The Wonderful Workmanship of the World, Discourse · Chapter 3
The thirde Chapter. From whence the knowledge of the Generall naturall Phyloſophie is to bee had moſt ſafely.
S.
THeſe thinges I vnderſtande, proceede to the reſidue.
M.
The next is, that wee diſcuſſe from whēce this knowledge is to bee drawn & taken, bycauſe in this point wee diſagree from certein, who ſuppoſe that it maye more ſafely and certeinly bee deriued out of ye bookes of prophane Philoſophers, thā the holy Scriptures: in that they ſaye that it is not all ſet foorth in the Scripture, and if haply there bee anye parte thereof conteined therein, it is confuſedly handled, not by any art or order.
S.
From whence then, doe you iudge, maye the knowledge of naturall Philoſophie moſt conueniently bee taken?
M.
Uerily of that part which beefore wee tearmed generall naturall Philoſophie the knowledge is chiefly to bee learned out of holy Scripture. And of that which wee called Particular out of the woorkes of Phiſitions, or of others which hauehave written the hiſtories of Plantes, and of lyuinge thinges.
S.
How proue you that?
M.
Firſt I ſuppoſe, this is agreed vpō by all men of ſoūd iudgement, that eueryevery workman can beſt and trulieſt talke and diſpute in his owne Art, and that hee is rather to bee beleeued therin than any other. But what woorkmans woorkmanſhip, thincke you, is thys worlde? Is it any others than Gods onelyonly? ſo that wee ought to beleeue none rather than him, who in hys woorde teacheth vsus the maner and order of framinge his woorke, that is to ſaye, the worlde. To bee ſhorte, who knoweth, ſeeth, and vnderſtandeth more truely the cauſes of all things, their properties, effectes, the maner of their beeing, & the times when firſt they began, then hee who is the maker of them all, and the perpetuall gouernour of them all? who beeing GOD, and ſence hee him ſelfe telleth theſe thinges, what man will at anye time bee ſo mad, but to thinke that hee is rather to bee harkened vntounto in thys reſpect and all other writers to bee neglected? Truely wee, as alſo all other Philoſophers, howſoeuer ſurpaſſing in wit, & abounding in leaſure, what ſoeuer diligence they employed in ſtudy, yet could neuer neither wee nor they attayne vntounto certaine obſcure ſlender ſparkes of naturall Philoſophie. And whatſoeuer we define cōcerning theſe matters without the woorde of God, it is ſo vncerteine, doubtfull, variable, and contrarie to it ſelfe, and many times ſo contrarie to the trueth that in the ende wee are aſhamed that wee either learned ſo, or taught ſo: which may appeare to be true, if it wer but only out of Plutarchus booke De Placitis Philoſophorum, Of the opinions of Philoſophers: whereas that excellent learned man, and great Philoſopher ſheweth yt neuer two of them agreed in the knowledge of the things yt are created.
S.
Can you confirme the trueth of your opinion, by the auchoritie of Gods woord, to wit, that this knowledge may well and ſafely bee learned out of the holy ſcriptures?
M.
Yeas verily.
S.
Recite them I pray you.
M.
The firſt teſtimonie, is that which is writen euidently in the epiſtle to the Hebrues in theſe woords: Through Faith wee vnderſtande, that the worlde was made by the woorde of God. Wherefore wee vnderſtande theſe thinges by Faith. If by Faith, then by the holy ſcripture, for ther can bee no faith without the ſcripture. And therfore wee muſt certainely conclude, that the true and certeine knowledge concerninge theſe matters, is declared vntounto vsus by the holy ſcripture. The ſeconde aucthoritie is the 1. chapter of Geneſis. For Moſes, who at the commaundement and appointment of God wrot that hiſtorie of all other moſt excellent and wounderfull, of the beginninge of the worlde, and creation of all thinges, is either a vaine fellowe, or a lier, if the knowledge of naturall Philoſophie be not conteined in the holy Scripture. For what other thing doth hee in that booke, than briefly, howbeit truely and orderly, ſet downe the originall of thinges, and theyr vertues, natures, and effectes, that is to ſay, Naturall Philoſophie? The thyrde is, a place in the Prouerbes the viii. Chapiter, and the 20. verſe, & the nexte folowinge, where it is ſaied, that all thinges were created by the wyſdome of God, and afterwarde as they were created, ſo are they preſerued. The fourth aucthoritie, is alleaged out of the 42. Chapiter, and 17. verſe of Eccleſiaſt. This wiſdome hath God giuen to his Sainctes, (ſaith hee,) that they might recoumpt all his miracles and workes, and ſearch them all, yea hell it ſelfe &c. wherevnto wee may adde that which is written in the vii. chapiter of the booke of VViſedom the 22. verſe, and the next folowing. Finally, let vsus heare the moſte holye Martyr of God, and good Father Irenaeus, who in his ſeconde booke, and 2. Chapter ſaithe thus: To whom therefore shall wee giuegive more credit concerning the framing of the worlde: to thoſe that wee ſpake of beefore ſo iangling in folly and inconſtancie, or to the Diſciples of the Lorde, and the ſeruant and Prophet of God Moſes, who firſt reuealed the creation of the worlde? The ſelfe ſame thing S. Baſell, and S. Ambroſe, and S. Chriſoſtome in the prefaces of their Exameron or Six dayes woorke, doe with one conſent, and plainely confirme, ſo that whoſo ſhall deney that the knowledge of Naturall Philoſophie may not truely and commod…ouſly bee learned out of holy ſcripture, gainſaith the ſacred woorde of GOD, and openly repugneth againſt the learned Fathers. In concluſiō, hearken to …ertullian, who in the 46. chapter of hys Apologet: doth truely and plainly pronounce, that the ſacred woorde of God, which is moſt auncient, was as it were, the treaſurie and ſtoarehouſe vntounto all later wiſdom. From thence, ſaith hee, the Philoſophers hauehave quenched the thirſt of their wits. But as men that were ouer riotous in the ſtudy onelyonly of glorie and eloquence, if they found any thyng in holy ſcripture, when they had digeſted it according to the purpoſe of their curioſitie, they conuerted it to their owne woorkes.
