It hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers & Philosophers, what kinde of matter that should be of which the heavens are framed. Some think that they consist of a fifth substance distinct from the foure elements,1 as Aristotle holds, and with him some of the late Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies but commonmaterialls, and therefore they themselves had rather take pains 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 owne2 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 beene enough to be knowne in the secrets of nature, have spunne out new subjects from their own braines, to finde more work 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 books de Coelo.
But it is 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 so confident of it,3 that he esteemes the contrary a heresie. 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.4 Which Dionysius Carthusianus collects from that place in Genesis, where the heavens are mentioned in their creation, as divided onely in distance from the elementary bodies, & not as being made of any new matter. To this purpose others cite the derivation of the Hebrew word שמים, quasi שם ibi & מים aquae or quasi אש ignis & מים aquae. 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.5 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, as will be shewed afterward; however,6 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 proofe of their corruptibility.
The next thing then to be enquired after, (2 Pet. 3. 12) is, whether they be of a corruptible nature, 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 weare away and grow worse; for from any such feare they have beene lately priviledged.7 But whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this inferiour world is lyable unto?
The two chief 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, whilst 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 wch they were continually fed, & so had divers alterations by reason of their food; this is fathered on Heraclitus,8 followed by that great Naturalist Pliny, & in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see Seneca expresly to this purpose iu these words.9 Ex illâ alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis,10 omnibus stellis dividuntur; hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sidera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctémque, ut in opere, ita in pastu. Speaking of the earth, he sayes, 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 Phoebúmque polumque Credimus.