Star produced or any old one missing. Now the nature of these Comets may probably manifest, that in this other world there are other meteors also; for these in all likelihood are nothing e●●e but such evaporations caused by the Sun, from the bodies of the Planets. I shall prove this by showing the improbabilities and inconveniences of any other opinion.  
For the better pursuit of this 'tis in the first place requisite that I deal with our chief adversary, Caesar la Galla, who doth most directly oppose that truth which is here to be proved. He endeavouring to confirm the incorruptibility of the Heavens, and being there to satisfy the argument which is taken from these comets, He answers it thus: Aut argumentum desumptum ex paralaxi non est efficax, aut si est efficax, eorum instrumentorum usum decipere, vel ratione astri vel medii, vel distantiae, aut ergo erat in suprema parte aeris, aut si in coelo, tum forsan factum erat ex reflectione radiorum Saturni & Jovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant. Either the argument from the paralax is not essicacious, or if it be, yet the use of the instruments might deceive either in regard of the star or the medium, or the distance, and so this comet might be in the upper regions of the air, or if it were in the heavens, there it might be produced by the reflection of the rays from Saturn and Jupiter, who were then in conjunction. You see what shifts he is driven to, how he runs up and down to many starting holes, that he may found some shelter, and in stead of the strength of reason, he answers with a multitude of words, thinking (as the Proverb is) that he may use hail, when he hath no thunder, Nihilturpius (saith 
* Epist. 95.  Seneca) dubio est incerto, pedem modo referente, modo producente. What can there be more unseemly in one that should be a fair disputant, then to be now here, now there, and so uncertain, that one cannot tell where to found him. He thinks that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there may be many other reasons of such appearances, but what he knows not, perhaps (he says) that argument from the paralax is not sufficient, or if it be, than there may be some deceit in the observation. To this I may safely say, that he may justly be accounted a weak Mathematician who mistrusts the strength of this argument, nor can he know much in Astronomy, who understands not the paralax, which is the foundation of that Science, and I am sure that he is a timorous man, who dares not believe the frequent experience of his senses, or trust to a demonstration.  
True indeed, I grant 'tis possible, that the eye, the medium, and the distance may all deceive the beholder, but I would have him show which of all these was likely to 'cause an error in this observation? Merely to say they might be deceived is no sufficient answer, for by this I might confute the positions of all Astronomers, and affirm the stars are hard by us, because 'tis possible they may be deceived in their observing that distance. But I forbear any further reply; my opinion is of that Treatise, that either it was set forth purposely to tempt a confutation, that he might see the opinion of Galilaeus confirmed by others, or else it was invented with as much haste and negligence as it was printed, there being in it almost as many faults as lines.  
Others think that these are not any new Comets, but some ancient stars that were there before, which now shine with that unusual brightness, by reason of the interposition of such vapours which do multiply their light, and so the alteration will be here only, and not in the heavens. Thus Aristotle thought the appearance of the milky way was produced, for he held that there were many little stars, which by their influence did constantly attract such a vapour towards that place of heaven, so that it always appeared white. Now by the same reason may a brighter vapour be the cause of these appearances.  
But how probable soever this opinion may seem, yet if well considered, you shall find it to be altogether absurd and impossible: for,  
1. These stars were never seen there before, and 'tis not likely that a vapour being hard by us can so multiply that light which could not before be at all discerned.  
2. This supposed vapour cannot be either contracted into a narrow compass or dilated into a broad: 1. it could not be within a little space, for then that star would not appear with the same multiplied light to those in other climates: 2. it cannot be a dilated vapour, for then other stars which were discerned through the same vapour would seem as big as that; this argument is the same in effect with that of the paralax, as you may see in this Figure.   diagram of a hemisphere of Earth, the atmosphere, and space 
Suppose A B to be a Hemisphere of one earth, C D to be the upper part of the highest region, in which there might be either a contracted vapour, as G, or else a dilated one, as H I. Suppose E F likewise to represent half the heavens, wherein was this appearing Comet at K. Now I say, that a contracted vapour, as G could not 'cause this appearance, because an inhabitant at M could not discern the same star with this brightness, but perhaps another at L, betwixt which the vapour is directly interposed. Nor could it be caused by a dilated vapour, as H I, because then all the stars that were discerned through it would be perceived with the same brightness.  
