1. _Moses_ tells us but of one world, and his History of the creation
had beene very imperfect if God had made another.
2. Saint _John_ speaking of Gods workes, saies he made the world, in the
singular number, and therefore there is but one:[1] 'tis the argument of
_Aquinas_, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with
_Democritus_ esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence to
be the framer of all things.
[Sidenote 1: Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3.]
3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient time beene accounted a
heresie, and _Baronius_ affirmes that for this very reason, _Virgilius_
was cast out of his Bishopricke, and excommunicated from the Church.[1]
[Sidenote 1: _Annal. Eccl. A.D. 748._]
4. A fourth argument there is urged by _Aquinas_, if there be more
worlds than one, then they must either be of the same, or of a diverse
nature, but they are not of the same kinde,[1] for this were needlesse,
and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection
than the other; not of divers kinds, for then one of them could not be
called the world or universe, since it did not containe universall
perfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon
by _Iulius Caesar la Galla_,[2] one that has purposely writ a Treatise
against this opinion which I now deliver, but the Dilemma is so blunt,
that it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weake, that I
dare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see this
Author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one
world, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlesse
paines to dispute against _Democritus_, who thought that the world was
made by the casuall concourse of _atoms_ in a great _vacuum_. It should
seeme, that either his cause, or his skill was weake, or else he would
have ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have
set downe, are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject,
and yet the best of these hath not force enough to endanger the truth
that I have delivered.
[Sidenote 1: _Ibid._]
[Sidenote 2: _De Phaenom. in orbe lunae._]
Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of
Scripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the
fundamentalls of Religion.
But you'le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet 'tis
probable if there had beene another world, wee should have had some
notice of it in Scripture.
I answer, 'tis as probable that the Scripture should have informed us of
the Planets they being very remarkable parts of the Creation, and yet
neither _Moses_ nor _Job_, nor the _Psalmes_ (the places most frequent
in Astronomicall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne and
Moone, and moreover, you must know, that 'tis besides the scope of the
Holy Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale any
thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; 'tis not his intent
in the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any way
belong either to the Historicall exegeticall or propheticall parts of
it: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by
our Countrey-man Master WRIGHT.[1]
_Non Mosis aut Prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas
aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum
& loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese
accommodare._
"'Tis not the endeavour of _Moses_ or the Prophets to discover any
Mathematicall or Philosophicall subtilties, but rather to accomodate
themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are
wont to use their infants."
True indeede, _Moses_ is there to handle the history of the Creation,
but 'tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as
were very hard to be apprehended, for being to informe the common people
as well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly
noted, declaring the originall chiefely of those things which were
obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things, which then could
not well be apprehended. And therefore _Aquinas_ observes,[2] that
_Moses_ writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible, the
people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this
very reason Saint _Austin_ also thinkes that there is nothing exprest
concerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as
remarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as another
world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions
which set things forth rather as they appeare, then as they are,[3] as
when he calls the Moone one of the greater lights #hame'orot hagdolim#
whereas 'tis the least, but one that wee can see in the whole heavens.
So afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world,[4]
he saies, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to
come with that violence, as if it were, poured out from windows in the
Firmament.[5] So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning
these things are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather
as vulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint _Austin_,
where speaking concerning that in the Psalme, _who stretched the earth
upon the waters_,[6] hee notes, that when the words of Scripture shall
seeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be
understood in a qualified 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 heresie, to thinke, that the Sunne and starres
were not very hot, as being against the words of Scripture,[7] _Psalm._
19. 6. where the _Psalmist_ sayes that there is nothing that is hid from
the heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens
not to be round, out of that place, _Psal._ 104. 2. _Hee stretcheth out
the heavens like a curtaine._[8] So _Procopius_ also was of opinion,
that the earth was founded upon the waters, nay, he made it part of his
faith, proving it out of _Psal._ 24. 2. _Hee hath founded the earth
upon the seas, and established it upon the flouds._ These and such like
absurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophie
in the words of Scripture. So that from what hath beene said, I may
conclude that the silence of Scripture concerning any other world is
not sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two
first arguments.
[Sidenote 1: _In Epist. ad Gilbert._]
[Sidenote 2: Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3.]
