Thesis sentence:

Shadows of Things To Come: Cynthia Anne Miller Smith

The Theological Implications Masters Thesis

Of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds Page 92

Shadows of Things to Come: The Theological Implications of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds

Colossians 2:17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

Scholars and intellectuals for thousands of years have speculated on the theological implications of intelligent life on other worlds. Are extraterrestrial intelligent beings (ET’s) like human beings creatures with souls made in the spiritual image of God? Have ET’s not fallen from grace or are they sinners in need of Redemption? Is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ a unique universal event affecting the whole of creation? Did Jesus Christ come to redeem and save ET’s as well as human beings by his grace via his life, death, and resurrection? Is the mission of the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel throughout the cosmos, baptizing all creatures, humans and ET’s alike, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Do the very existence of ET’s contradict or support certain interpretations of the Bible’s view of the special nature of humanity? Does the existence of ET’s imply or deny the intelligent design of the universe by an Intelligent Designer who Christians believe is the Logos? This thesis will explore these questions in order to determine whether the answers are consistent with Christian thought and theology as well as compatible with the concepts of universal redemption, justification, sanctification, and salvation as historically posited by the Catholic Church.

[Disclaimer: Although the subject of UFO’s, government conspiracies, Greys, alien abductions, and similar topics are fascinating subjects of study, this thesis is not about these ideas but is rather a mainstream study of the theological implications resulting from the possible discovery of ET’s and how the theory of a plurality of worlds populated with ET’s has affected Christians and Christian thought for centuries down to the present day.]

For thousands of years man has wondered whether he is alone in the universe or whether there might be other worlds populated by creatures more or less like himself. The common view, both in early times and through the Middle Ages, was that the Earth was the only “world” in the universe. Nevertheless, many mythologies populated the sky with divine beings, certainly a kind of extraterrestrial life. Many early philosophers held that life was not unique to the Earth. Metrodorus, an Epicurean philosopher in the 3rd and 4th centuries BC, argued that “to consider the Earth the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with millet, only one grain will grow.” Since the Renaissance there have been several fluctuations in the fashion of belief. In the late 18th century, for example, practically all informed opinion held that each of the planets was populated by more or less intelligent beings; in the early 20th century, by contrast, the prevailing informed opinion (except for the Lowellians) held that the chances for extraterrestrial intelligent life were insignificant. In fact the subject of intelligent extraterrestrial life is for many people a touchstone of their beliefs and desires, some individuals very urgently wanting there to be extraterrestrial intelligence, and others wanting equally fervently for there to be no such life. For this reason it is important to approach the subject in as unbiased a frame of mind as possible. A respectable modern scientific examination of extraterrestrial intelligence is no older than the 1950s. The probability of advanced technical civilizations in our galaxy depends on many controversial issues [" Life." Encyclopædia Britannica 2003 Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
29 Jan, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109623>]. Click on “Intelligent Life Beyond the Solar System.”

The Rev. Dr. George Croly (1780 – 1860) argues that the universe is not strewn with a plurality of worlds on the grounds that the existence of other planets with their own inhabitants implies the necessity of “a Bethlehem in Venus, a Gethsemane in Jupiter, a Calvary in Saturn” (cited in Crowe 334). Yet, many Christian authors from recent centuries argue just that, claiming that the Logos becomes Incarnate on inhabited worlds throughout the cosmos. Others like Rev. Josiah Crampton (1809 – 1883) argue that “the material heavens [are] places of habitation” because Jesus ascended into heaven (p. 30) [cited in Crowe 335]. Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University says that theologians have been largely silent on the issues of whether the work of Christ extends to inhabitants of other worlds or whether the Logos becomes Incarnate on a multiplicity of worlds, but John Jefferson Davis says that McMullin seems to be unaware of the research of Steven Dick and Michael Crowe, both of whom indicate clearly that such speculations have been going on since the third century A.D. (J.J. Davis 22). Since Jesus is physically in heaven, some speculate that it follows that he becomes Incarnate on many worlds. Is this position theologically sound or is the Incarnation unique to the Earth and why?

