Æstuat infœlix angusto limite mundi. Iuvenal.
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.
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 Apologia pro Galilæo. 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, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Master Plato, ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Ethic. l. 1. c. 6.
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 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.