萝莉社

PRAELUSIO

PARAENETICA.

In qua Author luculenter docet, opusculum hoc nihil peregrinum habere, quod non sacrarum Literarum, Sanctorumque Ecclesiae Doctorum authoritatibus, et irrefragabilibus observationum experimentis consentiat.

ITINERARIUM extaticum adornaturus, Lectori curioso meam prius mentem circa nonnulla scitu prorsus necessaria hisce detegendam duxi, ut hoc pacto Lector aperiendum a nobis coelestium regionum iter cum sperato fructu, abditasque naturae altioris semitas inoffenso pede percurreret. Multa fateor in eo occurrunt, quae haud immerito naturae inexperto nova penitus, paradoxa et inaudita hucusque videri possint; quae tamen tantum abest, ut talia sint, ut potius nihil adeo inusitatum, et in toto hoc nostro ratiocinio mirabile occurrat, quod non vel ipsis sacris coelestis Oraculi fontibus, Sanctorum Patrum doctrinae et unanimi prope Astronomicorum huius temporis Philosophorum opinioni magna ex parte consentiat. Quod ut demonstretur; quatuor mihi hoc in Itinerario probanda sunt, quae si, uti spero, recte et ab omni fuco et sinistri affectus perturbatione sincere aestimentur, certe integram me fidem veritatis in mundi opificio, corporumque structura coelestium elucescentis, obtenturum confido. Primum est, In caelesti Mundo, si siderum corpora excipias, nullam praeterea soliditatem admitti aut posse aut debere, atque adeo coelum totum ab a毛ris regione suprema usque ad coelum empyreum, liquidum et aethereum esse. Secundum est, nullam esse corpus in natura rerum, quod alterationibus et corruptionibus quo ad partem non sit obnoxium, atque adeo omnia siderum globosa corpora ex naturae quadam necessitate hisce alterationis legibus, utpote sine quibus consistere non possint, subiecta esse, coelumque adeo cum universis corporibus suis corruptibile esse. Tertium, Omnia siderea Mundi corpora ex quatuor elementorum mixtura modo ipsis congruo non secus ac terram, composita esse, diversis tantum proprietatibus qualitatibusque, uti etiam singula suis propriis centris a supremo Mundi Opifice instructa fuisse. Quartum, secundum analogiam quandam, omnia Mundi corpora eadem se ratione ad invicem habere, qua Sol, Venus, Mercurius, Luna, Terra ad se invicem habent. Quae quidem fuse hoc loco dictis authoritatibus comprobare possem, nisi id integris Voluminibus insignes Viri P. Ioannes Baptista Ricciolius in Almagesto novo, et P. Christophorus Scheinerus noster in Rosa Ursina, a folio 591 usque ad 784, praestitisset: ubi summa et incredibili diligentia non sacras tantum ex divinorum oraculorum fontibus depromptas authoritates pro liquida coeli natura, pro ignea et aquea Astrorum substantia contra coelorum astrorumque 峒�蠁胃伪蟻蟽委伪谓 seu incorruptibilitatem congesserunt, sed et copiose adductis omnium paene SS. Patrum testimoniis et genuinis interpretationibus ita roborarunt, tam solide, docte et scite ratione, experientiaque omnium ductrice Magistra, unanimi omnium Astronomorum conspirantium consensu exposuerunt, ut de tantarum authoritatum veritate, de rationum adductarum pondere, observationumque toto terrarum orbe ab Astronomis peractarum irrefragabili certitudine amplius imposterum, dubitari non possit; aperteque comperiet Lector, nihil me toto hoc Itinerario, quod illi non prius ex innumeris Authoribus comprobatum asseruerint, adducere. Inveniet quoque in dicto Scheineri opere, praeter igneam et aqueam astrorum naturam, coelique; liquiditatem, omnia mundi corpora, uti ex quatuor elementis composita, ita generationibus et corruptionibus obnoxia, eaque; ubi de cometarum novarumque stellarum exortu agit, fuse docet, existere; hic singulos Astralium corporum globos suas exspirare atmosphaeras, singulos suis instructos centris, singulos differentes influxuum rationes possidere. Hic cum admiratione solaris corporis aestu et ebullitione ad ignei cuiusdam Oceani perpetuo agitati rationem; Lunam vero contra humiditate offusam, astrorumque circa proprium centrum circumvolutionem deprehendes. Secuti hunc Reita et Wendelinus, qui propria experientia, et coelestis oculi subsidio fulti, ille in oculo suo Enoch et Eliae, hic in variis tractatibus Astronomicis ita comprobarunt, ut non dicam ingenio praepotens, sed durioris animi, qui contrariam opinionem sustinere voluerit, philosophus existimandus sit. Si itaque Sancti Patres solo rationis lumine ex sacris fontibus hausto, liquidam corruptibilemque coeli naturam, tanto argumentorum pondere comprobarunt, tanta contentione aliis persuadere conati sunt; quid, si huius temporis observationibus instructi fuissent, eos non praestitisse putabimus? Certe solum Aristotelem primum inter omnes praeteritorum seculorum philosophos fuisse, qui coeli soliditatem adstruxerit, mundum intricatis orbium involucris confuderit, quintam essentiam nullo intellectu conceptibilem introduxerit, Scheinerus, Mersennus aliique fuse probant; cui proinde Ethnico Sophistae plus credere, eius authoritatem pluris aestimare, quam Sanctorum Patrum, si non iniquum saltem temerarium esse putant.

