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 planets, Quorum motu nihil est quod de conditoris sapientiá 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 subtillates 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 ‡ 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. 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 *Com. in I Gen. 11. ↑ Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3. § Gen. i. 16. Sir Walter Rawl. cap. 7. sect. 6. vulgar expressions; and this rule is set down by St. Austin*, where speaking concerning that in the psalm, who stretched the earth upon the waters, he notes, that when the words of scripture shall seem to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be understood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And it is observed, that for wan. of this rule †, some of the ancients have fastened strange absurdities upon the words of the scripture. So St. Ambrose esteemed it a heresy to think that the sun and stars were not very hot, as being against the words of scripture, Psalm xix. 6. where the Psalmist says, that there is nothing that is hid from the heat of the sun. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to be round, out of that place, Psalm civ. 2. He stretched out the heavens like a curtain. So Procopius also was of opinion, that the earth was founded upon the waters; nay, he made it part of his faith, proving it out of Psalm xxiv. 2. He hath founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. These and such like absurdities have followed, when men look for the grounds of philosophy in the words of scripture. So that, from what hath been said, I may conclude that the silence of scripture concerning any other world, is not sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two first arguments. Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by others, to shew the ignorance of those primitive times, who did sometimes condemn what they did not understand; and have often censured the lawful and undoubted parts of mathematics for heretical, because they themselves could not perceive a reason of it. And therefore their practice in this particular is no sufficient testimony against us. But lastly, I answer to all the above-named objections, that the term (world) may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole universe, as it implies in it *L. 2. in Gen. Ps. cxxxvi. 6. † Hexamer lib. 2. Item Basil, Hom. 3. in Gen. Wisd. li. 4. xvii. 5. Ecclus. xliii. 3, 4. Com, in c. 1 Gen. the elementary and æthercal bodies, the stars and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferior world, consisting of elements. Now the main drift of all these arguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense; and if there were any such, it might (perhaps) seem strange, that Moses or St. John should either not know, or not mention its creation. And Virgilius was condemned for this opinion, because he held quod sit alius mundus sub terra, aliusque sol & luna, (as Baronius) that within our globe of earth, there was another world, another sun and moon, and so he might seem to exclude this from the number of the other creatures. But now there is no such danger in this opinion, which is here delivered; since this world is said to be in the moon, whose creation is particularly expressed. So that in the first sense, I yield that there is but one world, which is all that the arguments do prove; but understand it in the second sense, and so I affirm there may be more, nor do any of the above-named objections prove the contrary. Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine wisdom (as Aquinas thinks) but rather advance it, shewing a compendium of Providence, that could make the same body a world, and a moon; a world for habitation, and a moon for the use of others, and the ornament of the whole frame of nature. For as the members of the body serve not only for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of the whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves itself; so is it in the parts of the universe, where each one may serve as well for the conservation of that which is within it, as the help of others without it. Mersennus a late jesuit †, proposing the question whether or no the opinion of more worlds than one, be heretical and *Cusanus de Doct. Ignor. 1. 2. c. 12. against the faith? He answers it negatively; because it does not contradict any express place of scripture, or determination of the church. And though (saith he) it seems to be a rash opinion, as being against the consent of the fathers; yet if this controversy be chiefly philosophical, then their authorities are not of such weight. Unto this it may be added, that the consent of the fathers is prevalent only in such points as were first controverted amongst them, and then generally decided one way, and not in such other particulars as never fell under their examination and dispute. I have now in some measure shewed that a plurality of worlds does not contradict any principle of reason or place of scripture; and so cleared the first part of that supposition which is implied in the opinion. It may next be enquired, whether it is possible there may be a globe of elements in that which we call the æthereal parts of the universe; for if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be privileged from any change or corruption, it will be in vain then to imagine any element there; and if we will have another world, we must then seek out some other place for its situation. The third proposition therefore shall be this. PROP. III. That the heavens do not consist of any such pure matter, which can privilege them from the like change and corruption as these inferior bodies are liable unto. I T hath been often questioned amongst the ancient fathers and philosophers, what kind of matter that should be of which the heavens are framed. Some think that they consist of a fifth substance distinct from the four elements, as Aristotle holds, and with him *De Cælo, lib. 1. cap. 2. |