'tis necessary therefore that the cause of this appearance should be in the heavens. And this is granted by the most and best Astronomers. But, say some, this doth not argue any natural alteration in those purer bodies, since 'tis probable that the concourse of many little vagabond stars by the union of their beams may 'cause so great a light. Of this opinion were Anaxagor as and Zeno amongst the ancient, and Baptista Cisatus, Blancanus, with others amongst our modern Astronomers. For, say they, when there happens to be a concourse of some few stars, then do many other fly unto them from all the parts of heaven like so many Bees unto their King. But 1. 'tis not likely that amongst those which we count the fixed stars there should be any such uncertain motions, that they can wander from all parts of the heavens, as if Nature had neglected them, or forgot to appoint them a determinate course. 2. If there be such a conflux of these, as of Bees to their King, then what reason is there that they do not still tarry with it, that so the Comet may not he dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see it confuted by many other arguments. Others there are, who affirm these to be some new created stars, produced by an extraordinary supernatural power. I answer, true indeed, 'tis possible they might be so, but however 'tis not likely they were so, since such appearances may be salved some other way, wherefore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a great injury to nature, and to derogate from her skill, an indignity much misbecoming a man who professes himself to be a Philosopher. Miraculum (saith one) est ignorantiae Asylum, a miracle often serves for the receptacle of a lazy ignorance which any industrious Spirit would be ashamed of, it being but an idle way to shifted off the labour of any further search. But her's the misery of it, we first tie ourselves unto Aristotle● principles, and then conclude that nothing could contradict them but a miracle, whereas 'twould be much better for the Commonwealth of learning, if we would ground our principles rather upon the frequent experiences of our own, than the bore authority of others.  
Some there are who think, that these Comets are nothing else, but exhalations from our earth, carried up into the higher parts of the Heaven. So Pen●, Rothmannus & Galilaeus, but this 
Tycho Progym. l. 1. c. 9  is not possible, since by computation 'tis found that one of them is above 300 times bigger than the whole Globe of Land and Water. Others therefore have thought that they did proceed from the body of the Sun, and that that Planet only is Cometarum officina, unde tanquam emissarii & exploratores emitterentur, brevi ad solem redituri: The shop or forge of Comets from whence they were sent, like so many spies, that they might in some short space return again, but this cannot be, since if so much matter had proceeded from him alone, it would have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble Tycho therefore thinks that they consist of some such fluider parts of the Heaven, as the milky way is framed of, which being condensed together, yet not attaining to the consistency of a Star, is in some space of time rarifyed again into its wont nature. But this is not likely, for if there had been so great a condensation as to make them shine so bright and last so long, they would then sensibly have moved downwards towards some centre of gravity, because whatsoever is condensed must necessarily grow heavier, whereas these rather seemed to ascend higher, as they lasted longer. But some may object, that a thing may be of the same weight, when it is rarified, as it had while it was condensed, so metals when they are melted and when they are cold, so water also when it is frozen, and when it is fluid, doth not differ in respect of gravity. But to these I answer: First, Metals are not rarified by melting, but mollified. Secondly, waters are not properly condensed but congealed into a harder substance, the parts being not contracted closer together, but still possessing the same extension.  
And beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this condensation, unless there be such qualities there, as there are in our air, and then why may not the Planets have the like qualities as our earth? and if so, then 'tis more probable that they are made by the ordinary way of nature, as they are with us, and consist of exhalations from the bodies of the Planets. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed most likely to Camillus 
De Comet. l. 5. c. 4. Apolog. Meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6.  Gloriosus. Th. Campanella, Fromondus, with some others. But if you ask whither all these exhalations shall return, I answer every one into his own Planet: if it be again objected, that 
johan. Fabr. Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc. Scheiner. Rosa Visina.  then there will be so many centres of gravity, and each several Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, perhaps all of them are so except the Sun, though Cusanus thinks there is one also, and later times have discovered some lesser Planets moving round about him. But as for Saturn, he hath two Moons on each side. Jupiter hath four, that encircle his body with their motion. Venus is observed to increase and decrease as the Moon. Mars, and all the rest, derive their light from the Sun only. Concerning Mercury, there hath been little or no observation, because for the most part, he lies hid under the Sun beams, and seldom appears by himself. So that if you consider their quantity, their opacity, or these other discoveries, you shall find it probable enough, that each of them may be a several world. But this would be too much for to vent at the first: the chief thing at which I now aim in this discourse, is to prove that there may be one in the Moon.  
