That he did vex himselfe and sweat in his desires, as being pend up in a narrow roome, when hee was confin’d but to one world. Before, he thought to seat himselfe next the Gods; but now, when hee had done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps superiour Kings.

It may be, that Aristotle was moved to this opinion, that hee might thereby take from Alexander the occasion of this feare and discontent; or else, perhaps, Aristotle himselfe was as loth to hold the possibility of a world which he could not discover, as Alexander was to heare of one which he could not conquer. ‘Tis likely that some such by-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments hee urges for it, are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very fleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to prove, that there is not any evidence in the light of naturall reason, which can sufficiently manifest that there is but one world.

But however some may object, would it not be inconvenient and dangerous to admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of Aristotle, which all the world hath so long followed?

This question is much controverted by some of the Romish Divines;⁸ Campanella hath writ a Treatise in defence of it, in whom you may see many things worth the reading and notice.

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, we may say to him, as hee said to his Master Plato, ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.⁹ Though Plato were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to truth than him.

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 ingratitude to speak 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 sparks of errour, being forc’d out by opposition, as the sparks 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 God 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 fundamentals of our Religion.

So that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superstitious in these dayes, as to stick closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as if his Philosophy were the onely foundation of all divine truths.

Vpon these grounds both St. Vincentius and Serafinus de firmo (as I have seene them quoted) think that Aristotle was the violl of Gods wrath, which was powred out upon the waters of wisedom by the third Angel; (Rev. 16. 4) But for my part, I think the world is much beholden to him 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 we are set upon their shoulders, not to see further than they themselves did. ‘Twere a superstitious, a lazie opinion to think Aristotles works 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.

But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture, for

1. Moses tels us but of one world, and his History of the Creation had been very imperfect, if God had made another.

2. Saint Iohn speaking of Gods works, says hee made the world, in the singular number, and therefore there is but one: ‘tis the argument of Aquinas,¹⁰ 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.

3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient times beene accounted a heresie, and Baronius affirmes that for this very reason Virgilius was cast out of his Bishoprick, and excommunicated from the Church.¹¹

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; (Ibid) for this were needlesse, and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection than the other; not of divers kindes, 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,¹² 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 later Author in that place, where hee 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.

Vnto 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’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 Iob, nor the Psalmes (the places most frequent in Astronomicall observations) nor any other Scripture mention any of them but the Sunne and Moone. Because the difference betwixt them and the other starres, was knowne onely to those who were learned men, and had skill in Astronomie. As for that expression in Iob כוכבי בקר the starres of the morning,¹³ it is in the plurall number, and therefore cannot properly be applied to Venus. And for that in Isaiah הילל, ‘tis confessed to be a word of obscure interpretation, (Isai. 14. 12) and therefore is but by guesse translated in that sence. It being a true and common rule,¹⁴ that Hebraei reisideralis minime curiosi coelestium nominum penuriâ laborant. The Jewes being but little skilled in Astronomie,¹⁵ their language dos want proper expressions for the heavenly bodies,¹⁶ and therefore they are faine sometimes to attribute the same name unto divers constellations.

Now if the Holy Ghost had intended to reveale unto us any naturall secrets, certainly hee would never have omitted the mention of the planets, Quorum motu nihilest quod de Conditoris sapientiâ testatur evidentius apud eos qui capiunt.¹⁷ Which doe so evidently set forth the wisedome of the Creator. And therefore you must know that ‘tis besides the scope of the old Testament or the new, to discover any thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; ‘tis not his intent in the new Testament, since wee cannot conceive how it might any way belong either to the Historical, 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.¹⁸ Non Mosis aut Prophetarum institutum 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 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 ‘tis certaine (saith Calvin) that his purpose is to treat only of the visible forme of the world,¹⁹ 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 naturall 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 else-where; the Holy Ghost did here intend to instruct all without exception. And therefore ‘tis observed, that Moses does not any where meddle with such matters as were very hard to be conceived; 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 are obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things which then could not well be apprehended. And therefore Pererius proposing the question,²⁰ why the Creation of plants & herbs is mentioned, but not of mettalls and mineralls?

Answers. Quia istarum rerum generatio est vulgo occulta & ignota. Because these things are not so commonly knowne as the other; and hee adds, Moses non omnia, sed manifesta omnibus enarranda suscepit. Moses did not intend to relate unto us the beginnings of all things, but those onely which were most evident unto all men.²¹ And therefore too, Aquinas observes that hee writes nothing of the ayre, because that being invisible, the people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this very reason, St. Ierom also thinks that there is nothing exprest concerning the Creation of Angels,²² because the rude and ignorant vulgar were not so capable of apprehending their natures.²³ And yet notwithstanding, these are as remarkable parts of the Creation, 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, than as they are, as when he calls the Moone one of the greater lights, (Gen. 1. 16) whereas ‘tis the least that wee can see in the whole heavens. So afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world;²⁴ hee sayes, (Mala. 3. 10) The windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to come with that violence,²⁵ as if it were poured out from windowes in the Firmament.