Examinatis itaque tum Sacrae Scripturae circa coelestem disciplinam fontibus, tum SS. Patrum in Genesin, aliaque congrua huic materiae sacri textus loca, doctissimis explanationibus; combinatis quoque cum iis acerrimorum huius temporis Philosophorum Astronomorumque mirandis observationibus, tum a summae authoritatis Principibus, tum propria arcanorum naturae scrutandorum curiositate impulso hoc praesens Opusculum concinnare visum fuit; quo cuncta a SS. Patribus explanata et modernis observationibus stabilia,quoad substantiam retineo quidem, sed differenti in eo methodo, in singulis ad ultima sua principia resolvendis, eo modo, quo ante me, quod scia, forsan nemo processit, incido, adeo, ut quaecunque in toto hoc opusculo adduxi, admirandorum (GREEK) prodigia; non tam commenta proprio ingenio ficta, quam consectaria quaedam ex dictis authoritatibus observationibusque resultantia dici possint. Hoc autem usus sum ratiocinio; si coelum seu sive firmamentum liquidu est, uti SS. Patres ex sacris literis explanant, ergo coelum unum et trinum ubivis pervium, ubivis penetrabile, nulla unquam impedimenta ac obices corporibus astralibus in eo motis ponens existit; unum quoad liquiditatem continuatam, trinum quoad regionum differentiam; et sunt 盲ereum, sidereum et empyreum coelum, ad quod Sanctum Paulum raptum ferunt; quod tamen uti extra omnes naturalis constitutionis terminos longe remotum est, ita sola fide attingitur. Esse autem firmamentum liquidum ex igne et aqua compositum, lib. 3. de Genesi ad lit. c. 6. S. Augustinus his verbis exponit: 鈥淔irmamentum in quo luminaria sunt partim aere superiori, partim igne aethereo continetur;鈥� quae fusius exponit cap. 7. 9. et 10 ubi nihil aliud agit, quam ut de dictis eum consulentibus, rigidam firmamenti duritiem dissuadeat; Sanctus vero Basilius alterum Ecclesiae lumen cum innumeris aliis Patribus, quos dicti Auctores citant, soliditatem coelorum omnino ridet, et veluti commentum puerile aperte fatetur: hoc enim pacto hom. cit. disseret. 鈥淣ec tamen ipsum firmamentum, cum iuxta communem, et vulgatam acceptionem ex aqua ortum suum habuisse videatur, aut aquae in glaciem concretae aut materiae cuiquam tali, quae sui principium ortus ex humore percolato sumit, simile censendum est esse, qualem cristalli lapidis naturam esse constat, et paula post. Ex his itaque nulli simile firmamentum esse censemus; est enim puerilis simplicisque profecto mentis tales de corporibus celestibus opiniones habere; neque tamen, quoniam omnia in omnibus insunt, ignis in aere, aer in aqua caeterorumque aliud inest in alio, et nullum omnino eorum, quae sub sensum cadunt, elementum sincerum est, mixtioneque caret, ut non sit aut medii aut oppositi particeps; firmamentum ob id ipsum, aut ex uno elementorum, aut ex omnibus mixtum esse asserere nobis placet, qui iam a divina scriptura instituti sumus etc: Quae cum ita sint, infatuata illa sapientia (Philosophorum) aquas supercaelestes, et ab ignis caelestis ardore absumi solitas negantium et deridetium a te excusa a suscipe nobiscum Veritatis Doctrinam, imperitam illam quidem sermone, at stabilem firmamque cognitione, quid in scriptura significati habeat firmamenti nomen, nimirum naturam insinuat, neutiquam reluctantem aut solidam, quaeve suo pondere gravis sit aut renitens, non eiusmodi dicit esse firmamentum, alioquin si sic gravem mole eius intelligis naturam, propius aut iustius hoc sibi vendicasset Terra nomenclaturam firmamenti; sed quod natura rerum nobis supereminentium ac sublimium tenuis admodum sit et rara, nec ullo sensu percipi possit, hoc appellavit Moses firmamentum: corporum comparatione, quae tenuissima sunt et quae sensu facile comprehenduntur. Et paulo post: Quidam, inquit, hoc opinionem (quod coelum ex quatuor elementis constet) veluti non probabili posthabita repulsaque quintam quandam essentiam corporis ad coelum constituendum suapte ingenio atque seipsis commentitiam et pro tempore excogitatam introduxerunt; ob has itaque rationum necessitates maiorum suorum rationibus reiectis, illis opus fuit, ut opinionem suam privata quadam et peculiari suppositione suffulcirent, qui quintam quandam corporis essentiam ad caeli siderumque constituendam generationem supposuerant. Et paulo post, hisce de rebus nunc si aggrediemur dicere, in nugas per inde ac ipsi incidemus; quare illis omissis emittis, sese ut mutuis elidant controversiarum digladiationibus, sermone itidem de quinta essentia posthabito, Mosi fidem habeamus.鈥� Huic subscribit tertium Sancta Ecclesia lumen Sanctus Ambrosius in Hexameron. 鈥淓x elementis, inquit, generantur omnia ista, quae in mundo sunt, Elementa autem quatuor, a毛r, ignis, aqua et terra, quae in omnibus sibi invicem mixta sunt; et postea: De qualitate igitur et substantia coeli satis est ea ponere, qui in Isaiae scriptis reperimus, qui mediocribus et usitatis sermonibus qualitatem naturae caelestis expressit, dicens: quod firmaverit coelum sicuti fumum, subtilem eius naturam, non solidam cupiens declarare.鈥� Quibus omnibus adstipulantur S. Epiphanius in epistola ad Episcopum Hierosolymitanum, Cyrillus Catechesi 9. Eucherius l. 1 c. 3, com. In Genesi, Iunilius, Beda, Haymo, Richardus Pampolitanus aliique, quorum expositiones apud Scheinerum vide. Chrysostomus coelum immotum, astra tantum modo nullo modo fixa moveri hominum: 12 ad pop. Antioch: docet his verbis: 鈥淣on enim tantum fecit mundum, sed etiam ut factus operaretur; effecit, sed neque totum immobilem dimittens, neque totum iubens moveri, sed coelum quidem immotum permansit: Sol vero cum reliquis sideribus quotidie circumvolvitur.鈥� Et hom: 14 supra epist: ad Haebr: 鈥淯bi sunt, qui dicunt moveri coelum? Ubi sunt, qui pronunciant id esse sphaericum? Utraque enim hinc sunt sublata.鈥� Item hom. 6, supra genes: super illa verba: posuit illas in firmamento coeli. 鈥淨uid est, posuit? Nunquid fixit? absit; videmus enim eas unico temporis momento magnum transire spatium, et nunquam in uno loco stare, sed suum, quem illis Dominus cursum praecepit, perficere.鈥� Et paulo post, vocat omnes stellas elementa coelestia, et quod ideo inter terminos suos maneant, neque evagantur, dispositioni et ordini voluntatis divinae tribuit. Et postea. 鈥淓t quomodo aliqui dicunt factos multos coelos? non ex divina scriptura hoc didicerunt, sed ex suis opinionibus, ut ita dicant impelluntur; istud igitur ipsum firmamentum, quod aquarum separationem faciebat, coelum dixit. Quis igitur post tantam doctrinam feret eos, qui ex suo capite loqui et contra divinam scripturam multos coelos dicere audent?鈥� Et deinde solvit obiectiones eorum, qui ex illo, laudant illum, coeli celorum, pluralitatem inferunt, et scite haebraicam illam dicendi formulam, qua duali numero coelum exprimunt, videlicet (HEBREW) schamaim, esse dicit: cui subscribit Diodorus Gazenensis his verbis: 鈥淣emo, cum audierit (et posuit ea in firmamento coeli) existimet Solem, Lunam, stellas in celo fias, gentile dogma in Ecclesiam induces, quemadmodum itaque homines in terra, ita luminaria in coelo posita supernum iter peragunt.鈥� Eusebius Emissenus coelum firmum atque immobile esse, Solem vero Lunam, stellas in coelo moveri ac cursum suum peragere dicit. 鈥淣am cum Iosue dictum est, Sol et Luna stet; non ait, coelum movens Solem et Lunam stet, item ab Ezechia dictum est; Sol retrocedat, non ait coelum movens Solem retrocedat; caecus est qut ex his Astra in liquido moveri non videt. Isid: l.13 Aether locus est, in quo sidera sunt, et significat ignem, qui a toto mundo in alterum separatus est; sane aether est ipsum elementum, aethra vero splendor aetheris. Et fuse in sequentibus omnia prosequitur. Richardus de Sancto Victore Exercitation c. 7 supra haec verba. In principio creavit, etc. 鈥淐oelum, inquit, iuncta elementa, Ignis, a毛r, aqua, quae erant in unum confusione permixta, sive in una permixtione confusa, circa quartum quod est Terra, fluctuantia; creavit itaque Deus in principio quatuor Elementa, simplicem rerum omnium foecundam materiam.鈥� Theodoretus in Gen. q. 11. 鈥淪it ne unum coelum, an duo? Sic respondet; qui non credit secundum esse coelum semitam rectam transgreditur, qui vero plures numerare conatur, adheret fabulis, postposita divini spiritus Doctrina; firmamentum enim expresse docet unum tantum esse coelum, et ipsum repetit in Psalmum 148. Itaque secundum ipsum oportet planetas et stellas in eo libere moveri, et sic firmamentum permeabile esse; Lege, si placet, D. Bonaventuram l. 2 sent. p. 2, ubi fuso ratiocinio unum tantum continuum coelum docet esse, non nisi mobilibus astris distinctum. Ignem praeterea et aquam singulis stellis dispertitam, Theodoretus quaest: 14 in Genesin asserit: 鈥淚gitur et lucem,鈥� inquit, 鈥渃reavit quemadmodum ei libuit; sicuti vero firmamento distinxit aquarum naturam, et quasdam sursum collocavit, reliquas deorsum reliquit; sic lucem illam pro arbitrio suo distinguens, luminaria magna et parva condidit;鈥� Quae distinctius refert S. Athanasius, quaest. 83 in Gen. 鈥淓t dixit Deus, fiat lux; et facta est lux; Haec lux magna et splendidissima cum esset, divisit eam Deus in luminaria, Solem, Lunam et reliqua.鈥� Quae et Procopius commentario in Genesin eodem fere verborum tenore refert: 鈥淒eus,鈥� inquit, 鈥減urissimam partem primigeniae lucis accipiens transtulit in Solem, reliquam partem distribuit inter Lunam et reliqua astra; quemadmodum Deus universam aquam, quae prius inundabat terram et unum quasi receptaculum, nempe in varia flumina, puteosque coniecit, sic lucem in omnia diffusam ubertim in unum contraxit, Solem, Lunam caeteraque astra inde illustravit.鈥� Unde Iunilius Episcopus Africanus censebat ignem nostrum elementarem portiunculam esse luminarium coelestium, eiusdem naturae cum eo, eo quod per vitra concava, convexaque Solis radii excepti ignem similem nobis pariant.