It hath been before confirmed, that there was a sphere of thick vaporous air encompassing the Moon, as the first and second regions do this earth. I have now showed, that thence such exhalations may proceed as do produce the Comets: now from hence it may probably follow, that there may be wind also and rain, with such other meteors as are common amongst us. This consequence is so dependant, that Fromondus dares 
De meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6.  not deny it, though he would (as he confesses himself) for it the Sun be able to exhale from them such fumes as may 'cause Comets, why not then such as may 'cause winds, and why not such also as may 'cause rain, since I have above shown, that there is Sea and Land as with us. Now rain seems to be more especially requisite for them, since it may alloy the heat and scorchings of the Sun, when he is over their heads. And nature hath thus provided for those in Peru, with the other inhabitants under the line.  
But if there be such great, and frequent alterations in the Heavens, why cannot we discern them?  
I answer:  
1. There may be such, and we not able to perceive them, because of the weakness of our eye, and the distance of those places from us, they are the words of Fi●nus, as they are quoted by Fromondus in the above cited place) Possunt maximae permutationes in coelo fieri, etiam si a nobis non conspi●rantur, hoc visus nostri debilita● & immensa coeli distantia faciunt. And unto him assents Fromondus himself, when a little after he says, Si in sphaeris planetarum deg●re●us, plurima forsan coelestium nebularum vellera toto athere passim dispersa videremus, quorum species jam evanescit nimia spatis intercapedine. If we did live in the spheres of the Planets, we might there perhaps discern many great clouds dispersed through the whole Heavens, which are not now visible by reason of this great distance.  
2. Maeslin and Keplaer affirm, that they have seen some of these alterations. The words of Maeslin are these (as I find them 
Dissert. 2. cum nunc. Galil.  cited.) In eclipsi lunari vesp●re Dominicae Palmarum A●ni 1605. in corpore lunae versus Boream, nigricans quaedam macula conspecta fuit, obscurior caetero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri figuram repreaesentabat; dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tempestuosis imbribus gravida, cujusmodi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliora convallium loca videre non rarò contingit. In that lunary eclipse which happened in the even of Palme-sunday in the year 1605 there was a certain blackish spot discerned in the Northerly part of the Moon, being darker than any other place of her body, and representing the colour of read hot iron; you might conjecture that it was some dilated cloud, being pregnant with showers, for thus do such lower clouds appear from the tops of high mountains.  
Unto this I may add another testimony of Bapt. Cisatus, as he is quoted by Nicrembergius, grounded 
Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 11.  upon an observation taken 23. years after this of Maeslin, and writ to this Euseb. Nicremberg. in a letter by that diligent and judicious Astronomer. The words of it run thus: Et quidem in eclipsi nupra solari quae fuit ipso die natali Christi, observavi clare in luna soli supposita, quidpiam quod valde probat id ipsum quod Cometae quoque & maculae solares urgent, nempe coelum non esse a tennitate & variationibus aeris exemptum, nam circa lunam adverti esse sphaeram seu orbem quendam vap●rosum, non secus atque circum terram, adeoque sicut ex terra in aliquam usque spharam vapores & exhalationes expirant, ita quoque ex luna. In that late solary eclipse which happened on Christmas day, when the Moon was just under the Sun, I plainly discerned that in her which may clearly confirm what the Comets and Suns spots do seem to prove, viz. that the heavens are not solid, nor freed from those changes which our air is liable unto, for about the Moon I perceived such an orb, of vaporous air, as that is which doth encompass our earth, and as vapours and exhalations are raised from our earth into this air, so are they also from the Moon.  
You see what probable grounds and plain testimonies I have brought for the confirmation of this Proposition: many other things in this behalf might be spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and pass uno the next.   

Proposition 13. That 'tis probable there may be inhubitants in this other World, but of what kind they are is uncertain.  
