Book 2, Proposition 4. That divers learned men have fallen into great absurdities, whilest they have looked for the grounds of Philosophy from the words of Scripture (part 2)

← Back to the beginning of Book 2, Proposition 4. That divers learned men have fallen into great absurdities, whilest they have looked for the grounds of Philosophy from the words of Scripture

¹⁰ S. Austin concludes the visible Stars to be innumerable, because Scripture phrases seeme to imply as much.

That the Heavens are not round, was the opinion of¹¹ Iustin Martyr,¹² Ambrose,¹³ Chrysostome,¹⁴ Theodoret,¹⁵ Theophilact, doubted of by¹⁶ S. Austin and divers others. Nay, S. Chrysostome was so confident of it, that he proposes the question in a triumphant manner: […]. Where are those men that can proove the Heavens to have a sphaericall Forme. The reason of which was this, Because ‘tis said in one Scripture, that God stretched forth the Heavens as a curtain, Psal. 104. 2. and spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in, Isai. 40. 22. And so in that place of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, 8. 2. they are called a Tent or Tabernacle: which because it is not sphaericall, therefore they conclude also, that the Heavens are not of that Forme; whereas now, the contrary is as evident as demonstration can make a thing. And therefore,¹⁷ S. Ierome in his time, speaking of the same errour, gives it this plaine censure: Est in Ecclesia stulti loquium, si quis Coelum putet fornicis modo curvatum, Esaiae quem non intelligit sermone deceptus. ‘Tis foolish speaking in the Church, if any through misapprehension of those words in Isaiah, shall affirm the Heavens not to be round.

That the Seas not overflowing the land is a miracle, was the opinion of¹⁸ Basil, (Commen. in Ioh) Chrisostome,¹⁹ Theodoret,²⁰ Ambrose,²¹ Nazianzen, and since them,²² Aquinas,²³ Luther, d Calvin, * Marlorate, with sundry others. Which they prooved from these Scripture expressions, that in Iob 38. 8. 11. Who hath shut up the Sea with doores, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb; when I did break up for it my decreed place; and set bars and doores, and said, hitherto shalt thou come, and no further, and here shall the pride of thy waves be staid. So likewise, Prov. 8. 29. God gave to the Sea his decree, that the Waters should not passe his commandement. And Ierem. 5. 22. I have placed the sand for a bound of the Sea by a perpetuall decree that they cannot passe it: and though the waves thereof crosse themselves, yet can they not prevaile; though they roare, yet can they not passe over, that they turne not againe to cover the Earth. In all which places (say they) ‘tis implied, that the water of it selfe, were it not withheld from it’s own naturall inclination by a more speciall power of God, would overflow the Land.

Others inferre the same conclusion with that in Ecclesiastes, where the rivers are said to come from the Sea; which they could not doe, unlesse that were higher. I answer: They should as well consider the later part of that Scripture, which sayes, that the Rivers returne to that place from whence they came, and then the force of this consequence will vanish. To this purpose, some urge that speech of our Saviour, where hee bids Simon to launch forth into the deep;²⁴ the Latine word is, in altum; from whence, they gather that the Sea is higher than the Land. But this savours so much of Monkish ignorance, that it deserves rather to be laughed at, than to bee answered.

But now if we consider the true properties of this Element, according to the rules of Philosophy: we shall finde, that it’s not overflowing the Land is so farre from being a miracle, that it is a necessarie consequence of it’s nature; and ‘twould rather be a miracle, if it should be otherwise, as it was in the generall deluge. The reason is, because the water of it self must necessarily descend to the lowest place; which it cannot do, unlesse it be collected in a sphaericall Forme, as you may plainly discerne in this Figure.