Porro Gregorius Nyssenus in Hexameron, non tantum omnia Mundi corpora elementis constare, sed et singula qualitatibus elementis propriis instructa fuisse, his verbis asserit: 鈥淣on opinor vestram opinionem ab eo, quod probabile atque consentaneum est, aberraturam esse, si hoc Moysen intellexisse existimamus, quod ab initio quidem omnium illuminatrix vis apud seipsam coacervata atque collecta facta sit lux, sed quoniam magna quaedam in illo subtili et agili ratione maioris et minoris differentia in universa rerum natura esse cernebatur, triduum temporis spacium satis fuit, ut horum unumquodque perspiceretur, et absque confusione alterum ab altero diduceretur, discernereturque; ut id quidem, quod ex ignea natura subtile et leve, in summo loco sub sensum cadentis naturae versaretur: quidquid autem et tardum et ignavum esset, intra complexum tenuis illius et levis circa sese coiret; atque hoc rursus pro differentia insitae sibi proprietatis in septem partes secaretur, omnibus particulis lucis, quae et aequales et eiusdem naturae essent, pro cognitione inter sese coalescentibus, et ab iis, quae alterius generis essent, separatis atque diremptis. Sic igitur quicquid Solaris naturae illuminatricis inspersum erat, cum omnes hae particulae aliae ad alias concurrissent, unum magnum lumen factum est; itidem etiam in Luna, et in una quaque coeterarum, tum errantium tum errantium tum inerrantium et fixarum stellarum unius cuiusque particularum ad sui generis eius concursus, unum quoddam ex iis, quae in coelo apparent, efficit, atque ita universa facta sunt.鈥� Hoc sane magni Doctoris testimonium tantum est, ut eorum quae in Itinerario nostro vulgo paradoxa recensuimus, quaedam veluti anacephaleosis esse queat.

Atque hae sunt de fluida, ignea atque aquea coeli substantia SS. Patrum auctoritates ex innumeris paucae, praecipuorum tamen Ecclesiae Doctorum, quas primo proponendas duxi, ne novam peregrinae doctrinam fabricam Mundo obtrudere velle viderer. Nihil porro restat, nisi ut hisce suppositis ad ipsa nos experimenta conferamus, quibus ea tandem oculari demonstratione comperta asseramus, quae recte quidem et vere SS. Patres, sed sub ambiguo tamen sensu non sine perplexitate quadam diversimode speculati sunt.

