Part 3 (1/2)
[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.