And in reference to this, a drowth is described in sundry other (Deut. 11. 17) places by the heavens being shut up. (1 Reg. 3. 35) So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning these things, (Luk. 4. 25) are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather as vulgar expressions; and this rule is set down by Saint Austin,²⁶ where speaking concerning that in the Psalm, who stretched the earth upon the waters, he notes that when the words of Scripture shall seeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be understood in a qualified sence, and not according to the letter. And ‘tis observed, that for want of this rule, some of the Ancients have fastned strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture.²⁷ So Saint Ambrose esteemed it a heresie to think that the Sunne and Starres were not very hot,²⁸ as being against the words of Scripture, (Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5) Psalm. 19. 6. where the Psalmist sayes, (Ecclus. 43. 3. 4) that there is nothing that is hid from the heat of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens not to be round, out of that place, Psal. 104. 2. Hee stretched out the heavens like a curtaine.²⁹ So Procopius also was of opinion, that the earth was founded upon the waters; nay, hee made it part of his faith, proving it out of Psal. 24. 2. He hath founded the earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. These and such like absurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophy 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.

Vnto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by others, to shew the ignorance of those primitive times, who did sometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur’d the lawfull and undoubted parts of Mathematicks for hereticall, because they themselves could not perceive a reason of it. And therefore their practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimonie 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 Vniuerse, as it implies in it the elementarie 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, seem strange, that Moses, or St. Iohn should either not know, or not mention its creation. And Virgilius was condemned for this opinion, because hee held quòd sit alius mundus sub terrâ, 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 is 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 doe 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 contrary.

Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisedom (as Aquinas thinks) 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 convenience of the whole,³⁰ as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe; so is it in the parts of the Vniverse, 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 Jesuite,³¹ proposing the question whether or no the opinion of more worlds than one, be hereticall and against the faith? He answers it negatively, because it does not contradict any expresse place of Scripture, or determination of the Church. And though (saith he) it seemes to be a rash opinion, as being against the consent of the Fathers; yet if this controversie be chiefly Philosophicall, then their authorities are not of such weight. Vnto this it may be added, that the consent of the Fathers is prevalent onely 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,³² and so cleared the first part of that supposition which is implied in the opinion.

It may next be enquired, whether ‘tis possible there may be a globe of elements in that which wee call the aethereall parts of the Vniverse; for if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged 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 seeke out some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore shall be this.

---

← Book 1, Proposition 1, by way of Preface · Contents · Book 1, Proposition 3. That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure →

Footnotes

1. De Coelo l. 1. c. 8. 9. ↩

2. De operibus Dei. part. 2. lib. 2. cap. 2. ↩

3. De Coelo l. 1. c. 9. q. 1. ↩

4. Metaphys. l. 12. c. 8. ↩

5. Diog. Laert. lib. 3. ↩

6. Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic 379. ↩

7. Plutarch. de tranq. anim. ↩

8. Apologia pro Galilaeo. ↩

9. Ethic. l. 1. c. 6. ↩

10. Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3. ↩

11. Annal. Eccl. A. D. 748. ↩

12. De Phaenom in orbe Lunae. ↩

13. Iob 38 7. ↩

14. Fromond. Vesta. t. 3. cap. 2. ↩

15. So 2 Reg. 23. 5. ↩

16. מזלות. Which is interpreted both for the planets & for the 12 signes. ↩

17. Keplar. introduct. in Mart. ↩

18. In Epist. ad Gilbert. ↩

19. Calvin in 1 Gen. ↩

20. Com. in 1 Gen. 11. ↩

21. Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3. ↩

22. Epist. 139. ad Cypri. ↩

23. So Pererius in 2 Gen. ↩

24. Gen. 11. ↩

25. Sir Walter Rawly c. 7. sect. 6. ↩

26. l. 2. in Gen. Psal. 136. 6 ↩

27. Hexamer. lib. 2. ↩

28. Item. Basil. Hom. 3. in Genes. ↩

29. Com. in c. 1. Gen. ↩

30. Cusanus dc doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12. ↩

31. Comment. in Gen. Qu. 19. Art. 2. ↩

32. LIB. I. Cap. 3. ↩