Huius temporis Mathematici minime scholastici, istis concertationibus contenti, altius et sublimius quid molientes oculi coelestis subsidio, ad ipsa caelestia corpora audaci sane consilio ascendentes, litem tandem omnium fere Philosophorum in scholis pendentem ita diremerunt, ut Philosophus antiqua praeteritorum temporum de coelesti doctrina dogmata defendere minus possit, cum ocularem sensatamque experientiam proprio iudicio suo negare, non sit Philosophi: praesertim cum non unus tantum ea observasse censeri Astronomus, quin innumeri in hac etiam diem istiusmodi novis coelestium apparitionum miraculis intenti, quanto plura vident, tanto maiora rationesque detegunt. Quis autem dum Venerem et Mercurium circa Solem versari videt, solidum coelum credat? Quis Martem Solaris spherae incolam cum coeli soliditate consistere posse existimabit? Quis comites Iovis, uti et Saturni, tam anomalo et inaequali motu circa hoc et illud corpus, sine mutua naturalique corporum solidorum penetratione suas periodos peragere posse credat? Cum tamen haec omnia posteris temporibus innotuerint. Non dicam hic de Cometaru motu et novarum stellarum genesi, quae omnia cum rigida coeli duritie subsistere no possunt; qui enim fieri potest, ut Cometae huc illuc per immensa coeli spacia transversim transcurrant, ultra omnes Lunae Solisque vias evehantur, nisi coelos ad instar limpidissimi aeris fluere necessario afferamus? Quam tamen Cometarum elongationem tanquam certissimam et irrefragabilibus demonstrationibus firmatam, unanima Astronomorum consensus recipit. Globos vero siderum tam errantium quam inerrantium ex liquido et solido, atque adeo ex quatuor elementis constitutos, non tantum uti supra demonstratum suit, SS. Patribus placuit, sed et observationum factorum experimenta, falsa non esse, quae illi tanta contentione metis persuadere conati sunt, aperte demonstrant. Incipiamus a Luna, quam terrestri materie exasperatam, montibus instructam et quidem altissimis aquis offusam, nemo modernorum Astronomorum negabit; eousque humanae curiositatis audacia progrediente, ut vel ipsas montium umbras, earumque incrementa decrementa detexerit, detecta ad geometricas leges reduxerit. Ex Cysati observationibus Atmosphaera lunaris Mundo patuit, cui omnes subscribunt; Nam ut ipse citatus auctor de Eclipsi 1628. Barcinone a se observata scribit: 鈥淚n hac,鈥� inquit, 鈥淓cclipsi observavi rem in Luna Soli suppositam admirandam, nimirum peripheria Lunae fluctuabat et trepidabat multum, Solis peripheria vel parum vel nihil trepidante, non aliter ac mare quoddam fluctibus agitatum et unda undam pellente; unde colligo sphaeram Lunae Atmosphaera quamdam non minori et forsan crassiori circumfusam esse, quam terram. Certe huius rei causam aliam non reperio, nisi hanc, quod radii Solares a vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint intercisi, unde pro maculis Solaribus et Cometis maior lux videtur oriri; sicut et Terra Lunaeque globo, ita et reliquorum planetarum globis vapores exspirant.鈥� Haec eruditus ille Mathematicus Ioannes Baptista Cysatus noster, cuius acuto discursui reliqui subsequentes observatores subscripserunt, et Scheinerus summe approbavit his verbis: 鈥淩efricat mihi huius experientiae enarratio in memoriam, simile quoddam experimentum in Sole ab initio inventi a me Solaris phoenomeni hucusque semper animadversum, et est hoc, quod Sol praeter tremorem marginalem, quem tamen non semper spectandum praebet, praeter exasperationem frequenter exhibitam, de quibus alibi saepe etiam quasi quadam repentina fulguratione toto suo patente hemisphaerio quaqua versus ex equo coruscat, haud aliter ac si intus concepta intumescens luce rumperetur et in fulguris morem effulgeret iubare momentaneo subsultare.鈥� Hoc idem portentum cum saepe saepius Scheinerus hic Romae mihi ostendisset, et Sol non secus ac mare ingentes aestus volveret, certe aliud concludere non potui quam illud ipsum esse, quod revera erat, videlicet altissimam Solaris Oceani fluctuationem, quam et Simon Marius in Mundo suo Ioviali, nihil aliud, quam quasi quandam fulminationem et materiem Solaris ebullitionem existimat; 鈥淗ac enim,鈥� inquit, 鈥渞atione vidi superficiem Solis commoveri, non aliter ac aurum a summo calore liquefactum, in quo fluxu similis commotio et quasi fulminatio existit in superficie auri.鈥� Cui subscribunt quotquot hucusque portenta huiusmodi Solaria accurate observarunt; Sed ut ad Lunam revertamur, testatur et hanc Lunae agitationem Hevelius in sua Selenographia, et doctissimus Ricciolius id non negat, Rheita quoque ita Oculo suo Enoch et Elie in omnibus passim planetis nec non stellis fixis mirifico suo tubo coelestis id se observasse asseverat; unde omnes Mundi globos singulos singulis suis atmosphaeris vestiri dicit; optimo sane iure, cum enim supra et SS. Patribus ostensum sit; omnia Mundi corpora ex quatuor elementis composita esse, et ignem aquamque singulis pro rata portione ex primigenia primi diei Mundi luce distributam: quid aliud inde concluditur quam singula eodem modo facta esse, id est, globos ex liquido et solido constitutos? Cum itaque unum elementum sine altero esse non potest, et omnia omnibus commixta sint, certum est calidum et humidum, seu liquorem et terrestrem materiam, ex quibus globi constituuntur, necessario no secus ac in terra sese habere, ubi calidu in humidum agens illud resolvit, humor corporibus insitus calore rarefactus in tenuem substantiam abit, quam Astronomi atmosphaeram vocant; sive globus ille ex igne liquido, sive aqua fluida constituitur. Nam ut recte S. Ambrosius l.1. Hexam: c. 6. 鈥淪atis est, inquit, ad praesentem assertionem, quod in principio coelum fecerit, unde generationis causa, et terram, ipsa qua generationis esset substantia. In his enim elementa creata sunt, ex quibus generetur omnia illa quae Mundi iuncta sunt: Elementa autem quatuor A毛r, Ignis, Aqua, Terra, quae in omnibus his invicem mixta sunt.鈥� Ex quibus luculenter patet, in omnibus Mundi globis, uti specie a sublunari materia elementari non differunt, ita generationis et corruptionis legibus pariter esse subiecta, ubi in singulis gravia ad unius cuiusque centrum, a centro vero levia per resolutionem humidi a calido exspirata effluvium illud quod Astronomi atmosphaeram dicunt, efficiunt; Cum enim sensata experientia omnia Mundi corpora opaca repererit, certum est, Solarium corporum radios in ea, quae inaequalitate partium mirifice exasperantur impactos, calorem non minus ac in terrena Solaris lucis reflexione contingit, summe intendere; ex intentione vero caloris, humidi intra terrestris substantiam existentis fit resolutio, ex resolutione rarefactio, ex rarefactione in remotiori Atmosphaerae termino ob frigidi aetheris vicini auram iterum condensatio, ex condensatione tandem in id, quod erat, fit reditus; Si enim solus ignis, in huiusmodi coelestibus corporibus constitutus fuisset, is utique otiosus foret, cum non haberet in quod ageret; neque humidum esse solum debuit, cum non haberet, cui subiiceretur aut a quo pateretur. Si vero elementa coelestia a sublunaribus differentes naturas a Deo consecuta fuissent, illae haud dubie in inferiora elementa, a quibus essentialiter differrent, agere non potuissent, neque ullo modo per sympathicas antipathicasque operationes ad invicem comparatas ullum influxibus suis effectum proportionatum, neque in inferioribus, neque in circumsitis corporibus praestare potuissent; atque adeo omnis unio, concordia et harmonia Mundi periisset, quin eo consistit potissimum, quod unum Mundi corpus alterum naturali appetitu fovere et connaturalibus facultatibus movere, promovet et promotu conservare inclinet, quod minime fieret, si coelestis materia aut quinta quaedam essentia aut essentialiter differre a sublunaribus cogitaretur. Atque haec unica fuit ratio, quam et S. Basilius scite innuit, cur Sancti Patres Mundum et omnia quae in Mundo sunt (quae uti ex quatuor elementis composita fuerunt, ita communes omnibus corruptiones leges sequuntur (minime incorruptibilem quoad naturam, sed corruptibilem ex sacris literis copiose demonstrarunt. Manet itaque, omnia Mundi corpora ad eandem divinam affectionem eodem modo esse condita, neque quoad materiam elementarem ulla ratione inter se differre, sed formarum tantummodo proprietatumque diversitate a se invicem differre; non secus ac in terrestri globo, in quo etiam si innumerae rerum species formis proprietatibusque differre comperiantur, omnia tamen quoad materiam elementarem eadem esse inveniuntur, ut ex resolutione chimica patet; sed hoc fusius in Itinerario nostro; Nemo itaque miretur, si nos globos coelestes solares natura ex igne liquido et terrestris portione, Lunaris vero natura ex aqua et terrestri substantia concretos afferamus; haec enim naturali consequentia ex praesuppositis deducuntur. Quod enim in terrestri globo fieri censendum est, illud secundum analogiam quandam in coelestibus pariter corporibus fieri putemus, ita ut quaecunque elementorum coniunctionem consequuntur actiones, eadem in coelestibus globis, in uno tamen plus, in altero minus reperiri, certo inferri possit; dantur itaque praeter primas qualitates in globis coelestibus et secundae, levitas, gravitas, mollities, durities, rarefactio, condensatio; ex quibus suo modo ipsis conformes meteorologicae impressiones necessario consequuntur; omnia igitur, quae in terrestri globo spectantur, in coelestibus quoque, si vegetabilem et sensitivam naturam, quas eternae sapientiae ratio inde exclusit, excipias, spectari necessitate est; Unde quemadmodum in Terra singulae rerum species, D. Dionysio teste praesidem Angelum habent, ita et coelestium globorum singula elementa, qui ea sua in fines suos a natura Dei ministrante intentos dirigant, habent; unde colligimus, plures Angelos unicuique globo, pro rerum in eo administrandarum varietate perfectos; quos sacra scriptura Exercitus coelestis militiae, seu militias coelorum Isaiae 40, vocat; unde stellas quoque stantes contra Sisaram pugnasse Iud. 5 non nisi de Angelis stellarum praesidibus commentatores in hunc locum, intelligant. Et illu Iobi. 鈥淐um me laudarent astra matutina et iubilarent omnes filii Dei,鈥� non de materialibus astris; sed de globorum praesidibus intelligitur; meminit quoque; Angelicarum custodiarum et ministerii eorundem, Baruch propheta c. 3. Sunt itaque; in singulis astris veluti in choros quosda distributae Angelicae custodiae, quorum ministerio globorum vis in bonum universi administratur. Sed haec ita clara sunt ut expositione non indigeant; Sola innumerabilis stellarum multitudo universique vastitas, incomprehensibilis nonnullos dubium movere posset; sed noverit, scripturam sacram expresse dicere, parum nos operum divinorum nosse; oculi siquidem coelestis subsidio, quanto plus quaeris, tanto plus usque ad innumerabilem multitudinem te invenire deprehendes, aperteque sateberis nullum stellarum finem et numerum spectari; ut proinde non incongrue arenae maris et Abrahae propagini comparentur; 鈥渘umera stellas, si potes?鈥� Solus itaque Deus, conditor omnium stellarum, multitudinem numerat, et omnibus eis nomina vocat; quae haud dubie non in eadem firmamenti superficie, sed in intimis eiusdem et immensis, impenetrabilibusque recessibus, inexplicabili distantia distant; ut proinde, minus probandi sint nonnulli huius temporis Philosophi, qui ab experimentis et observationibus non solum abstinere; sed ea plerumque abhorrere solent; ne ab antiquis Peripati opinionibus tantillum discedere sensu et ratione ructi, aut praescriptis suis sententiis aliquid adiungere, aut in iis quidquam immutare cogantur. Coeterum qui nova huius temporis circa coelestium phoenomenorum doctrinam scire desiderat, is consulet primo Scheinerum citato libro, deinde doctissimi et eruditissimi P. Ioannis Baptistae Riccioli Almagesti novi librum 8 et 9, ubi quidquid circa hanc doctrinam concipi potest, acri cura nec non incredibili diligentia tractavit; ubi et omnium authorum, qui aut nova in coelo detexerunt, aut ex detectis novam philosophiam condere conati sunt, nomina reperiet, vere totius Astronomicae disciplinae promus condus uberrimus.

