"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 scarce at all be discerned by the eye, at the distance of a mile and a half, might plainly and distinctly be perceived for sixteen 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 far with these eyes which Galilæus 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 same author may confirm you, when he says they were shewed, Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gre gariis hominibus, sed præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon mathematicis et opticis præceptis optime instructis sedulà 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 di

ligent inspection." And lest any scruple might remain unanswered, or you might think the men who beheld al 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 shewed, Viris qui ad experimenta hæc 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 further discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.

* De phænom. c.6.

+ Cap. 1.

+ Cap. 5.

VOL. It

E

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 tenets of others*: such were Aristarchus, Philolaus, and Copernicus, with many other later writers, who assented to their hypothesis; so Joach. Rhelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert; and, (if I may believe Campanella) innumeri alii Angli et 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 it is 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 shewed you the truth of this proposition. Before I proceed farther, it is requisite that I inform the reader what method I shall follow in the proving of this assertion, That there is a world in the moon.

The order by which I shall be guided, will be that which Aristotle uses in his book De Mundo (if that book were his).

First, περὶ τῶν εν αυτή, of those chief parts which are in it; not the elementary and ethereal (as he doth there), since this does not belong to the present question, but of the sea and land, &c. Secondly, жερi auтyν τadav, of those περι αυτην παθων, things which are extrinsical to it, as the seasons, meteors, and inhabitants.

PROP. VII.

That those spots and brighter parts, which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moon, do shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in that other world.

FOR

OR the clear proof of this proposition, I shall firs up others concern ing the matter and form of those spots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion, and how agreeable it is to that truth which is most commonly received As for the opinions of others 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, reason for the proof of their opinion. there are some bodies betwixt the sun keeping off the light in some parts, do by their shadow produce these spots which we there discern*.

and shew not any Others think that and moon, which

Others would have them to be the figure of the seas or 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 besides, Cardan † thinks it is impossible that any image should be conveyed so far, as there to be represented unto us at such at a distance. But it is commonly related of Pythagoras, that he by writing wha he pleased in a glass, by the reflexion 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

* So Bede in 1. de Mund. constit.

+ De subtil. lib. 3.

*

might at that time be some miles distant from him. 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 bishop Godwin 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 milliare millesimum (they are his own words), and perhaps a thou`sand; and all this in a little space, 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 stoics + held that planet to be mixed of fire and air; and in their opinion, the variety of its composition caused her spots being not ashamed to stile the same body a goddess, calling it Diana, Minerva, &c. and yet affirm it to be an impure mixture of flame and smoke, and fuliginous air. But this planet cannot consist of fire, saith Plutarch, because there is not any fuel to maintain it. And the poets have therefore feigned Vulcan to be lame, because he can no more subsist without wood or other fuel, than a lame man without a staff.

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 latter opi

Occulta Philos. 1. 1. cap. 6. † Plut. de placit. phil. 1. 2. c. 25.

nion, the Athenians sentenced him to death*; those zeal. ous 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 planets, 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 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 De Cœlo.

Vitellio and Reinoldus affirm the spots to be the thicker 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 Cæsar la Galla, whose words are these §; "The "moon doth there appear clearest, where she is transpi"cuous, 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 sunbeams, and the perspicuity of the moon's body I have above answered and refuted.

P. 164.

*Josephus 1. 2. con. App. August. de Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 41. † Nat. Hist. 1. 2. c. 9. Opt. lib. 9. Comment. in Purb. § Ex qua parte luna est transpicua non solum secundum superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur. De Phænom. cap. 11.