This question is much controverted by the _Romish_ Divines; _Campanella_ hath writ a Treatise[1] in defence of it, in whom you may see many things worth the reading and notice.
[Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilaeo._]
To it I answer, that this position in Philosophy, doth not bring any inconvenience to the rest, since tis not _Aristotle_, but truth that should be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both found together, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Master _Plato_,
?f??? ??? ??t??? f?????, ?s??? p??t??? t?? ????e?a?
[Greek: amphoin gar ontoin philoin, hosion protiman ten aletheian].[1]
"Though _Plato_ were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to truth than him."
[Sidenote 1: _Ethic. l. 1. c. 6._]
I must needs grant, that wee 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 tis not ingrat.i.tude to speake against him, when hee opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers would be very guilty, especially _Iustin_, who hath writ a Treatise purposely against him.
But suppose this opinion were false, yet "tis not against the faith, and so it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the sparkes of errour, being forc"d out by opposition, as the sparkes of fire, by the striking of the flint and steele. But suppose too that it were hereticall, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the same priviledge as _Aristotle_, from whom many more dangerous opinions have proceeded: as that the world is eternall, that G.o.d cannot have while to looke after these inferiour things, that after death there is no reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies, which strike directly at the fundamentalls of our Religion.
So that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superst.i.tious in these daies, as to sticke closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as if his Philosophy were the onely foundation of all divine truths.
Upon these grounds both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_ _de firmo_ (as I have seene them quoted) thinke that _Aristotle_ was the viol of G.o.ds wrath, which was powred out upon the waters of Wisedome by the third Angel;[1] But for my part, I thinke the world is much beholden to _Aristotle_ for all its sciences. But yet twere a shame for these later ages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, as if they had informed us of all things to be knowne, and when wee are set upon their shoulders, not to see further then they themselves did.
"Twere a superst.i.tious, a lazie opinion to thinke _Aristotles_ workes the bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could be no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things left to discovery, and it cannot be any inconvenience for us, to maintaine a new truth, or rectifie an ancient errour.
[Sidenote 1: Rev. 16. 4.]
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 beene very imperfect if G.o.d had made another.
2. Saint _John_ speaking of G.o.ds workes, saies he made the world, in the singular number, and therefore there is but one:[1] "tis the argument of _Aquinas_, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with _Democritus_ esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence to be the framer of all things.
[Sidenote 1: Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3.]
3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient time beene accounted a heresie, and _Baronius_ affirmes that for this very reason, _Virgilius_ was cast out of his Bishop.r.i.c.ke, and excommunicated from the Church.[1]
[Sidenote 1: _Annal. Eccl. A.D. 748._]
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 kinde,[1] for this were needlesse, 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 containe universall perfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon by _Iulius Caesar la Galla_,[2] 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 weake, that I dare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see this Author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one world, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlesse paines to dispute against _Democritus_, who thought that the world was made by the casuall concourse of _atoms_ in a great _vacuum_. It should seeme, that either his cause, or his skill was weake, or else he would have ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have set downe, 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.
[Sidenote 1: _Ibid._]
[Sidenote 2: _De Phaenom. in orbe lunae._]
Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of Scripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the fundamentalls of Religion.
But you"le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet "tis probable if there had beene another world, wee should have had some notice of it in Scripture.
I answer, "tis 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 _Psalmes_ (the places most frequent in Astronomicall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne and Moone, and moreover, you must know, that "tis besides the scope of the Holy Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale any thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; "tis not his intent in the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any way belong either to the Historicall exegeticall or propheticall parts of it: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by our Countrey-man Master WRIGHT.[1]
_Non Mosis aut Prophetarum inst.i.tutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum & loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese accommodare._
""Tis not the endeavour of _Moses_ or the Prophets to discover any Mathematicall or Philosophicall subtilties, but rather to accmodate themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are wont to use their infants."
True indeede, _Moses_ is there to handle the history of the Creation, but "tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as were very hard to be apprehended, for being to informe the common people as well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly noted, declaring the originall chiefely of those things which were obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things, which then could not well be apprehended. And therefore _Aquinas_ observes,[2] that _Moses_ writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible, the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason Saint _Austin_ also thinkes that there is nothing exprest concerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as remarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as another world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions which set things forth rather as they appeare, then as they are,[3] as when he calls the Moone one of the greater lights ????? ?????? whereas "tis the least, but one that wee can see in the whole heavens. So afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world,[4] he saies, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to come with that violence, as if it were, poured out from windows in the Firmament.[5] So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather as vulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint _Austin_, where speaking concerning that in the Psalme, _who stretched the earth upon the waters_,[6] hee notes, that when the words of Scripture shall seeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be understood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And "tis observed that for want of this rule, some of the ancients have fastened strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint _Ambrose_ esteemed it a heresie, to thinke, that the Sunne and starres were not very hot, as being against the words of Scripture,[7] _Psalm._ 19. 6. where the _Psalmist_ sayes that there is nothing that is hid from the heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to be round, out of that place, _Psal._ 104. 2. _Hee stretcheth out the heavens like a curtaine._[8] 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 _Psal._ 24. 2. _Hee hath founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the flouds._ These and such like absurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophie in the words of Scripture. So that from what hath beene 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.
[Sidenote 1: _In Epist. ad Gilbert._]
[Sidenote 2: Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3.]
[Sidenote 3: Gen. 1. 16]
[Sidenote 4: Gen. 11.]
[Sidenote 5: Sr. _W. Rawly_ c. 7. --. 6.]
[Sidenote 6: l. 2. in Gen. / Psal. 136. 6.]
[Sidenote 7: Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. / Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.]
[Sidenote 8: _Com. in c. 1. Gen._]
Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by others, to shew the ignorance of those primative times, who did sometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur"d the lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for hereticall, because they themselves could not perceive a reason of it, and therefore their practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us.
But lastly I answer to all the above named objections, that the terme World, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole Universe, as it implies in it the elementary and aethereall bodies, the starres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiour World consisting of elements. Now the maine 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, seeme 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, _qud sit alius mundus sub terra, aliusque Sol & Luna_, (as _Baronius_) that within our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne and Moone, and so he might seeme 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 said to be in the Moone, whose creation is particularly exprest.
So that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, which is all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second sense, and so I affirme there may be more nor doe any of the above named objections prove the ctrary.
Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdome (as _Aquinas_ thinkes) but rather advance it, shewing a _compendium_ of providence, that could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world for habitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of the whole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onely for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of the whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe,[1]
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 helpe of others without it.
[Sidenote 1: _Cusa.n.u.s de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12._]
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 applied in the opinion.
It may next be enquired; whether "tis possible there may be a globe of elements in that which we call the aethereall parts of the Universe; for if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged from any change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine any element there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke out some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore shall be this.
Proposition 3.
_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these inferiour bodies are liable unto._
It hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and Philosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavens are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure elements, as _Aristotle_[1] holds, and with him some of the late Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore they themselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent, were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest by their owne[2]* side. It were much to be desired, thst these men had not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without necessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to finde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments, since "tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary consequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of the bookes _de Clo._
[Sidenote 1: _De Clo., l. 1. cap. 2._]