Et quoniam mira circa coelestium portentorum rationes et causas opinionum diversitas est; quid nos ex praesuppositis fundamentis sentiamus, et quomodo omnia etiam paradoxa passim facillimo negotio defendi queant, mediam quandam viam sectati, in hoc Itinerario Exstatico demonstrandum duximus. Quae si aequus Lector, seposito omni sinistro affectu qua veritatis lance ponderaverit, rationes allatas rite discusserit, is haud dubie praeter facillimam omnium difficultatum, quae in hoc usque tempus Scholas paene omnes torserunt, solutionem, singulis iuxta combinatoriae artis regulas rite exploratis, aliter Mundi opificium sese habere non posse, quam diximus, fatebitur: Si vero quispiam aliquid nostris rationibus melius adduxerit, ei non invitos nos subscripturos pollicemur. Ne vero quicquam Sacrae Romanae Ecclesiae decretis et institutis contrarium afferamus, id unicum contendimus, ut coelestium globorum incolas una cum mobilitate terrae perpetuo proscriberemus. Si vero nonnihil vel incogitanti aut non advertenti suspectum contra mentem eruperit, id revocatum retractatumque hisce volui. Quo autem singula maiori cum delectatione Lectorum animis influerent, Opusculum in Dialogi formam, interlocutoribus Cosmiele et Theodidacto digessimus; in quo sub exstasis seu raptus figmento citroque, variae dubiorum circa coelestium globorum rationes occurrentium, difficultates, per reciprocas interrogationes et responsiones iuxta observationum factarum notitiam resolvuntur, et hoc ad maiorem legentium voluptatem; Principumque qui hoc ipsum instanter a me efflagitarunt, mentis rerum politicarum curis fessae relaxationem,ut vero aliqua inde Deo devotis mentibus spiritus utilitas afferretur physicas contemplationes plerumque ardentes in Deum tantarum rerum Conditorem; admirationis amorisque affectus excipiunt; Et ne quicquam Opusculo circa Mundi constitutionem deesset, in secunda parte de divina providentia agere visum fuit, in qua praeterquam quod ea, quae in praecedenti fuse dicta sunt, luculentius exponuntur, complura quoque de Coelo Empyreo, de spatio imaginario, de Mundi consummatione, de abditis divinorum iudiciorum abyssis, de fidei Catholicae excellentia, adnexuimus; Omnia ad maiorem Dei, Matrisque gloriam et honorem, et ad proximi salutem. Vale Lector et fave.

PRELUDE

EXHORTATION

In this, the Author clearly teaches that this treatise contains nothing foreign, as it fully agrees with the authority of Sacred Scripture, the Doctrines of the Church, as well as with irrefutable observational experiments.

Before beginning this Ecstatic Journey, I must first share my thoughts on fundamental matters with the inquisitive Reader. This will help us embark on a path to celestial realms and explore the hidden aspects of higher nature without hindrance. I recognize that many aspects of this journey may appear entirely new, paradoxical, and unfamiliar to those inexperienced in the natural world; however, they are not as extraordinary as they seem, and throughout our discussion, nothing remarkable occurs that doesn't align significantly with the teachings found in sacred heavenly Oracles, the insights of the Holy Fathers, and the near-universal agreement among contemporary Astronomers. To clarify this Journey, I present four key arguments that I believe will foster complete trust in my explanations about the world's structure and the radiant entities in the celestial domain. First, in the celestial realm, only the stars are composed of solid matter; thus, the entire sky, from the upper air to the empyrean heaven, is liquid and ethereal. Second, no natural body is immune to changes and eventual decay, meaning that all spherical bodies of stars must also adhere to these laws of alteration, and consequently, the sky itself is vulnerable to corruption, along with its bodies. Third, all starry bodies in the universe are made up of the four elements tailored to their nature, much like Earth, though with different properties and qualities, each crafted by the supreme Architect of the Universe. Fourth, all bodies in the universe relate to one another similarly to how the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, and Earth relate to each other. While I could extensively prove these points with references here, both Father Johannes Baptista Riccioli in his "New Almagest" and our Father Christophorus Scheiner in his "Rosa Ursina" have already done so from folio 591 to 784. They have meticulously compiled authoritative statements sourced not only from divine oracles but also cited nearly all testimonies of the Holy Fathers, grounding these claims with solid, wise reasoning informed by experiences. No doubt remains about the validity of these authoritative sources, the strength of the arguments presented, or the unquestionable observations made by Astronomers worldwide. The reader will clearly see that this Itinerary offers nothing not already affirmed and supported by numerous authors. Additionally, in Scheiner's work, alongside the fiery and aqueous nature of the stars and the liquidity of the sky, he discusses how all astronomical bodies, composed of the four elements, are also subject to changes and decay. He elaborates on the emergence of new comets and stars, explaining how each spherical body of the Astrals emits its unique atmospheres, has its centers, and exhibits varying influences. Here, you will marvel at the cause of the solar body's heat and activity, while the Moon appears dimmed, and you will observe the stars revolving around their own centers. Following this, Reita and Wendelinus, through their own experiences and the use of celestial observations, the former in "Enoch and Elijah" and the latter in several astronomical writings, have demonstrated this in such a way that opposing views could be attributed less to intellectual dominance and more to a stubborn spirit disinclined to acknowledge these findings. Thus, if the Holy Fathers, employing reason grounded in sacred teachings, have convincingly demonstrated the corruptible nature of the sky with substantial arguments, what might we conclude had they been informed by current observations? Indeed, we might think that Aristotle, among past philosophers, is the only one who asserted the solidity of the sky, complicating the cosmos with intricate layers of spheres and introducing an incomprehensible fifth essence, as Scheiner, Mersennus, and others argue. This deference to Aristotle over the Holy Fathers would be rash, if not entirely unjust.

