not bring any inconveniency to the rest, since it is not Aristotle, but truth, that should be the rule of our opinions; and if they be not both found together, we may say to him, as he said to his master Plato*, "Though Plato were his friend, yet he would rather " adhere to truth than him." I must needs grant, that we are all much beholden to the industry of the ancient philosophers, and more especially to Aristotle, for the greater part of our learning; but yet it is not ingratitude to speak against him, when he opposeth truth; for then many of the fathers would be very guilty, especially Justin, who hath writ a treatise purposely against him. But suppose this opinion were false, yet it is not against the faith, and so it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the sparks of error being forced out by opposition, as the sparks of fire by the striking of the flint and steel. But suppose too that it were heretical, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the same privilege as Aristotle, from whom many more dangerous opinions have proceeded: as that the world is eternal; that God cannot have while to look after these inferior things; that after death there is no reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies; which strike directly at the fundamentals of our religion. So that it is justly to be wondered, why some should be so superstitious in these days, as to stick closer unto him, than unto scripture, as if his philosophy were the only foundation of all divine truths. Upon these grounds, both St. Vincentius and Serafinus de Firmo (as I have seen them quoted) think that Aristotle was the viol of God's wrath, which was poured out upon the waters of wisdom by the third angel †: but for my part, I think the world is much beholden to him for all his sciences. But yet it were a shame for these later ages, to rest ourselves merely upon the labours of our forefathers, as if they had informed us of all things to be known; and when we are set upon their shoulders, not to see further than they themselves did. It were a superstitious, a lazy opinion, to think Aristotle's works the bounds and limits of all human invention, beyond which there could be no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things left to discovery, and it cannot be any inconveniency for ùs to maintain a new truth, or rectify an ancient error. But the position (say some) is directly against scripture ; for, 1. Moses tells us but of one world, and his history of the creation had been very imperfect, if God had made another. 2. St. John, speaking of God's works, says, he made the world, in the singular number, and therefore there is but one. It is the argument of Aquinas *, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with Democritus esteem some blind chance, and not any wise Providence, to be the framer of all things. 3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient times been accounted a heresy; and Baronius affirms that for this very reason Virgilius was cast out of his bishoprick †, and excommunicated from the church. 4. A fourth argument there is urged by Aquinas: if there be more worlds than one, then they must either be of the same, or of a diverse nature; but they are not of the same kind; for this were needless, and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection than the other not of divers kinds; for then one of them could not be called the world or universe, since it did not contain universal perfection. I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon by Julius Cæsar la Galla §, one that has purposely writ a treatise against this opinion which I now deliver; but the dilemma is so blunt, that it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weak, that I dare trust them without an answer: and (by the way) you * Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3. † Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748. + Ibid. VOL. I. It may see this later author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one world, doth leave the chief matter in hand, and take much needless pains to dispute against Democritus, who thought that the world was made by the casual concourse of atoms in a great vacuum. should seem that either his cause or his skill was weak, or else he would have ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have set down are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject; and yet the best of these hath not force enough to endanger the truth that I have delivered. Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of scripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the fundamentals of religion. But you will reply, though it do not necessarily conclude, yet it is probable if there had been another world, we should have had some notice of it in scripture. I answer, it is as probable that the scripture should have informed us of the planets, they being very remarkable parts of the creation; and yet neither Moses, nor Job, nor the Psalms (the places most frequent in astronomical obsérvations) nor any other scripture mention any of them but the sun and moon. Because the difference betwixt them and the other stars, was known only to those who were learned men, and had skill in astronomy. As for that expression in Job, p, the stars of the morning, it is in the plural number, and therefore cannot properly be applied to Venus. And for that in Isaiah,, it is confessed to be a word of obscure interpretation, and therefore is but by guess translated in that sense. It being a true and common rule, that Hebræi rei sideralis minime curiosi cœlestium nominum penuria laborant. The Jews being but little skilled in astronomy, their language does want proper expres sions for the heavenly bodies; and therefore they are fain * Job xxxviii. 7. Isa. xiv. 12. Fromond. Vesta, t. 3. cap. 2. So 2 Reg. xxiii. 5. ♫, which is interpreted both for the planets and for the twelve signs. sometimes to attribute the same name unto divers constellations. Now if the Holy Ghost had intended to reveal unto us any natural secrets, certainly he would never have omitted the mention of the plancts, Quorum motu nihil est quod de conditoris sapientiâ testatur evidentius apud eos qui capiunt*. Which do so evidently set forth the wisdom of the Creator. And therefore you must know that it is besides the scope of the Old Testament or the New, to discover anything unto us concerning the secrets of philosophy. It is not his intent in the New Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might anyway belong either to the historical, exegetical, or prophetical parts of it: nor is it his intent in the Old Testament, as is well observed by our countryman Master Wright †. Non Mosis aut prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur mathematicas aliquas aut phisicas subtiltates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum & loquendi morem, quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent, sese accommodare. "It is not the endeavour of Moses or the "prophets to discover any mathematical or philosophical "subtilties; but rather to accommodate themselves to "vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are wont to use their infants." True indeed, Moses is there to handle the history of the creation. But it is certain (saith Calvin) that his purpose is to treat only of the visible form of the world, and those parts of it which might be most easily understood by the ignorant and ruder sort of people, and therefore we are not thence to expect the discovery of any natural secret. Artes reconditas aliunde discat qui volet; hic spiritus dei omnes simul sine exceptione docere voluit. As for more hidden arts, they must be looked for elsewhere; the Holy Ghost did here intend to instruct all without exception. And therefore it is observed, that Moses does not anywhere meddle with such matters as were very hard to be conceived; for being to inform the * Keplar. introduct, in Mart. Calvin in 1 Gen, In Epist. ad Gilbert. common people as well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly noted, declaring the original chiefly of those things which are obvious to the sense; and being silent of other things which then could not well be apprehended. And therefore Pererius proposing the question, why the creation of plants and herbs is mentioned, but not of metals and minerals? Answers Quia istarum rerum generatio est vulgo occulta & ignota: Because these things are not so commonly known as the other; and he adds, Moses non omnia, sed manifesta omnibus enarranda suscepit. Moses did not intend to relate unto us the beginnings of all things, but those only which were most evident unto all men. And therefore too, Aquinas observes †, that he writes nothing of the air; because that being invisible, the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason St. Jerom I also thinks that there is nothing exprest concerning the creation of angels; because the rude and ignorant vulgar were not so capable of apprehending their natures. And yet notwithstanding, these are as remarkable parts of the creation, and as fit to be known as another world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too, uses such vulgar expressions, which set things forth rather as they appear than as they are, as when he calls the moon one of the greater lights §, whereas it is the least that we can see in the whole heavens. So afterwards speaking of the great rain which drowned the world, he says, the windows of heaven were opened ||, because it seemed to come with that violence, as if it were poured out from windows in the firmament T. And in reference to this, a drowth is described in sundry other places** by the heavens being shut up. So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things, are not to be understood in a literal sense; but rather as † Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3. So Pererius in 2 Gen. *Com. in 1 Gen. 11. |