There are a series of interesting theological implications to the existence of extraterrestrials (ET’s) leading to a series of theological questions: Is the Incarnation of the Logos unique to the Earth and do its effects apply to ET’s? Does the redemption purchased by the blood of Christ apply to ET’s? Are ET’s like human beings created by God and live in God’s universe under God’s watchful eye? The redemption, justification, sanctification, and salvation of ET’s pose a significant theological question deserving of serious study and contemplation by scholars and the faithful alike. The word “Catholic” means “universal”: Is the salvation of Christ truly universal extending throughout the universe? Catholic teaching is that Christ offers his grace to everyone freely: does that mean Christians should spread the Gospel in order to make that offer known to ET’s? This essay will suggest that, for all its complexities, the question of the salvation of ET’s is not qualitatively distinct from the question of the salvation of humans. C.S. Lewis writes in his science fiction works that ET’s, like humans, are hnau, that is, sentient conscious beings (Space Trilogy). For Christians, the greatness of God implies that the greatness of God’s universe includes other minds and souls who quest for the ultimate reality just as humans do. I will argue that this position is consistent with the positions of many Christian theologians, not only like Aurelius Augustine and Thomas Aquinas but also William of Vorilong, Dr. Thomas Chalmers, Sir David Brewster, and many others. The idea that ET’s can experience the salvation of Christ is not an official teaching of the Catholic Church, but it is not heresy either. I believe it is consistent with Catholic teaching that ET’s can be saved, and I will show that, although the Catholic Church has not yet issued any official proclamations about the matter, many Catholic theologians have speculated on the question through the ages.

The views of mainstream Catholics and Protestants differ from those of Protestant Fundamentalists in that the former generally accept the idea that ET’s exist and can be saved, whereas the latter tend to reject those beliefs. Even those Fundamentalist authors who accept the existence of ET’s often portray them as evil demons who spiritually attack people. For example, Frank Allnut claims that UFOs are demons out to destroy the souls of Christians by encouraging them to believe that “ET theology” can save us rather than Christ. Hal Lindsey is another who believes that UFO’s are satanic, eschatological manifestations. Lindsey writes: “I believe these beings are not only extraterrestrial but supernatural in origin. To be blunt, I think they are demons. The Bible tells us that demons are spiritual beings at war with God. We are told that demons will be allowed to use their tremendous powers of deception in a grand way in the last days” (cited in Wojcik 203). Other Fundamentalists with similar ideas include David Allen Lewis and Randall Baer (ibid.). The position asserted by the Vatican is that UFO’s, whatever they are, are not demons (Coyne). Again, this thesis is not primarily about these ideas, interesting as they are. I am simply trying to emphasize that many Catholics and mainstream Protestants tend to think in general that ET’s are part of the natural order of the universe, whereas many Fundamentalists tend to think in general that ET’s are evil and must be defeated. As a result, many Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Incarnation is unique to the Earth and applies only to human beings on Earth while many other Christians believe that the effects of the Incarnation and redemptive work of Christ apply to ET’s also. Still other Christians believe that the Incarnation takes place on ET worlds as well in order to effect the salvation of other beings. This thesis will explore these questions through an examination of several contemporary and historical theological positions. What do each of these authors contribute to our understanding of the theological status of ET’s? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each position? Then, in the conclusion, I will argue that the mainstream Christians are theologically sound to believe that ET’s can be saved and that it is consistent with Christian theology to believe that evangelism is imperative for Christians to propagate the Gospel throughout the cosmos.

Not all fundamentalists believe UFO’s are evil. Some UFO enthusiasts reinterpret Biblical texts to suggest that visions of prophets were UFOs as in Ezekiel 1:4-28 and the Star of Bethlehem in Matthew as well as the light blinding the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles. Other interpretations include the notion that Gabriel was an ET who artificially inseminated the Blessed Virgin Mary with the seed of an ET so that her Son might bring the message from space and that God is an ET who parted the Red Sea for the Israelites and gave them the Ark of the Covenant that was actually a communications device for Moses to receive instructions from the particular ET sent to Earth (Wojcik 184 – 185).