I Have already handled the Seasons and Meteors belonging to this new World: 'tis requisite that in the next place I should come unto the third thing which I promised, and to say somewhat of the inhabitants, concerning whom there might be many difficult questions raised, as whether that place be more inconvenient for habitation then our World (as Keplar thinks) whether they are the seed of Adam, whether they are there in a blessed estate, or else what means there may be for their salvation, with many other such uncertain inquiries, which I shall willingly omit, leaving it to their examination, who have more leisure and learning for the search of such particulars.  
Being for mine own part content only to setdowne such notes belonging unto these which I have observed in other Writers. Cum tota illa regio nobis ignota sit, remanent inhabitatores illi ignoti 
De doct. ignorantia. l. 2. c. 12.  penitus, (saith Cusanus) since we know not the regions of that place, we must be altogether ignorant of the inhabitants. There hath not yet been any such discovery concerning these, upon which we may build a certainty, or good probability: well may we guess at them, and that too very doubtfully, but we can know nothing, for if we do hardly guess aright at things which be upon earth, if with labour we do find the things 
Wisd. 9 16.  that are at hand, how then can we search out these things that are in heaven? What a little is that which we know, in respect of those many matters contained within this great Universe, this whole globe of earth and water? though it seem to us to be of a large extent, yet it bears not so great a proportion unto the whole frame of Nature, as a small sand doth unto it, and what can such little creatures as we discern, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can they in the Moon know of us? If we understand any thing (saith Esdras) 'tis nothing but 
2 Esd. 4. 21  that which is upon the earth, and he that dwelleth above in the heavens, may only understand the things that are above in the height of the heavens.  
So that 'twere a very needless thing for us to search after any particulars, however we may guess in the general that there are some inhabitants in that Planet: for why else did providence furnish that place with all such conveniences of habitation as have been above declared?  
But you will say, perhaps, is there not too great and intolerable a heat, since the Sun is in their Zenith every month, and doth tarry there so long before he leaves it?  
I answer, 1. This may, perhaps, be remedied (as it is under the line) by the frequency of midday showers, which may cloud their Sun, and cool their earth: 2. The equality of their nights doth much temper the scorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes from the one, require some space before it can be dispelled by the other, so that the heat spending a great while before it can have the victory, hath not afterwards much time to rage in. Wherefore notwithstanding this, yet that place may remain habitable. And this was the opinion of the Cardinal de Cusa, when speaking of this Planet, he says, Hic locus Mundi est habitatio 
De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12.  hominum & animalium atque vegetabilium. This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts and plants. To him assented Campanella, but he cannot determine whether there were men or rather some other kind of creatures. If they were men, than he thinks they could not be infected with Adam's sin; yet perhaps, they had some of their own, which might make them liable to the same misery with us, out of which, perhaps, they were delivered by the same means as we, the death of Christ, and thus he thinks that place of the Ephesians may be interpreted, where the Apostle says, God gathered all 
Ephes. 1. 10.  things together in Christ, both which are in earth, and which are in the heavens: So also that of the same Apostle to the Colossians, where he says, that it pleased the Father to reconcile 
Col. 1. 20.  all things unto himself by Christ, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.  
But I dare not jest with divine truths, or apply these places according as fancy directs. As I think this opinion doth not any where contradict Scripture, so I think likewise, that it cannot be proved from it, wherefore Campanella's second conjecture may be more probable, that the inhabitants of that world, are not men as we are, but some other kind of creatures which bear some proportion and likeness to our natures, and Cus●nus too thinks they differ from us in many respects; I will set down his words as they may be found in the above cited place, Suspicamus in regione solis magis esse solares, claros & illuminatos intellectuares habitatores, spiritualiores etiam quam in luna, ubi magis lunatici, & in terra, magis materiales, & grossi, ut illi intellectualis naturae solares sint multum in actu & parum in potentia; terreni vero magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influentia ignili solis aqua●ica simul & aeria lunae, & gravedine materiali terrae, & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes, nullam habitatoribus carêre, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales unius universi, quot sunt stellae quarum non est numerus, nisi apud eum qui omnia in numero creavit.  
