The following is an excerpt of a letter John Wesley sent to the editor of the “London Magazine” in 1765:
Remark 2. “In page 143, you
tell us”—the whole paragraph runs thus: “It is now almost universally supposed,
that the moon is just like the earth, having mountains and valleys, seas with
islands, peninsulas and promontories, with a changeable atmosphere, wherein
vapours and exhalations rise and fall; and hence it is generally inferred, that
she is inhabited like the earth, and, by parity of reason, that all the other
planets, as well as the earth and moon, have their respective inhabitants.” (I
take this to be the very strength of the cause. It was this consideration
chiefly which induced me to think for many years, that all the planets were
inhabited.) “But after all comes the celebrated Mr. Huygens, and brings strong
reasons why the moon is not, and cannot be, inhabited at all, nor any secondary
planet whatever. Then” (if the first supposition sinks, on which all the rest
are built) “I doubt that we shall never prove that the primary are. And so the
whole hypothesis, of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them, vanishes
into air.”
In order to prove that there
are innumerable suns, you say, (1.) “It is found by observations on the
parallax of the earth’s orbit, that a fixed star is ten thousand times farther
from the sun than we are.”
I can build nothing on these
observations, till parallaxes can be taken with greater certainty than they are
at present. Therefore I shall want proof, that any one fixed star is one
thousand times farther from the sun than we are.
(2.) “They are fiery
bodies.” I suppose they are; but this cannot be proved from their distance,
till that distance itself is proved.
(3.) “It is demonstrable
that Sirius is as big as the sun.” Demonstrate it who can.
(4.) “Seeing the fixed stars
are not much less than the sun, they are to be esteemed so many suns.” “Not
much less!” How is this proved? To argue from the distance is to prove ignotum per æque ignotum [A thing unknown, by one equally unknown].
“You see, Sir, the
hypothesis of innumerable suns is so far from vanishing into air, that it is
almost altogether founded on demonstration.” Indeed I do not see one tittle of
demonstration yet, from the beginning to the end.
In order to prove that the
planets are inhabited, you say, (1.) “The earth is spherical, opaque,
enlightened by the sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving round
it in a time exactly proportioned to its distance. The other planets resemble the
earth in all these particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited.” I
cannot allow the consequence.
(2.) “The earth has a
regular succession of day and night, summer and winter. So probably have all
the planets. Therefore they are inhabited.” I am not sure of the antecedent.
But, however that be, I deny the consequence.
(3.) “Jupiter and Saturn are
much bigger than the earth.” Does this prove that they are inhabited?
(4.) “The earth has a moon,
Jupiter has four, Saturn five, each of these larger than ours. They eclipse
their respective planets, and are eclipsed by them.” All this does not prove
that they are inhabited.
(5.) “Saturn’s ring reflects
the light of the sun upon him.” I am not sure of that. And, till the fact is
ascertained, no certain inference can be drawn from it.
(6.) “But is it probable God
should have created planets like our own, and furnished them with such amazing
apparatus, and yet have placed no inhabitants therein?” Of their apparatus I
know nothing. However, if all you assert be, the probability of their being inhabited, I contend not.
(7.) “They who affirm, that
God created those bodies, the fixed stars, only to give us a small, dim light,
must have a very mean opinion of the divine wisdom.” I do not affirm this;
neither can I tell for what other end He created them: He that created them
knows. But I have so high an opinion of the divine wisdom, that I believe no
child of man can fathom it. It is our wisdom to be very wary how we pronounce
concerning things which we have not seen.
Remark 10. “Suppose some
intelligent beings in one of the planets, who were
Slaves to no sect, who sought no private road,
But look’d through nature up to nature’s God,
viewed the earth from thence; they would argue it must be inhabited, as we
argue the other planets are. But the superstitious would oppose this doctrine,
and call it mere uncertain conjecture.”
I see no argument in this:
But perhaps I do not understand it. Are you applauding the supposed inhabitants
of Venus for not being slaves to the Christian sect? Otherwise, what has
superstition to do in the case? Why is this dragged in by head and shoulders?
If there be superstition here, it is on your side, who believe because you will
believe; who assent to what you have no evidence for, and maintain what you
cannot prove. At present you are the volunteer in faith: You swallow what
chokes my belief. (John Wesley, “A Letter to the Editor of the ‘London
Magazine,’’ 1765, in The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. [3d ed.; London: Wesleyan
Methodist Book Room, 1872], 13:396-98)
Further Reading:
Mormonr, “Joseph Smith
and Moon Quakers” (cf. Primary
Sources)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
