Mr. Blount's oracles of reason examined and answered in nine sections in which his many heterodox opinions are refuted, the Holy Scriptures and revealed religion are asserted against deism & atheism / by Josiah King ...

Pag. 193.

The Opinion of Plurality of Worlds seem more agreeable to God's infinite (for so must all God's Qualities be) communicative Quality, to be continually making new Worlds; since otherwise this Quality or Act of Creating would be only once exerted, and for infinite duration lie useless and dormant.

ANSWER.

The Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds, was maintained by several of the ancient Phi∣losophers, as Anaximander, Anaximenes, Demo∣critus, Epicurus, his Scholar, Metrodorus, and others, who maintained an infinity of Worlds: and their great Reason (as Elias Cretensis says) was from the infinite Power and Goodness of God. On the contrary, the Stoics would not allow above one World, which they call the Universe: and Plato endeavours to prove the same by three Arguments, as may be seen in Plutarch, in his first Book, Chap. 5. of the Opinion of the Philosophers. Of the same Opinion was his Scholar Aristotle, who labours to prove the same in no less then two whole Chapters; as to the Validity of his Argu∣ments

I shall not write any thing in particular, thinking it much better to advise the Reader to consult him about this Subject. This is noto∣rious, that what he takes upon himself to prove, he commonly confirms by strong Rea∣sons; and indeed, a Man shall scarce find any philosophical Subject, but may, by some means or other, be collected out of his Writings.

Dr. Pearson assures us, in his Dedication of Laertius to King Charles the Second, that Dr. Harvey was commonly known to have said, Nihil fere unquam in ipsis naturae penetra∣libus invenisse se, quin cum Aristotelem suum pensicu∣latius evolveret, idem ab illo aut exp••ica••um, aut saltem cognitum reperiret. He scarce ever found any thing among the Mysteries of Nature, but when he had diligently perused the Books of Aristotle, he found the same, either explain∣ed, or known by him. So that I conceive, that his Authority and Reasons to be a great Prejudice to the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds.

'Tis reported of Aristotle, that when he read the Mosaic Writings, that he commend∣ed them for the Majesty of the Stile, he thought it worthy of a God. The fault he found was, that the Method was Unphilosophical, which doth not command, but perswades a Belief in the Reader; without all Controversie, he committed not that pretended Error in Moses. And therefore I doubt not, but the Reader

will find more satisfaction in his Oracles of Reason, for the Unity of the World, then in Mr. Blount's for the plurality of Worlds.

But whatsomever liberty might be allowed Philosophers in this point, because perhaps it may not plainly contradict any Principle of Reason, which was the Rule they walked by. The same ought not to be allowed to us; for this Opinion certainly deserves a Censure in all, who pretend to Christianity.

The Arguments made use of, are very weak, the Power of God is infinite, his goodness is infinite and communicative, yet his Power and his Goodness does not extend themselves beyond his Will and Pleasure. This would make God a necessary Agent, and deprive him of those Perfections he hath been pleased to bestow on some of his Creatures. But that which ex∣ceeds all bellef is, that Mr. Blount, who makes this World we live in eternal, and consequently uncreated, and a God, should yet in this place contend for a Plurality of Worlds, and that upon a pious pretence; for fear, forsooth, that the Act of Creating should only be once exerted, and for an infinite Du∣ration lie Dormant and Useless.

If this manner of Argumentation be al∣lowed of, into what absurdities may we fall? Tully, in his first Book, De Finibus, speaking of the difference between Epicurus and Demo∣critus (and that Epicurus corrupts and depraves what he pretends to correct in Democritus) observes, that he makes innumerable Worlds

to have their Original, and to perish daily. Innumerabiles mundi qui & oriantur & interiant quotidie. How agreeable is this false and ridi∣culous Assertion with our Author's Method?

The minute Declination of Atomes with∣out an efficient Cause is absurd and unbecom∣ing a Philosopher: Yet 'tis agreeable to this Method; for this Declination is more accord∣ing with God's Goodness, then a constant na∣tural Descent of Atoms in parallel Lines. But this favour must not be afforded here, since Mr. Blount, by his approving Ocellus Lucanus, hath banished, with Epicurus and Descartes, all final Causes from these Speculations.

Nay, if this Method be allowed, I know nothing in Epicurus's Natural Philosophy but may be defended; although Tully hath abun∣dantly proved him to be as bad a Naturalist, as he was a Moralist, or a Logician.

This Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds, seems not to be so agreeable to Holy Scri∣pture. Certainly Moses's Relation of the Cre∣ation, must needs be thought to be deficient, if this Opinion be true; for he menrions on∣ly one World, which comprehended all Things. This Opinion was also for some time accounted Heretical; for Virgilius, Bi∣shop of Zalzburg, was cast out of his Bisho∣prick, excommunicated, and condemned for a Heretick, by Pope Zachary, for this Opini∣on, as the great Annalist, Baronius, acquaints us, in the Year of our Lord, 748. What

Aventinus and others affirm of his Deprivation and Excommunication, for holding there were Antipodes, proves a mistake. Although I doubt not but that Assertion would have gi∣ven great Offence; as may probably be ga∣thered from Lactantius, in the third Book of his Instit. chap. 24. and from St. Austin, of the City of God, Book 16. Chap. 9. and from many others after them. As also from the little Skill that Pope Zachary, and the Popes about those Days, had in the Mathema∣tical Sciences.

I hope it may not be unpleasing to the Rea∣der, If I give him here a short account of the Resolution of this Question by Mersenus, a late learned Jesuit, and one that had the Re∣putation of a great Philosopher. He thinks the Opinion of the Plurality of Worlds not to be Heretical, nor against the Faith; be∣cause (as he says) it doth not contradict any express place of Holy Scripture, nor the de∣termination of the Universal Church. Yet he thinks it to be a very rash Opinion, foras∣much as it repugns the Consent of the Fathers; whose Authority, notwithstanding, he thinks to be of no such Weight in Matters Philoso∣phical.

If the Jesuit had plainly proved this matter to be purely Philosophical, he had not been wide of the Mark. But the Method of Moses, and his Silence in so great a Point, makes his Reproof to be too mild, this Opinion therefore

(to say the least of it) is impious, prophane, and unbecoming a Christian.

What follows in Mr. Blount's Oracles, touching revealed and natural Religion, hath been often treated of in the foregoing Dis∣course; in which I have proved the insuffici∣ency of natural Religion, as to the great ends of Man's Happiness and Misery in another World; and other things incident to that Question. Wherefore, not being willing to trouble my Reader with long Repetitions, I proceed to that which follows in this Section, and relates to Ocellus Lucanus.