[Sidenote 3: Gen. 1. 16]
[Sidenote 4: Gen. 11.]
[Sidenote 5: Sr. _W. Rawly_ c. 7. Sec.. 6.]
[Sidenote 6: l. 2. in Gen. / Psal. 136. 6.]
[Sidenote 7: Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. / Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.]
[Sidenote 8: _Com. in c. 1. Gen._]
Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by
others, to shew the ignorance of those primative times, who did
sometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur'd
the lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for hereticall, because
they themselves could not perceive a reason of it, and therefore their
practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us.
But lastly I answer to all the above named objections, that the terme
World, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole
Universe, as it implies in it the elementary and aethereall bodies, the
starres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiour
World consisting of elements. Now the maine drift of all these
arguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, and
if there were any such, it might, perhaps, seeme strange, that _Moses_,
or St. _John_ should either not know, or not mention its creation. And
_Virgilius_ was condemned for this opinion, because he held, _quod sit
alius mundus sub terra, aliusque Sol & Luna_, (as _Baronius_) that
within our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne and
Moone, and so he might seeme to exclude this from the number of the
other creatures.
But now there is no such danger in this opinion, which is here
delivered, since this world said to be in the Moone, whose creation is
particularly exprest.
So that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, which
is all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second
sense, and so I affirme there may be more nor doe any of the above named
objections prove the cotrary.
Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdome (as _Aquinas_
thinkes) but rather advance it, shewing a _compendium_ of providence,
that could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world for
habitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of the
whole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onely
for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of
the whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe,[1]
so is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve, as well
for the conservation of that which is within it, as the helpe of others
without it.
[Sidenote 1: _Cusanus de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12._]
I have now in some measure, shewed that a plurality of worlds does not
contradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so cleared
the first part of that supposition which is applied in the opinion.
It may next be enquired; whether 'tis possible there may be a globe of
elements in that which we call the aethereall parts of the Universe; for
if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged from
any change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine any
element there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke out
some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore
shall be this.
Proposition 3.
_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can
priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these
inferiour bodies are liable unto._
It hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and
Philosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavens
are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure
elements, as _Aristotle_[1] holds, and with him some of the late
Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to
those vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore they
themselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary
nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent,
were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest
by their owne[2]* side. It were much to be desired, thst these men had
not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without
necessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the
secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to
finde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments,
since 'tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary
consequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of the
bookes _de Coelo._
[Sidenote 1: _De Coelo., l. 1. cap. 2._]
[Sidenote 2*: _Colleg. Cannimb. De Coelo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3._]
But is it the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of
_Lombard_, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these
sublunary bodies. St. _Ambrose_ is confident of it, that hee esteemes
the contrary a heresie.[1] True indeed, they differ much among
themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but
herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or
other. For a better confirmation of this, you may see _Ludovicus
Molina_, _Euseb. Nirembergius_, with divers others.[2] The venerable
_Bede_ thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements, and
'tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance,[3] as will
be shewed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments
for either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile
_Aristotle_, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proof
of their corruptibility.
[Sidenote 1: _In Hexam. lib. 4._]
[Sidenote 2: _In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5._]
[Sidenote 3: _In lib. de Mundi constit._]
The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a
corruptible nature, [1]not whether they can be destroyed by God, for
this Scripture puts out of doubt.
[Sidenote 1: 2 Pet. 3. 12.]
Nor whether or no in a long time they would weare away and grow worse,
for from any such feare they have beene lately priviledged.[1] But
whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this
inferiour world is liable unto.
[Sidenote 1: By Doctor _Hackwell_ _Apol._]
The two chiefe opinions concerning this, have both erred in some
extremity, the one side going so farre from the other, that they have
both gone beyond the right, whilest _Aristotle_ hath opposed the truth,
as well as the Stoicks.
Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood
in need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually
fed, and so had divers alterations by reason of their food, this is
fathered on _Heraclitus_,[1] followed by that great Naturalist
_Pliny_,[2] and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see
_Seneca_ expressely to this purpose in these words,
_Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis
dividuntur, hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sydera tam exercitata,
tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu._[3]
Speaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment is
divided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hence
were sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day
and night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also _Lucan_ sings,
_Necnon Oceano pasci Phoebumque polumque credimus._
[Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17._]
[Sidenote 2: _Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9._]
[Sidenote 3: _Nat. Quaest. lib. 2. cap. 5._]
Unto these _Ptolome_[1] also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree, when
he affirmes that the body of the Moone 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 farre from
this imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they
stood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they could
not subsist.
[Sidenote 1: _I{o} Apost._]
But _Aristotle_ and his followers were so farre from this,[1] that they
thought those glorious bodies could not containe within them any such
principles, as might make them lyable to the least change or corruption,
and their chiefe reason was, because we could not in so long a space
discerne any alteration amongst them; but unto this I answer.
[Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 1. cap. 3._]
1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow[1] that there
were none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for
speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, hee sayes 'tis very
imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vaste distance of those bodies
from us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not
either bigge enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension
and observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe bee
deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars.
[Sidenote 1: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 3._]
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 Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet not
produce some alteration of heate. _Diogenes_ the Philosopher was hence
perswaded that those scorching heates had burnt the Moone into the forme
of a Pumice-stone.
3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there;
witnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. So that
though _Aristotles_ consequence were sufficient, when hee proved that
the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes
being observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent,
that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so many
alterations observed there; but of these together with a farther
confirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speake
afterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that worke
of _Scheiner_ a late Jesuit which hee titles his _Rosa Vrsina_,[1] where
hee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavens
largely handled and sufficiently confirmed.
[Sidenote 1: _lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35._]
There are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion to
enlarge my selfe, but because they are directly handled by many others,
and doe not immediately belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shall
therefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofe
of them my selfe, as defining all possible brevity.
1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbes. If there be a
habitable World in the Moone (which I now affirme) it must follow, that
her Orbe is not solid, as _Aristotle_ supposed; and if not her, why any
of the other? I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhaps
aereous) substance. Saint _Ambrose_, and Saint _Basil_[1] did endeavour
to prove this out of that place in _Isay_,[2] where they are compared to
smoake, as they are both quoted by _Rhodiginus_, _Eusebius_,
_Nierembergius_[3] doth likewise from that place confute the solidity
and incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the same
interpretation the authority of _Eustachius_ of _Antioch_; and Saint
_Austin_,[4] I am sure seemes to assent unto this opinion, though he
does often in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of other
Fathers to this purpose you may see in _Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth.
annot. 14._ but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you
to the above named _Scheiner_ in his _Rosa Ursina_,[5] in whom you may
see both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set
downe for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which hee
adjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of _Fredericus Caesius Lynceus_
a Noble Prince written to _Bellarmine_, containing divers reasons to the
same purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by _Johannes
Pena_ in his preface to _Euclids Opticks_, and _Christoph. Rothmannus_,
both who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble
_Tycho_[6] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds,
_Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quam
Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quae coelum pluribus realibus atque
imperviis orbibus citra rem replevit._
"That this opinion comes neerer to the truth than that common one
of _Aristotle_ which hath to no purpose filled the heavens with such
reall and impervious Orbes."
[Sidenote 1: _Isa. 51. 6._]
[Sidenote 2: _Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4._]
[Sidenote 3: _Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13._]
[Sidenote 4: _In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit._]
[Sidenote 5: _lib. 4. p. 11, 2. c. 7. 26, 30._]
[Sidenote 6: _De stella. 15. 72. l. 6. c. 9._]
2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion
here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will
follow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually
placed in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing
at all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs,
that by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire,
which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see
_Cardan_, _Iohannes Pena_ that learned _Frenchman_, the noble _Tycho_,
with divers others who have purposely handled this proposition.
3. I might adde a third, _viz._ that there is no Musicke of the
spheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such
sound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because
_Plutarch_ speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare that
harmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee
said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary
consequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would
have no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at some
times we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede _Philo_ the Jew[1]
thinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an
easie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other
nourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was _Moses_ enabled to
tarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any
thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens,--_Risum
teneatis_. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred and
prophane authours, such as _Ambrose_, _Bede_, _Boetius_, _Anselme_,
_Plato_, _Cicero_ and others, but because it is not now, I thinke
affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in
arguing against it.
