In abstruse speculations, if we fail of satisfaction in one direction, we must inquire in another, 234. A face or form is seen in the moon; how is this to be explained? 234. The appearance of a form in the moon is not the result of any acuteness or dulness of our vision, 234, 235. The appearance in question some think may be a reflection of the ocean from the moon’s disc, 236. This opinion refuted, 236, 237. Some think the moon to be a compound of air and fire, a disturbance of which causes the appearance in question, 238. This notion disproved, 238, 239, 242. That the earth is a larger body than the moon, is shown by eclipses of the moon, 241. The moon must be a solid body, though much lighter than the earth, 241, 242. The spherical form of the earth, the antipodes, and all motion tending towards the earth’s centre, are pronounced absurdities, 243, 244. The moon is not far from the earth, and feels its influence, though not of the same substance, 245, 246. Computation of the respective distances of the sun and moon from the earth, 246. The spherical form of the earth again denied, 247. If the earth is in the middle, of what is it the middle? not of the universe, surely, 247. Relations of bodies _above_ and _beneath_, 248. We are not, in our philosophy, to reduce every thing to the place to which it naturally belongs, 249, 250. All things do not follow their natural course, 250. In the human body the heaviest parts are not placed lowermost, 251. So it may be in the structure of the world, 252. The moon, though placed in high heaven, may be a heavy body, 253. It is not therefore composed of fire and air, 253. But has the moon the nature of earth? 254. Does the moon reflect the light of the sun? 255. Reasons why this is probable, 256. When the moon appears only half-enlightened, ought not the light reflected to come at right angles? and is it so? 256-258. Aspect of the moon when gibbous or crescent, 258. Only solid bodies reflect light; the moon therefore must be a solid body, 259, 260. That the moon is a solid body is farther proved by eclipses of the sun, 260-262. Size of the moon; as large as Peloponnesus, 261. Its proportionate size in relation to the earth, 261. Further arguments from eclipses, 263-265. Objections answered, 266-268. The moon is not a star, or a burning body, 266. Its nature is like that of the earth, 268. This need not impugn her divinity, 268. There may be cavities and other inequalities on the surface of the moon, and these may be immensely large, so as to be seen by us, 269. The shadow of Mount Athos falls on Lemnos, the shadow being immensely larger than the mountain, 270. An objection from this answered, 270-273. Is the moon inhabited? is it fit for the abode of animated beings? 274, 275. Answer, (1.) If it be not, it does not prove that the moon was made in vain, 276. (2.) The moon may be inhabited: we can see no