S.
Doe they that are of the contrarie opinion, bring nothing againſt thys?
M.
Yeas, two argumentes eſpecially.
S.
What bee they?
M.
This is the firſt. That the ende of eueryevery art ought to bee diſtinguiſhed, and that Naturall Philoſophie is one thing, and Diuinitie another: whereof thys laſt is conteined in holie write, but the other is not ſo.
S.
Is that conſequent, and aſſertion true?
M.
No verily.
S.
Howe ſo?
M.
For that, although they gather that truly, that artes ought to bee diſtinguiſhed, and that Diuinitie, which conteineth the promiſes of euerlaſtinge lyfe, teaching alſo the waye thervnto, and the cauſes thereof, ought to bee ſeparated from Naturall Philoſophie, whiche entreateth of the framinge of this viſible worlde, and the natures of all thinges in the ſame: yet doe they not ſay truely, in denyinge that the order of the creation of this world, the ſundrie kindes of things, their natures, & manifold ſortes are taught, diſtinguiſhed, and orderly ſet downe in holy Scripture. All theſe thinges are copiouſly declared there, which are the peculiar ſubiect & matter of the Art of Natural Philoſophie. Wherefore Naturall Philoſophie is comprehended in holy ſcripture. The ſame alſo you may learne by another example: are not Diuinitie and the morall parte of Philoſophie, both of them as they differ in kinde diſcerned in the holy ſcriptures? And yet who is ſo raſbe and foliſhe, that he dare deny that the Ethike or moral Philoſophie, yea and that moſt truly and generally is deliuered vntounto vsus in holie ſcripture? wherefore the diſtinct endes of Artes and treatiſes, are no impediment, but that the Generall Naturall Philoſophie, and alſo Diuinitie are conteined in the holy Scriptures, forſomuch as Natural Philoſophic is, as it were a parte of Diuinitie, and an handmaidē vntounto the ſame. For it is a notable meane to knowe God by: which thing alſo S, Ambroſe confeſſeth with mee. What ſhall I ſaye more? The Heathen Philoſophers them ſelues, when they diſpute of the worlde, and the creation of the partes therof, and when they intreat of the nature of thinges, they ſaye that thei play the Diuines, and enter into diſcourſe of Diuinitie, as Ariſtotle ſpeaketh in his booke de mundo of the worlde: ſo that it is no maruaile that wee hauehave iudged that the true and Chriſtian Diuinitie is partly buſied alſo in matter of Naturall Philoſophie, and the ſettinge foorth thereof, and that for that cauſe alſo the holie Scripture is in part occupied in ſettinge foorth of theſe things, foraſmuch as this knowledge alſo maketh to the aduauncement of gods glory. For in theſe viſible thinges the power, wiſdome, and eternitie of God is to bee ſeene liuely.
S.
What is the other argument of theirs, that are of the contrarie opinion?
M.
This forſooth, that thoſe thynges which Moſes hath written are moſt plainely and ſimply ſet downe, and in ſuch kinde of ſtile which is fitted to our capacitie and applied to the weakeneſſe of mans ſence, and not truely and exactly expreſſed according to the truth of thinges: and finally that Moſes doeth neither throughly, neither ſubtily ſearch out or ſet downe the thinges themſelues, and their natures: wherefore, they conclude, that the true, diſtinct, and perfect knowledge of the naturall part, is other whence to bee drawne, and learned.
S.
What anſwere you vntounto theſe thinges?
M.
