The Discovery of a World in the Moone Part 3

[Sidenote 2*: _Colleg. Cannimb. De Clo. 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 const.i.t._]

The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a corruptible nature, [1]not whether they can be destroyed by G.o.d, 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 _Herac.l.i.tus_,[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 Phb.u.mque 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 s.p.a.ce discerne any alteration amongst them; but unto this I answer.

[Sidenote 1: _De clo. 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 a.s.sertions concerning these particulars.

[Sidenote 1: _De Clo. 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 s.p.a.ce, I will referre the Reader to that worke of _Scheiner_ a late Jesuit which hee t.i.tles 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 a.s.sent 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 n.o.ble 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 n.o.ble _Tycho_[6] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds,

_Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quae clum pluribus realibus atque imperviis...o...b..bus 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...o...b..s."

[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...o...b.., 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 n.o.ble _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-gla.s.se those beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every place where you may see the gla.s.se, but onely there where your eye is placed on the same line whereon the beames are reflected.

[Sidenote 1: _De clo. 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?