[Sidenote 1: _De somniis._]
It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two
more necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I
shall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, to
know whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it
possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more
neerely agrees with our earth.
Proposition 4.
_That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body._
I shall not need to stand long in the proofe of this proposition, since
it is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most and
the best Philosophers.
1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayre, for how otherwise
could it beare backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?
But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her light
upon us by the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the superficies of
her body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirme
this latter part. So _Averroes_, _Caelius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius Caesar_,
_&c._ and their reason is because this light is discerned in many
places,[1] whereas those bodies which give light by reflexion can there
onely be perceived where the angle of reflexion is equall to the angle
of incidence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glasse
those beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every
place where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye is
placed on the same line whereon the beames are reflected.
[Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 2. com. 49._
_Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4._
_De phaenom. lunae. c. 11._]
But to this I answere, that the argument will not hold of such bodies,
whose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone
is. Wherefore it is as well the more probable as the more common
opinion, that her light proceedes from both these causes, from reflexion
and illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth, since that
also hath some light by illumination: for how otherwise would the parts
about us in a Sunne-shine day appeare so bright, when as all the rayes
of reflexion cannot enter into our eye?
2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance.[1] But this is
denied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, who
held the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, and
this, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeares
within her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames being
refracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be
represented under such a colour.
[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13._
_Opt. l. 4._
_Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164._]
But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she not
appeare under the same forme when she is about a sextile aspect, and the
darkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same
rayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce
the same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from
us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must
the colour still remaine visible in her body,[1] and besides according
to this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, as
the various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beames
did passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why
doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a
long flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames
that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.
[Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. Sec. 13._]
3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall or
glasse,[1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe of
pure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then.
[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fa. lunae._]
1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is
dispersed through all her body?
2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or cause
such great eclipses as have turned day into night,[1] that have
discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden
darknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related in
divers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse which
fell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] +ho helios eklipon ten ek
tou ouranou hedren aphanes en+. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in
the heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as
could not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there
are who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions,
and the noble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipse
should cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never
totally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all other
Astronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion,
by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare
bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.
[Sidenote 1: _Thucid._
_Livii._
_Plut. de fa. Lunae._]
[Sidenote 2: _Herodot. l. 7 c. 37._]
But here _Julius Caesar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our passage. The
Moone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the
same nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and
his reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those
purer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for hee
stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an
answere, till hee hath made up his argument.
[Sidenote 1: _De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11._]
We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our
earth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both,
doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like
natures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; and
this was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_
affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature,[1] because of their
agreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in
some measure perspicuous.
[Sidenote 1: _In lib. de animalib._]
But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether
unlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light
of its owne, and the other a grosse dark body which cannot shine at all.
'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt,
and shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.
Proposition 5.
_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._
Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _Rabbi
Simeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne,[1] and
that both those planets at their first creation were equall both in
light and quantity, for because God did then call them both great
lights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall in
bignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone
put up her complaint to God against the Sunne, shewing, 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 her selfe into a narrower compasse, 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 chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was
shee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrow
might be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheere, because her
priviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he should
appeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but her
melancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that that
alas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene,
or not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his
people the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daies
by a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her,
shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath still
reserved much light of her owne.
[Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen._
_Hieron. de 5. Hide._
_Hebraeonia l. 2. c. 4._]
Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, the
one halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being
darke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes,
caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, as
he is cited by _Vitruvius_,[1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it was
probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the
former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall
truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent
and easie experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is
perceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be
discern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must
follow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after
inlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the other
light of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy,
that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that which
is already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath any
patrons, and therefore need no confutation.
[Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architecturae._]
[Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum._]
'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her
light from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she
hath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. _Cardan_
amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any of
us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse,[1]
_Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis
accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus_;
"wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would
blind us with the meere sight," and when shee is enlightened by the
Sunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon
her. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any
proofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the arguments
that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from
Scripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15._
where it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another glory
of the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22._
+he selene ou dosei to phengos autes+, _The Moone shall not give her
light_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne.
[Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. lib. 3._]
But to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken
of, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in many
other instances.