Uerily, I confeſſe, yt theſe matters concerning Naturall Philoſophie, are not gloriouſly & in a filed ſtyle ſet foorth by Moſes although hee were the beſte learned man that euer lyued, but rather in a bare and ſimple kinde of writinge, ſtriped out of all ornament, as it were out of apparrell, wherby that which hee writeth may the more eaſily bee vnderſtood. But, as it is to bee graunted that hee ſpake ſimply, ſo can it not bee prooued that hee ſpake or wrote lyingly, falſely, and ignorantly of thoſe thinges. It is one thing therfore, to acknowledg that Moſes ſtile is bare & ſimple, which kinde of vtteraūce is meet for the truth: and another thing to ſay that hee is a falſe man and a lyar: which no man can affirme, but whoſo is of a corrupt conſcience. Wherfore ſimply, but truely: barely, but rightly: commonly, but purely, doth hee deliuer vntounto vsus thoſe thinges which hee writeth, concerning the worlde, of the principall partes therof, of the cauſes and effectes of thinges, to bee beleeued, holden, and taughte among menne. Uerily, I confeſſe, that Moſes applyed himſelfe to ye capacitie of our ſēſes: Howbeit, I deney yt which they affirme, yt therfore hee did not roue at the trueth of ye matter, or had not regarde vntounto it: for it was his purpoſe to ſet downe thoſe things in wr… tinge eaſily, barely, and truely.
S.
But ſome are of opinion, that all thoſe things which hee wrote in the firſt chapter of Geneſis, are to bee interpreted allegorically. So neither do they think that thoſe ſix dayes are the ſpace of time, neither that the woman in deede was made of Adams ribbe, neither that all the reſidue are ſo to bee taken as Moſes words doe pretende, and ſownde. Which opinion if it be true, what ſhall bee ſure or certeine in all that whole chapter, and ſuch like writinges of other Prophetes, as apperteining to the knowledge of Naturall Philoſophie, or that maye teache vsus the ſame?
M.
You ſaye well. Indeede ſome hauehave benne of that opinion, which notwithſtanding S. Auguſtine confuteth in his 1. booke in the Proheme, & alſo in the 8. booke and 2. chapter de Geneſiad Literam, of Geneſis vponupon the letter. S. Peter likewyſe in the 3. chapter, and 5. verſe of hys ſeconde Epiſtle: and in the epiſtle to the Hebrues the 11. chapter, and 3. verſe, doth openly impungne this errour of the Allegoriſts, affirminge that thoſe things which Moſes hath reported concerning the creation of the worlde are ſpoken naturally, and plainly: and not allegorically, or figuratiuely.
S.
And what at the length, doe you conclude of all theſe thinges, which you hauehave recited?
M.
That forſooth, which S. Auguſtine concludeth in hys 5. booke, and 8. chapter of Geneſis. That thoſe things which Moſes wrot, are true, although they can be eſtabliſhed by no other reaſons. For if a man will diſpute to proue that theſe thinges are falſe, or hee himſelfe can ſay no certentie concerning the eſtate and gouerment of creatures: or if hee ſaye not true, will hee ſuppoſe theſe thinges to bee falſe in that hee himſelfe vnderſtandeth them not? Who will beleeue that Ariſtotle or Plato, did knowe any thinge concerninge the creation of the worlde and the cauſes of thinges, whereof Moſes was ignorant? who firſt receiued the thinges which he wrote, by moſt ſecret reuelation from God. Secondly, who was wel learned in all liberall artes ſpecially in the knowledge of Naturall Philoſophie, and Phiſick (which two artes were at that tyme ſpecially had in price amonge the Aegyptians) as it appeareth in ye Scripture, Actes the 7. chap. and 22. verſe. And to conclude, foraſmuch as thoſe yt were ye chiefeſt Philoſophers amonge the Grecians, traueyled into Aegypt to the intent to learne Naturall Philoſophie, as hiſtories doe rport of Plato and Pithageras. And moſt certeine it is, (as Diogenes Laertius writeth, in hys firſt booke de vitis Philoſophorum, of the lyues of the Philoſophers) that all that parte of Philoſophie whiche intreateth of the nature of thinges, was deriued to the Grecians frō ſtrange nations, and from the Syrians, that is to ſaie, from the Jewes. Shal we ſay thē, againſt ye aſſured faith of ye ſcripture that any one of the cheifeſt Philoſophers, to wit, Plato or Ariſtotle, whiche were heathen men, were called by GOD to counſell when hee went to framinge and creatinge of the worlde, that they ſhoulde knowe more than Moſes the ſeruaunt of GOD, whom God himſelfe taught, and ſhewed vntounto him ſuch things as hee ſhould commit to writinge to the behoofe of Poſteritie, and eſpecially for the inſtruction of his moſte deerely beeloued Church? Surely this cannot bee thaught, muchleſſe ſpoken, without notorious blaſphemie againſt God himſelfe. But rather as S. Auguſtine teacheth in his 5. booke and third Chapter de Geneſiad Literam, of Geneſis vpō the letter: that in that Moſes ſpeaketh ſo plainly, hee doth it by the aſſured counſell and iudgemente of the holy Ghoſt: to the intent that, by the hight of the thynges hee maye terrifie the proude, by the deapth hee may hold them attentiue, by the trueth hee may feede the great ones, and by hys affabilitie hee maye nouriſhe the little ones.