Where the Sea at D. may seeme to be higher than a mountaine at B, or C. because the rising of it in the midst do’s so intercept our sight from either of those places, that wee cannot looke in a streight line, from the one to the other. So that it may seem to be no lesse than a miracle, by which the sea (being a heavy body) was withheld from flowing down to those lower places of B, or C. But now, if you consider that the ascending of a body is it’s motion from the centre, and descent is it’s approaching unto it: you shall find· that for the Sea to moove from D. to B· or C. is a motion of Ascent, which is contrary to it’s nature, because the mountaine at B, or C. are farther off from the centre, than the Sea at D. the Lines A, B. and A, C. being longer than the other A, D. So that for the Sun to keep alwaies in it’s channell, is but agreeable to it’s nature, as being a heavy body. But the meaning of those Scriptures, is, to set forth the power and wisedome of God: who hath appointed these channels for it, and beset it with such strong banks to withstand the fury of it’s waves. Or if these men doe so much rely on naturall points, upon the bare words of Scripture, they might easily bee confuted from those other places, where God is said to have founded the Earth upon the Seas, and establisht it upon the Flouds. From the literall interpretation of which, many of the Antients have fallen into another errour: affirming the Water to be in the lower place; and as a basis, whereon the weight of the Earth was borne up. Of this opinion were²⁵ Clemens Alexandrinus,²⁶ Athanasius,²⁷ Hillarie,²⁸ Eusebius, and others. So that it seemes, if a man should resolutely adhere to the bare words of the scripture, he might find contradiction in it: of which, the naturall meaning is altogether incapable.²⁹ S. Ierome tells us of some who would proove Starres to have understanding, from that place in Isaiah, 45. 13. My hands have stretched out the Heavens, and all their hoast have I commanded. Now (say they) none but intelligent creatures are capable of Precepts; and therefore, the Starres must needs have rationall Soules. Of this opinion was³⁰ Philo the Iew: nay, many of the Rabbies conclude, that they do everie houre sing praises unto God with an audible reall voice.³¹ Because of that in Iob 38. 7. which speakes of the Morning Starres singing together. And Psal. 19. 3, 4. where ‘tis said of the Heavens, that there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard, and their words are gone to the ends of the World. And whereas wee translate that place in the tenth of Iosuah, concerning the standing still of the Heavens: the originall Word, […] do’s properly signifie Silence, and according to their opinion, Iosuah did onely bid them hold their peace. From such grounds, ‘tis likely did³² Origen fetch his opinion, that the Stars should be saved. I might set downe many other the like instances, were it not for being alreadie weary of raking into the errours of antiquitie, or uncovering the nakednesse of our Forefathers. That excuse of³³ Acosta may justly serve to mitigate the mistakes of these antient Divines: Facilè condonandum est patribus, si cum cognoscendo colendóque Creatoritoti vacarent, de creaturâ minus aptè aliqua ex parte opinati sunt. Those good men were so wholly busied about the knowledge and worship of the Creator, that they had not leisure enough for an exact search into the Essence of the Creatures. However, these examples that have been alreadie cited, may sufficiently manifest, how frequently others have been deceived, in concluding the points of Philosophy from the expressions of Scripture. And therefore, ‘tis not certaine, but that in the present case also, it may bee insufficient for such a manner of arguing.

← Book 2, Proposition 3. That the Holy Ghost, in many places of Scripture, do’s · Contents · Book 2, Proposition 5. That the Scripture in it’s proper construction, do’s not →

Schickard. Bechin. Haperu. Disp. 5. num. 8. ↩
Schickard. ib. Disp. 6. num. 2. ↩
Buxtor. Synag. Iuda. cap. 36. ↩
Vide Parap. Chald. ↩
Respons. ad ques. 93. Orthod. ↩
Que. 11. sup. Gen. ↩
De Civ. Dei, lib. 11. cap. ult. ↩
Hexam. lib. 2. cap. 2. ↩
Homil. 3. in Gen. ↩
De civit. dei, l. 16. c. 23 ↩
Respon. ad quest. 93. ↩
Hexam. lib. 1. cap. 6. ↩
Homil. 14. in epist. ad Hebr. ↩
In ca. 8. Hebr. ↩
In idem c. ↩
In Gen. ad lit. li. 1. c. 9. Item l. 2. c. 6 ↩
Lib 3. Comment. in Galat. ca. 5. ↩
Homil. 4. Hexam. ↩
In Psal. 103. ↩
Hexam. lib. 3. c. 2, 3. ↩
Orat. 34. ↩
Aquinas part. 1. quest. 69· art. 1. ↩
Commen. in Psal. 24. Item in Ps. 136. 6. ↩
Luke 5. 4. […]. ↩
Recog. 8. ↩
Orat. con[…]. Idolos. ↩
In Psal. 136. 6. ↩
Ia Ps. 24. ↩
Comment. in Isai. l. 13. ↩
De plant. Noe. ↩
Tostatus in Iosh. cap. 10. quest. 13, 14. ↩
Tom. 1. in Iohan. ↩
De nat. novi orbis, lib. 1. cap. 2. ↩

← Back to the beginning of Book 2, Proposition 4. That divers learned men have fallen into great absurdities, whilest they have looked for the grounds of Philosophy from the words of Scripture

Footnotes