We may conjecture (saith he) the inhabiters of the Sun are like to the nature of that Planet, more clear and bright, more intellectual and spiritual than those in the Moon where they are nearer to the nature of that duller Planet, and those of the earth being more gross and material than either, so that these intellectual natures in the Sun, are more form than matter, those in the earth more matter than form, and those in the Moon betwixt both. This we may guess from the fiery influence of the Sun, the watery and aereous influence of the Moon, as also the material heaviness of the earth. In some such manner likewise is it with the regions of the other stars, for we conjecture that none of them are without inhabitants, but that there are so many particular worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are stars which are innumerable, unless it be to him who created all things in number.  
For he held that the stars were not all in one equal orb as we commonly suppose, but that some were fare higher than others which made them appear less, and that many others were so fare above any of these, that they were altogether invisible unto us. An opinion (which as I conceive) hath not any great probability for it, nor certainty against it.  
The Priest of Saturn relating to Pluiarch (as he feigns it) the nature of these Selenites, told him they were of diverse dispositions, some desiring to live in the lower parts of the Moon, where they might look downwards upon us, while others were more surely mounted aloft, all of them shining like the rays of the Sun, and as being victorious are crowned with garlands made with the wings of Eustathia or Constancy.  
It hath been the opinion amongst some of the Ancients, that their heavens and Elysian fields were in the Moon where the air is most quiet and pure. Thus Socrates, thus Plato, with his followers, did esteem this to 
Nat. Com. l. 3. c. 19  be the place where those purer souls inhabit, who are freed from the Sepulchre, and contagion of the body. And by the Fable of Ceres, continually wand'ring in search of her daughter Proserpina, is meant nothing else but the longing desire of men, who live upon Ceres' earth, to attain a place in Proserpina, the Moon or heaven.  
Plutarch also seems to assent unto this, but he thinks moreover, that there are two places of happiness answerable to those two parts which he fancies to remain of a man when he is dead, the soul and the understanding; the soul he thinks is made of the Moon, and as our bodies do so proceed from the dust of this earth, that they shall return to it hereafter, so our souls were generated out of that Planet, and shall be resolved into it again, whereas the understanding shall ascend unto the Sun, out of which it was made, where it shall possess an eternity of well being, and fare greater happiness than that which is enjoyed in the Moon. So that when a man dies, if his soul be much polluted, then must it wander up and down in the middle regions of the air where hell is, and there suffer unspeakbale torments for those sins whereof it is guilty. Whereas the souls of better men, when they have in some space of time been purged from that impurity which they did derive from the body, then do they return into the Moon, where they are possessed with such a joy, as those men feel who profess holy mysteries, from which place (saith he) some are sent down to have the superintendance of oracles, being diligent either in the preservation of the good, either from or in all perils, and the prevention or punishment of all wicked actions, but if in these employments they mis-behave themselves, then are they again to be imprisoned in a body, otherwise they remain in the Moon till their body be resolved into it, and the understanding being cleared from all impediments, ascends to the Sun which is its proper place. But this requires a divers space of time, according to the diverse affections of the soul. As for those who have been retired and honest, addicting themselves to a studious and quiet life, these are quickly preferred to a higher happiness. But as for such who have busied themselves in many broils, or have been vehement in the prosecution of any lust, as the ambitious, the amorous, the wrathful man, these still retain the glimpses and dreams of such things as they have performed in their bodies, which makes them either altogether unfit to remain there where they are, or else keeps them long ere they can put off their souls. Thus you see Plutarch's opinion concerning the inhabitants and neighbours of the Moon, which (according to the manner of the Academics) he delivers in a third person; you see he makes that Planet an inferior kind of heaven, and though he differ in many circumstances, yet doth he describe it to be some such place, as we suppose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concerning the place of damned spirits, that it is in the middle region of the air, and in neither of these is he singular, but some more late and Orthodox Writers have agreed with him. As for the place of hell, many think it may be in the air, as well as any where else.  
