The Discovery of a World in the Moone | Page 7

forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem
solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam materiam
(saith a Countreyman of ours.)[1] As the substantiall forme, so the

efficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particular
matter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these
Arguments more fully answered by Plutarch in his Booke (why
Oracles are silent) and Iacob Carpentarius in his comment on Alcinous.
[Sidenote 1: Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379.]
But our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often doe
jurare in verba magistri) will grant that there is not any strength in
these consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could
not convince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont
to bee swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should
rather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent
to this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was because
hee feared to displease his scholler Alexander, of whom 'tis related[1]
that he wept to heare a disputation of another world, since he had not
then attained the Monarchy of this, his restlesse wide heart would have
esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there had beene
another, which made the Satyrist say of him,
Æstuat infoelix angusto limite mundi.[2]
"That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend up
in a narrow roome, when hee was confin'd but to one world."
Before he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee
had done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps
superiour Kings.
[Sidenote 1: Plutarch. de tranq. anim.]
[Sidenote 2: Iuvenal.]
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 he urges for it are
confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very sleight
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 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 Galilæo.]
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,
+amphoin gar ontoin philoin, hosion protiman tên alêtheian+.[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 ingratitude 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 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 fundamentalls of our Religion.
So that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superstitious
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. Uincentiusand Senafinus de firmo (as I
have seene them quoted) thinke that Aristotle was the viol of Gods
wrath, which was powred out upon the waters of Wisedome by the
third