some of the late schoolmen; whose subtil brains could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies, but common materials, and therefore they themselves had rather take pains to prefer 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 confessed by their own side*. It were much to be desired, that these men had not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without necessity; and, as if there had not been enough to be known in the secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their own brains, to find more work for future ages. I shall not mention their arguments, since it is already confessed, that they are none of them of any necessary consequence; and besides, you may see them set down in any of the books de Calo.

But it is the general consent of the fathers, and the opinion of Lombard, that the heavens consist of the same. matter with these sublunary bodies. St. Ambrose is so confident of it, that he esteems the contrary a heresy †. True indeed, they differ much among themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, and others of both but herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or other; which Dionysius Carthusianus collects from that place in Genesis, where the heavens are mentioned in their creation, as divided only in distance from the elementary bodies, and not as being made of any new matter. To this purpose others cite the derivation of the Hebrew word quasi nu ibi & aquæ or quasi wa ignis & because they are framed out of these elements. But concerning this, you may see sundry discourses more at large in Ludovicus Molina, Eusebius Nirembergius, with divers others. The venerable Bede thought the planets to consist of all the four elements §; and it is likely that the

nu, aquæ,

*Colleg. Connimb. de cælo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3. In Hexam. lib. 4. Enarrat. in Genes. art. 10. § In operc. 6 dierum disput. 5,

other parts of it are of an aereous substance, as will be shewed afterwards*: however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments for either; I have only urged these authorities to countervail Aristotle and the schoolmen, and the better to make way for a proof of their corrup tibility.

The next thing then to be enquired after, is, Whether they be of a corruptible nature f; not whether they can be destroyed by God; for this scripture puts out of doubt.

Nor whether or no in a long time they would wear away and grow worse, for from any such fear they have been lately privileged t. But whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this inferior world is liable unto.

The two chief opinions concerning this, have both erred in some extremity, the one side going so far from the other, that they have both gone beyond the right; whilst Aristotle hath opposed the truth as well as the Stoics.

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, followed by that great naturalist Pliny, and in general attributed to all the Stoicks §. You may see Seneca expressly to this purpose in these words. Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis dividuntur; hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot sidera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opera, ita in pastu. Speaking of the earth, he says, from thence it is that nourishment is divided to all the living creatures, the planets and the stars; 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 Phœbumque polumque credimus.

Unto these, Ptolomy also*, that learned Egyptian, seemed to agree, when he affirms that the body of the moon 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 far from this imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they stood in need of some continual nourishment, without which they could not subsist.

But Aristotle and his followers were so far from this †, that they thought those glorious bodies could not contain in them any such principles as might make them liable to the least change or corruption; and their chief reason was, because we could not in so long a space discern any alteration amongst them. But unto this I answer:

1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow that there were none, as he himself in effect doth confess in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the heavens, he says ‡, it is very imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vast distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto them, are not either big enough, or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observation of our senses; no wonder then, if he himself be deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars. But yet, in this he implies, that if a man were nearer to these heavenly bodies, he would be a fitter judge to decide this controversy than himself. Now it is our advantage, that by the help of Galileus's glass, we are advanced nearer unto them, and the heavens are made more present to us than they were before. However, as it is with us, where there be many vicissitudes and successions of things, though the earth abideth for

ever; so likewise may it be amongst the planets; in which, though there should be divers alterations, yet they themselves may still continue of the same quantity and light.

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 sun should reflect against the moon, and yet not produce some alteration of heat. Diogenes the philosopher was hence persuaded, that those scorching heats had burnt the moon into the form of a pumice-stone.

3. I answer, That there have been some alterations observed there; witness those comets which have been seen above the moon; as also those spots or clouds that encompass the body of the sun; amongst which, there is a frcquent succession by a corruption of the old, and a generation of new. So that though Aristotle's consequence were sufficient, when he proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes been discovered in it; yet this by the same reason must be as prevalent, that the heavens are corruptible, because there have been so many alterations observed there. But of these, together with a farther confirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speak afterwards: in the mean space, I will refer the reader to that work of Scheinen, a late jesuit, which he titles his Rosa Ursina*, where he may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the heavens largely handled, and sufficiently confirmed.

There are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion to enlarge myself; but because they are directly handled by many others, and do not immediately belong to the chief matter in hand, I shall therefore refer the reader to their authors, and omit any large proof of them myself, as desiring all possible brevity.

1. The first is this: That there are no solid orbs. It there be a habitable world in the moon, (which I now af

* Lib. 4. par. 2. cap. 24. 35.

firm) it must follow, that her orb is not solid, as Aristotle supposed; and if not hers, why any of the other? I rather think that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. St. Ambrose and St. Basil did endeavour to prove this out of that place in Isaiah, where they are compared to smoke, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus. Eusebius Nierembergus doth likewise from that placet, confute the solidity and incorruptibility of the heavens, and cites for the same interpretation the authority of Eustachius, of Antioch; and St. Austin ‡, I am sure, in one place seems to assent unto this opinion, though he does often in his other works contradict it.

If you esteem the testimony of the ancient fathers, to be of any great force or consequence in a philosophical dispute, you may see them to this purpose in Sixtus Senensis, lib. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. The chief reasons that are commonly urged for the confirmation of it, are briefly these three.

1. From the altitude of divers comets, which have been observed to be above the planets; through whose orbs (if they had been solid) there would not have been any passage. To these may be added those lesser planets lately discovered about Jupiter and Saturn, for which astronomers had not yet framed any orbs.

2. From that uncertainty of all astronomical observations, which will follow upon the supposition of such solid spheres. For then we should never discern any star, but by a multitude of refractions, and so consequently we could not possibly find their true situations, either in respect of us, or in regard of one another: since whatever the eye discerns by a refracted beam, it apprehends to be in some other place than wherein it is. But now this would be such an inconvenience, as would quite subvert the grounds and whole art of astronomy, and therefore is by no means to be admitted.

*Isa. li. 1. 6. Ant, lect. 1. 1. c. 4. Hist. nat. 1. 2. c. 11. 13.

In lib. sup. Gen. ad. lit.