True indeed, St. Austin affirms 
De Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 16.  that this place cannot be discovered; But others there are who can show the situation of it out of Scripture; Some holding it to be in some other world without this, because our Saviour calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, outward 
Mat. 25. 30.  darkness. But the most will have it placed towards the centre of our earth, because 'tis 
Eph. 4. 9  said, Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, and some of these are so confident, that this is its situation, that they can describe you its bigness also, and of what capacity it is. Francis Ribera in his Comment on the Revelations, speaking of those words, where 'tis said, that the blood went out of the winepress, 
Rev. 14. 20  even unto the horses bridles by the space of one thousand and six hundred furlongs, interprets them to be meant of hell, and that that number expresses the diameter of its concavity, which is 200 Italian miles; but Lessius thinks that this opinion 
De Morib. div. l. 13. c. 24.  gives them too much room in hell, and therefore he guesses that 'tis not so wide; for (saith he) the diameter of one league being cubically multiplied, will make a sphere capable of 800000 millions of damned bodies, allowing to each six foot in the square, whereas (says he) 'tis certain that there shall not be one hundred thousand millions in all that shall be damned. You see the bold jesuit was careful that every one should have but room enough in hell, and by the strangeness of the conjecture, you may guess that he had rather be absurd, than seem either uncharitable or ignorant. I remember there is a relation in Pliny, how that Dionysiodorus a Mathematician, being dead, did sand a letter from this place to some of his friends upon earth, to certify them what distance there was betwixt the centre and superficies: he might have done well to have prevented this controversy, and informed them the utmost capacity of that place. However, certain it is, that that number cannot be known, and probable it is, that the place is not yet determined, but that hell is there where there is any tormented soul, which may be in the regions of the air as well as in the centre; but of this only occasionally, and by reason of Plutarch's opinion concerning those that are round about the Moon; as for the Moon itself, he esteems it to be a lower kind of heaven, and therefore in another place he 
Cursilent oracula.  calls it a terrestrial star, and an Olympian or celestial earth answerable, as I conceive, to the paradise of the Schoolmen, and that paradise was either in or near the Moon, is the opinion of some later Writers, who derived it (in all likelihood) from the assertion of Plato, and perhaps, this of Plutarch. Tostatus lays this opinion upon Isiodor. 
Sr. W. Raw. l. 1. c. 3. § 7. in Gen.  Hispalensis, and the venerable Bede; and Pererius fathers it upon Strabus and Rabanus his Master. Some would have it to be situated in such a place as could not be discovered, which caused the penman of Esdras to make it a harder matter to know the outgoing of Paradise, then to weigh the weight of the fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call again a day that is past. But notwithstanding 
2 Esd. 4. 7.  this, there be some others who think that it is on the top of some high mountain under the line, and these interpreted the torrid Zone to be the flaming sword whereby Paradise was guarded. 'Tis the consent of diverse others, who agreed in this, that Paradise is situated in some high and eminent place. So Tostatus: 
In Genes.  Est etiam Paradisus situ altissima, supra omnem terrae altitudinem, Paradise is situated in some high place above the earth: and therefore in his Comment upon the 49. of Genesis, he understands the blessing of Jacob concerning the everlasting hills to be meant of Paradise, and the blessing itself to be nothing else but a promise of Christ's coming, by whose passion the gates of Paradise should be opened. Unto him assented Rupertus, Scotus, and most of the other Schoolmen, as I found them 
Comment. in 2 Gen. v. 8. l. 1. c. 3. § 6. 7.  cited by Pererius, and out of him in St W. Raleigh. Their reason was this: because in probability this place was not overflowed by the flood, since there were no sinners there which might draw that curse upon it. Nay Tostatus thinks that the body of Enoch was kept there, and some of the Fathers, as Tertullion and Austin have affirmed, that the blessed souls were reserved in that place till the day of judgement, and therefore 'tis likely that it was not overflowed by the flood; and beside, since all men should have went naked if Adam had not fell, 'tis requisite therefore that it should be situated in some such place where it might be privileged from the extremities of heat and cold. But now this could not be (they (thought) so conveniently in any lower, as it might in some higher air. For these and such like considerations have so many affirmed that Paradise was in a high elevated place, which some have conceived could be no where but in the Moon: For it could not be in the top of any mountain, nor can we think of any other body separated from this earth which can be a more convenient place for habitation than this Planet, therefore they concluded that it was there.  
It could not be on the top of any mountain.  
1. Because we have express 
Gen. 7. 19  Scripture, that the highest of them was overflowed.  