Having therefore examined both the sources of Sacred Scripture concerning celestial doctrine and the most learned explanations of the Holy Fathers on Genesis and other passages of sacred text relevant to this subject, and having combined them with the marvelous observations of the most astute philosophers and astronomers of this time鈥攚hether from princes of the highest authority or from their own curiosity impelled to investigate the secrets of nature鈥攊t seemed fitting to compose this present little work. In it, I indeed retain everything explained by the Holy Fathers and confirmed by modern observations in terms of substance, but I differ in method by resolving individual matters to their ultimate principles in a way that, as far as I know, perhaps no one before me has undertaken. Thus, whatever I have presented throughout this entire treatise should be considered not so much as inventions of my own intellect but rather as certain conclusions resulting from the aforementioned authorities and observations.

The reasoning I have followed is this: If the heavens, or firmament, are liquid, as the Holy Fathers explain from sacred writings, then the heavens must be both one and threefold鈥攅verywhere permeable, everywhere penetrable, presenting no obstacles or impediments whatsoever to the astral bodies moving within them. They are one in terms of continuous fluidity, threefold in terms of regional differentiation: namely, the aerial, the sidereal, and the empyrean heavens, to which Saint Paul is said to have been raptured. Yet, since the empyrean heaven is entirely beyond the limits of natural constitution, it is accessible only by faith.

That the firmament is liquid and composed of fire and water, Saint Augustine explains in On Genesis to the Letter, Book 3, Chapter 6, in these words: 鈥�The firmament, in which the luminaries are, is contained partly by the upper air, partly by ethereal fire.鈥� He expands on this more fully in Chapters 7, 9, and 10, where he does nothing else but dissuade those who consult his writings from the rigid hardness of the firmament. But Saint Basil, another great luminary of the Church, along with countless other Fathers whom the aforementioned authors cite, completely ridicules the solidity of the heavens and openly acknowledges it as a childish fiction. In his cited homily, he argues as follows:

鈥淣or should the firmament itself, which, according to the common and popular understanding, appears to have had its origin from water, be thought to resemble either water frozen into ice or any other material that takes its origin from filtered moisture, such as the nature of crystal is known to be.鈥� And a little later: 鈥淔rom these things, therefore, we consider the firmament to be like none of them; for it is indeed a sign of a childish and simple mind to hold such opinions about celestial bodies.鈥�

Nor, however, since everything exists within everything鈥攆ire in air, air in water, and likewise elements existing within one another鈥攕hould we claim that the firmament is made of just one element or of all elements mixed together, for we have already been instructed by Divine Scripture.

Since these things are so, that vain wisdom of the philosophers who deny and mock the existence of supercelestial waters and claim that they are consumed by the heat of celestial fire should be rejected by you. Instead, receive with us the Doctrine of Truth, which, though unskilled in speech, is stable and firm in understanding. For what the Scriptures signify by the name firmament certainly indicates its nature鈥攏ot at all resistant, nor solid, nor heavy by its own weight or opposition. Otherwise, if you understand its nature to be of such weighty mass, the term firmament would have been more justly assigned to the Earth itself. But since the nature of things that are elevated and sublime is extremely thin and rare and cannot be perceived by any sense, Moses called it the firmament by comparison with the finest and most subtle bodies, which are easily comprehended by sense.

And a little later: 鈥沦辞尘别,鈥� he says, 鈥渞ejecting this opinion (that the heavens consist of the four elements) as improbable and casting it aside, introduced by their own ingenuity and personal invention a certain fifth essence of the body to constitute the heavens, one contrived for the moment. Therefore, rejecting the reasoning of their predecessors, they needed to support their opinion with a private and peculiar assumption鈥攖hat a certain fifth essence of the body was supposed to account for the generation of the heavens and the stars.鈥� And shortly after, he adds: 鈥淚f we were now to approach these matters, we would fall into the same foolishness as they; therefore, setting these things aside, let them exhaust themselves in the mutual contentions of their controversies. Likewise, dismissing the discussion of the fifth essence, let us have faith in Moses.鈥�

To this subscribes the third great luminary of the Holy Church, Saint Ambrose, in his Hexameron: 鈥淔rom the elements,鈥� he says, 鈥渁ll things that exist in the world are generated. The four elements are air, fire, water, and earth, which are mixed with one another in all things.鈥� And later: 鈥淐oncerning the quality and substance of the heavens, it is enough to set forth what we find in the writings of Isaiah, who expressed the nature of the heavens in simple and familiar terms, saying that God 鈥榤ade firm the heavens like smoke,鈥� wishing to declare their subtle, not solid, nature.鈥�

To all of this, Saint Epiphanius in his Epistle to the Bishop of Jerusalem, Cyril in his Ninth Catechesis, Eucherius in Book 1, Chapter 3, Commentary on Genesis, Junilius, Bede, Haymo, Richard of Pampeluna, and others鈥攚hose expositions may be found in Scheiner鈥攁lso agree.

Chrysostom teaches that the heavens are immobile, while only the stars move, not fixed in place, declaring in his Twelfth Homily to the People of Antioch: 鈥淔or He not only made the world but also ensured that it would function as created; He made it, yet left neither the whole immobile nor the whole in motion. Rather, the heavens remained immobile, while the sun and the other stars revolve daily.鈥� And in his Fourteenth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews: 鈥淲here are those who say that the heavens move? Where are those who declare them to be spherical? Both ideas are refuted here.鈥� Likewise, in his Sixth Homily on Genesis, concerning the words He placed them in the firmament of the heavens, he asks: 鈥淲hat does placed mean? Did He fix them? By no means; for we see them traverse great distances in a single moment and never remain in one place, but rather complete the course prescribed to them by the Lord.鈥�

A little later, he calls all the stars heavenly elements and attributes their remaining within their bounds and not wandering to the arrangement and order of Divine Will. Then he adds: 鈥淎nd how can some say that many heavens were made? They did not learn this from Divine Scripture, but are compelled by their own opinions. Therefore, that very firmament which made a separation of the waters is what Scripture calls heaven. Who, then, after such great doctrine, will tolerate those who dare to speak from their own imagination and contradict Divine Scripture by claiming many heavens?鈥�

He then refutes the objections of those who infer plurality from the phrase praise Him, you heavens of heavens, explaining the Hebrew idiom by which the dual number expresses heavens, namely schamayim (砖指讈诪址讬执诐). Diodorus of Gaza concurs, stating: 鈥淣o one, upon hearing He placed them in the firmament of the heavens, should think that the sun, moon, and stars are fixed in the heavens; to believe so is to introduce a pagan doctrine into the Church. Just as men move upon the earth, so too do the luminaries traverse their celestial path.鈥�

Eusebius of Emesa affirms that the heavens are firm and immobile, while the sun, moon, and stars move within them and complete their courses: 鈥淔or when Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still, he did not say, 鈥楲et the heavens which move the sun and moon stand still,鈥� nor when Hezekiah commanded the sun to move backward did he say, 鈥楲et the heavens moving the sun move backward.鈥� He is blind who does not see that the stars move within a fluid medium.鈥�

Isidore, Book 13: "Aether is the place in which the stars are, and it signifies fire, which is separated from the whole world into another region; indeed, aether is itself an element, whereas aethra is the splendor of the aether." And he discusses everything at length in the following sections.