2. Because it must be of a greater extension, and not some small patch of ground, since 'tis likely all men should have lived there, if Adam had not fell. But for a satisfaction of these arguments, together with a farther discourse of Paradise, I shall refer you to those who have written purposely upon this subject. Being content for my own part to have spoken so much of it, as may conduce to show the opinion of others concerning the inhabitants of the Moon, I dare not myself affirm any thing of these Selenites, because I know not any ground whereon to build any probable opinion. But I think that future ages will discover more; and our posterity, perhaps, may invent some means for our better acquaintance with these inhabitants. 'tis the method of providence not presently to show us all, but to lead us a long from the knowledge of one thing to another. 'Twas a great while ere the Planets were distinguished from the fixed stars, and some time after that ere the morning and evening star were found to be the same, and in greater space I doubt not but this also, and fare greater mysteries will be discovered. In the first ages of the world the Islanders either thought themselves to be the only dwellers upon the earth, or else if there were any other, yet they could not possibly conceive how they might have any commerce with them, being severed by the deep and broad sea, but the aftertimes found out the invention of ships, in which notwithstanding none but some bold daring men durst venture, there being few so resolute as to commit themselves unto the vast Ocean, and yet now how easy a thing is this, even to a timorous and cowardly nature? So, perhaps, there may be some other means invented for a conveyance to the Moon, and though it may seem a terrible and impossible thing ever to pass through the vast spaces of the air, yet no question there would be some men who durst venture this as well as the other. True indeed, I cannot conceive any possible means for the like discovery of this conjecture, since there can be no sailing to the Moon, unless that were true which the Poets do but feign, that she made her bed in the Sea. We have not now any Drake or Columbus to undertake this voyage, or any D●●alus to invent a conveyance through the air. However, I doubt not but that time who is still the father of new truths, and hath revealed unto us many things which our Ancestors were ignorant of, will also manifest to our posterity, that which we now desire, but cannot know. 
Nat. Quast. l. 7. c. 25.  Veniet tempus (saith Seneca) quo ista quae nunc latent, in lucem dies extrahet, & longioris aevi diligentia. Time will come when the endeavours of after ages shall bring such things to light, as now lie hid in obscurity. Arts are not yet come to their Solstice, but the industry of future times assisted with the labours of their forefathers, may reach unto that height which we could not attain to. Veniet tempus quo posteri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse mirentur. As we now wonder at the blindness of our Ancestors, who were not able to discern such things as seem plain and obvious unto us. So will our posterity admire our ignorance in as perspicuous matters. Keplar doubts not, but that as soon as the art of flying is found out, some of their Nation will make one of the first colonies that shall inhabit that other world. But I leave this and the like conjectures to the fancy of the reader; Desiring now to finish this Discourse, wherein I have in some measure proved what at the first I promised, a world in the Moon. However, I am not so resolute in this, that I think 'tis necessary there must be one, but my opinion is, that 'tis possible there may be, and 'tis probable there is another habitable world in that Planet. And this was that I undertook to prove. In the pursuit whereof, if I have showed much weakness or indiscretion; I shall willingly submit myself to the reason and censure of the more judicious.    

The Propositions that are proved in this Discourse.  
Proposition 1. 
That the strangeness of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it should be rejected, because other certain truths have been formerly esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertained by common consent. By way of Preface.  Prop. 2. 
That a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or faith.  Prop. 3. 
That the heavens do not consist of any such pure matter which can privilege them from the like change and corruption, as these inferior bodies are liable unto.  Prop. 4. 
That the Moon is a solid, compacted, opacous body.  Prop. 5. 
That the Moon hath not any light of her own.  Prop. 6. 
That there is a world in the Moon, hath been the direct opinion of many ancient, with some modern Mathematicians, and may probably be deduced from the tenants of others.  Prop. 7. 
That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moon, do show 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 Mountains, deep valleys, and spacious plains in the body of the Moon.  Prop. 10. 
That there is an Atmo-sphaera, or an orb of gross vaporous air, immediately encompassing the body of the Moon.  Prop. 11. 
That as their world is our Moon, so our world is their Moon.  Prop. 12. 
That 'tis probable there may be such Meteors belonging to that world in the Moon, as there are with us.  Prop. 13. 
That 'tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but of what kind they are is uncertain.   
FINIS.