Richard of Saint Victor, Exercises, Chapter 7, on these words: In the beginning, He created, etc.鈥�鈥淗别补惫别苍,鈥� he says, 鈥渋s the joined elements鈥攆ire, air, and water鈥攚hich were intermixed in confusion, or rather, confused in a single mixture, fluctuating around the fourth element, which is Earth. Thus, in the beginning, God created the four elements, the simple and fertile matter of all things.鈥�

Theodoret, On Genesis, Question 11: "Is there one heaven, or two?" He answers thus: "He who does not believe in the second heaven departs from the right path, while he who attempts to count more adheres to fables, setting aside the doctrine of the Divine Spirit. For the firmament expressly teaches that there is only one heaven, and this is repeated in Psalm 148. Therefore, according to it, the planets and stars must move freely within it, and thus the firmament is permeable. Read, if you please, Saint Bonaventure, Book 2 of the Sentences, Part 2, where he, through an extended argument, teaches that there is only one continuous heaven, distinguished only by the moving stars."

Furthermore, Theodoret asserts in Question 14 on Genesis that fire and water are apportioned to each star: "Therefore, light," he says, "He created as He willed; just as He distinguished the nature of the waters within the firmament, placing some above and leaving others below, so too did He distinguish that light according to His will, forming the great and small luminaries."

Saint Athanasius, in Question 83 on Genesis, refers to this more explicitly: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. This light, being great and splendid, was divided by God into the luminaries鈥擲un, Moon, and the rest."

Procopius, in his Commentary on Genesis, expresses the same idea in nearly the same words: "God," he says, "taking the purest part of the primordial light, transferred it to the Sun, and distributed the remaining part among the Moon and the other stars; just as God gathered the entire mass of water, which had previously inundated the earth as a single body, into various rivers and wells, so too did He abundantly condense the widely diffused light into a single source, illuminating the Sun, Moon, and the other stars from it."

From this, Junilius, Bishop of Africa, held that our elemental fire is but a small portion of the celestial luminaries and of the same nature as them, since the rays of the Sun, when captured through concave and convex lenses, produce fire similar to ours.

In his Hexaemeron, Gregory of Nyssa asserts that all bodies consist of elements, each possessing qualities intrinsic to those elements. He illustrates this idea by stating, "I do not think that your opinion will deviate from what is probable and reasonable if we suppose that Moses understood this: that from the beginning, indeed, the illuminating power of all things was gathered and concentrated within itself, becoming light. But since a great difference鈥攕ubtle and active in its nature鈥攚as perceived to exist in the entire order of things, distinguishing greater from lesser, a space of three days was sufficient for each of these to be observed and distinguished from one another without confusion.Thus, that which was subtle and light by nature, having a fiery essence, was placed in the highest region of the perceptible world. But whatever was slow and inert gathered together within the embrace of that fine and light substance. This, in turn, was divided into seven parts, with all the particles of light鈥攅qual and of the same nature鈥攋oining together for mutual recognition, while being separated and divided from those of a different kind. Thus, whatever was interspersed with the illuminating nature of the Sun, as all these particles converged with one another, became a single great light. Likewise, the same happened with the Moon and with each of the other stars, both wandering and fixed, as the particular particles of each kind gathered together, forming each of the celestial bodies we now see. And thus, the entire universe was made." Truly, the testimony of this great Doctor is so significant that it could serve as a kind of anacephaleosis (summary or recapitulation) of certain matters which, in our Journey, are commonly regarded as paradoxes.

And these are a few authorities of the Holy Fathers鈥攕elected from countless others鈥攃oncerning the fluid, fiery, and aqueous substance of the heavens, yet they are those of the principal Doctors of the Church, which I have deemed necessary to present first, lest I should appear to wish to impose upon the world a new and foreign doctrine of my own making. Nothing now remains except that, with these premises established, we turn to the very experiments themselves, by which we may at last assert, through ocular demonstration, what the Holy Fathers have rightly and truly speculated鈥攖hough often in an ambiguous sense and not without a certain perplexity鈥攊n various ways.

In contrast to these debates, modern Mathematicians have aimed higher and deeper, assisted by their observations of celestial bodies. They have boldly ascended to the very celestial bodies themselves, effectively resolving the longstanding disputes that have pervaded the realm of Philosophy. As a result, it has become increasingly challenging for philosophers upholding the ancient doctrines regarding celestial matters to deny the evidence presented by astronomers. Numerous Astronomers have observed these celestial phenomena, and their understanding has expanded with each observation. Indeed, who among us could still maintain belief in a solid heaven when we witness the orbits of Venus and Mercury revolving around the Sun? How can we continue to think that Mars, residing within the sphere of the Sun, can exist within the solidity of the heavens? Who would argue that the companions of Jupiter and Saturn can travel their orbits with such irregular and unequal motion around these and other bodies without the natural penetration and mutual interaction of solid substances? All these phenomena have become known in more recent times. I shall not delve into the details here regarding the motion of comets and the genesis of new stars. Still, these phenomena cannot coexist within the rigid solidity of the heavens. How can comets traverse vast stretches of celestial space, moving far beyond the paths of the Moon and the Sun, unless we necessarily accept that the heavens flow like the clearest air? The elongation of comets has been substantiated through irrefutable demonstrations and is unanimously accepted by astronomers. Certainly, the belief that both the wandering and fixed stars consist of spheres composed of both liquid and solid elements, thus comprising the four elements, was not only affirmed by the Holy Fathers, as demonstrated earlier but experiments and observations also unequivocally validate their assertions. Let us commence with our examination of the Moon, which no modern astronomer would deny is adorned with terrestrial matter, featuring mountains and high waters. Human curiosity has advanced to the extent that we have even detected the shadows of these lunar mountains and meticulously examined their fluctuations, which can be quantified mathematically. The lunar Atmosphere has been presented to the world through the observations of Cysatus, a fact acknowledged by all. As he himself cites in his account of the Eclipse of 1628, "I noticed a remarkable phenomenon on the Moon during the eclipse, namely, the periphery of the Moon was fluctuating and trembling significantly, while the periphery of the Sun was fluctuating little or not at all, just like a sea agitated by waves, one wave pushing the other. From this, I conclude that there is some lunar atmosphere surrounding it, possibly even denser than that of the Earth. Indeed, I cannot find any other cause for this phenomenon except that solar rays were intercepted by the vapors surrounding the Moon, which is why a greater brightness seems to arise from Solar spots and Comets. Just as the Earth and the Moon emit vapors from their globes, so do the globes of other planets." Johannes Baptista Cysatus, a learned mathematician whose keen reasoning was endorsed by subsequent observers, was highly praised by Scheiner for his observations. Scheiner recounted, "The description of this experiment reminds me of a similar one related to the Sun, which I observed right from its beginning and have often noticed in the phenomenon of the Sun. Besides a marginal tremor, which is not always visible, it frequently presents an exasperation phenomenon, as I have described elsewhere. It sometimes even suddenly flashes from its whole visible hemisphere in all directions, as if an inner swelling of light were bursting and flickering like a momentary flame." Scheiner, upon witnessing this phenomenon repeatedly in Rome, attributed it to the highest fluctuation of the Solar Ocean. In his work "Mundus Jovialis," Simon Marius similarly regarded this as a type of Solar eruption and the manifestation of Solar boiling. He remarked, "In this way, I observed the surface of the Sun moving, just like gold liquefied by intense heat, in which there is a similar motion and a kind of eruption on the surface of the gold." Those who have diligently observed such solar phenomena subscribe to this; But as we turn to the Moon, Hevelius attests to this lunar motion in his Selenography, and the learned Riccioli does not deny it, Rheita also asserts that he observed it with his own eyes, Enoch and Elie, everywhere in all the planets as well as in the fixed stars with his marvelous celestial tube; whence he says that all the individual Worlds of the universe are clothed with their own atmospheres; with very good reason, for as it has been shown above and by the Holy Fathers, all the bodies of the universe are composed of the four elements, and fire and water are distributed to each in proportion from the primal light of the first day of the World: what else can be concluded from this than that all things have been made in the same way, that is, globes composed of liquid and solid? Since therefore one element cannot exist without the other, and all things are mixed with all, it is certain that the hot and humid, or liquid and earthly matter, from which the globes are constituted, necessarily behaves no differently than on earth, where heat acting on moisture dissolves it, the inherent moisture, rarefied by heat, passes into a thin substance, which astronomers call the atmosphere; whether that globe is made of liquid fire or fluid water. As St. Ambrose rightly asserts in his work "Hexaemeron," Book 1, Chapter 6, "It is sufficient to assert that in the beginning, He made the heavens, from which arose the origin of generation, and the Earth, the very substance of generation. All things in the world were created within these four elements: Air, Fire, Water, and Earth. These elements are intermixed in all things." It is evident from this that none of the celestial bodies in the world differ in substance from sublunary elementary matter. They are equally subject to the laws of generation and corruption. In each celestial body, heavy elements naturally gravitate toward the center, while light elements, through the resolution of moisture by heat, give rise to what astronomers call the atmosphere. Empirical experience confirms that all the bodies in the world are opaque. Consequently, when the rays of Solar bodies strike surfaces with remarkable irregularities, they intensify heat in the same way that Solar light is reflected on Earth. This elevated heat leads to moisture resolution due to its intensity, and this resolution results in rarefaction. Because of the proximity of the cold ether, this rarefaction condenses the air in the more distant reaches of the Atmosphere. Eventually, this leads to a return to its initial state. If the celestial elements had a nature distinct from sublunary elements and were divinely received, they would not have been able to interact with the lower elements from which they fundamentally differed. They would not have been capable of producing proportionate effects on each other or the surrounding bodies, neither through sympathetic nor antipathetic operations. This would have resulted in the loss of the natural desire and faculties for unity, concord, and harmony that are fundamental to the functioning of the world. However, this is not the case if celestial matter is considered a fifth essence or essentially different from sublunary matter. As Saint Basil astutely pointed out, this was the primary reason why the Holy Fathers regarded the world and everything within it as composed of the four elements, following the universal laws of corruption thoroughly demonstrated in sacred scriptures. Consequently, all the bodies in the World are created with the same divine affection and do not differ from one another in elemental matter but only in their diversity of forms and properties. Just as on the terrestrial globe, where numerous species of things exhibit differences in forms and properties as evident from chemical analysis, all are nonetheless elementally consistent. This will be discussed in more detail in our Journey. Therefore, it should not be surprising if we assert that the solar celestial bodies are composed of liquid fire and a portion of the natural terrestrial substance and that the lunar nature is comprised of water and terrestrial substances. These conclusions stem from natural presuppositions, presuming that events on the terrestrial globe mirror those in celestial bodies. Consequently, whatever actions result from the combination of elements in the terrestrial globe can reasonably be inferred to take place in celestial bodies, albeit to varying degrees. Hence, aside from the primary qualities, secondary qualities such as lightness, heaviness, softness, hardness, rarefaction, and condensation exist in celestial bodies. These qualities naturally follow meteorological phenomena that resemble those on Earth. Therefore, everything observed on Earth must also be observed in celestial bodies, with the exception of vegetative and sensitive nature, which eternal wisdom has excluded from the celestial bodies. Consequently, just as each species on Earth has a guardian angel, as attested by Dionysius, each of the elements in celestial bodies has its own ministers appointed by the wisdom of God, directing them toward their own ends. Therefore, we deduce that multiple Angels, each perfect for various tasks, exist in each celestial body. Sacred Scripture refers to them as the "army of the heavenly host" or the "host of heaven" (Isaiah 40). Commentators on the passage in Judges 5, where it is said that the stars fought against Sisera, understand it to refer to the guardian angels of the stars. Similarly, in the Book of Job, when it says, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," it refers not to material stars but to the guardians of celestial bodies. This concept is also mentioned elsewhere in the Book of Job. Baruch, the prophet in Chapter 3, speaks of the angelic guardians and ministry of the same.There are angelic custodians, akin to choirs, assigned to each star, and through their intervention per divine design. The vastness of the universe might invoke skepticism, yet sacred scripture acknowledges the limits of our understanding. Even with enhanced telescopic observations, the array of stars shows no bounds, akin to the sands of the sea. God alone, creator of the stars, knows their multitude, calling them each by name, unseen in the firmament's depths. Philosophers hesitant to depart from traditional opinions often neglect observations yielding fresh insights into celestial phenomena. Those eager to grasp contemporary celestial doctrines should reference Scheiner's works and Riccioli's comprehensive treatises, that carefully address numerous discoveries that enrich the field of Astronomy.

There is a rich variety of opinions regarding the reasons behind celestial phenomena. Our understanding, built on certain presupposed foundations, suggests that even the most paradoxical ideas can be justified universally. Thus, we find it essential to illustrate this in our Ecstatic Itinerary. If a discerning reader sets aside biases and evaluates the arguments presented thoughtfully, they will likely recognize the most straightforward solutions to the challenges that have perplexed various Schools until now. Upon examining each perspective according to established combinatorial principles, it becomes clear that the structure of the universe is as we have described. However, if anyone can offer stronger arguments than ours, we are open to embracing them. Importantly, our views align with the doctrines of the Holy Roman Church. Our only contentions are the rejection of the existence of inhabitants on celestial bodies and the Earth's mobility. Should any part of our discourse seem questionable, neglected, or lacking, we are ready to reconsider and amend it. To engage our readers and enhance the discussion, we have framed this work as a dialogue between Cosmiel and Theodidactus. Through these ecstatic exchanges, we tackle various doubts and complexities regarding celestial bodies through a series of mutual inquiries and answers, underpinned by careful observations. This method aims to stimulate the intellect and offer respite to those troubled by political concerns. Additionally, for those devoted to God, it also provides spiritual nourishment, nurturing a deep love and admiration for the Creator of such marvelous wonders. To ensure a thorough analysis of the universe, the second part of our work focuses on divine providence. Here, in addition to previously covered topics, we explore the Empyrean Heaven, the nature of imaginary space, the ultimate fate of the universe, the profound mysteries of divine judgments, and the exceptional character of the Catholic faith. Each of these discussions is presented with the utmost respect and devotion to God and the Mother Church, with a sincere aim of aiding in the salvation of our fellow human beings. Farewell, dear reader; may you find value in these pages as you embark on this intellectual journey.