The debate in Protestant churches of previous centuries revolved around whether human life existed on other planets. Protestants were vexed that extraterrestrials were not mentioned in Scripture, so any proof of ETs would lie in secular science, making an important fact about our universe determined by reason rather than faith. Since Protestants like Luther and Calvin reject the Thomistic position that humans can use reason to make discoveries about the universe (although they do not reject reason entirely), it might follow that many Protestants should, if they follow the Sola Scriptura arguments of their churches, reject the possibility of ET’s on the grounds that Scripture does not mention ET’s. Critics assert that such logic is akin to arguing that the Braves do not exist because Scripture does not mention them. Responding to such criticism, many Protestants do not in fact so reject the possibility of ET’s because theology among some Protestants is shifting towards allowing reason to tell us many important facts about our universe, leaving Scripture to teach about redemption and salvation rather than the nature of the universe. As someone once said, religion tells us how to go to heaven while science tells us how the heavens go. Thomas F. O’Meara of Notre Dame writes: “Where Christian faith is centered solely in Jesus of Nazareth, where a few Pauline passages linking Christ to the creation are taken to refer to the man Jesus without qualification, and where Christian revelation is one single light in an extensively fallen race and world, theology has difficulty with the existence of extraterrestrials because their mode of religious life would not be centered on Jesus Christ” (2). O’Meara indicates that the possible frequent deaths and resurrections of the Logos would do a disservice to the uniqueness of the work of the Incarnate Logos on Earth (3).

Many scholars embrace a broad range of religious ideas disseminated and presented by Catholic and Protestant authors about the theological implications of intelligent life on other worlds. In this thesis, I intend to examine the ideas of various authors, many Catholic, some not, in an attempt to grasp the basic religious ideas surrounding ETs, in an effort to present cogent theories about our possible reactions to the very real possibility of discovering intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The question of how the existence of ETs affects us is one of the oldest problems in philosophy as well as science and religion, and the answer has profound implications for our worldview.

In this thesis, I will argue that, prior to the 20^th century, the vast majority of intellectuals in the West believed that a plurality of worlds populated with ET’s existed, and many Christians attempted to reconcile Christianity with pluralism. Strangely, in the 20^th century and into the 21^st century, pluralism lost some of its respectability. I speculate that this loss of respectability may be the result of science fiction books and films depicting a variety of ET’s, some hostile and some friendly, in a way that many of the intelligentsia interpreted as cheesy. Crowe writes that Henry Draper (1837 – 1882) writes in 1866 “Are There Other Inhabited Worlds?” in which Draper suggests that the famous Moon Hoax of 1835 by journalist R. A. Lock who inaccurately reported in his newspaper that life had been discovered on the Moon, only to have the story proven completely false, “left behind an unfortunate skepticism” (p. 50) [Crowe 364]. O’Meara says that “…after World War I, with the discovery of multiple galaxies through the fashioning of more advanced telescopes, the possibility of other intelligent life reasserted itself” (3). In this thesis, I am attempting to make the subject respectable again by pointing out that the debate has been going on for centuries among reputable scholars and theologians and authors.

Prior to the 20^th century, a public debate raged about whether ET’s populate other worlds and, if so, how this affects Christianity, Christians, and Christian theology, particularly the doctrines of the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ. William of Vorilong in the 15^th century views positively a plurality of worlds while believing that ET’s did not sin after the manner of Adam. Thus, he writes, “As to the question whether Christ by dying on this earth could redeem the inhabitants of another world, I answer that he is able to do this even if the worlds are infinite, but it would not be fitting for Him to go into another world that he must die again” (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 88). Thus begins the debate over the Incarnation of the Logos, that is, whether the Incarnation is unique to the Earth or whether it is necessary for Christ to become Incarnate on other worlds to redeem ET’s. The questions become: Does the Redemptive work of Christ on Earth apply universally to sinful ET’s without multiple incarnations? Does the Redemptive work of Christ apply only to humans via his unique Incarnation? Does Christ save a multiplicity of inhabitants of other worlds via a multiplicity of Incarnations? Is the Incarnation unique to the Earth because inhabitants of other worlds are not Fallen like human beings are and thus need no redemption? Does the Incarnation occur on multiple worlds despite sinless ET’s? Numerous authors answer yes to each of the above questions. I will shortly examine their answers in detail.

The discussion surrounding the theology of a plurality of worlds and the Incarnation of the Logos continues in a famous debate in the 19^th century between William Whewell (1794 – 1866) who is largely responding to Thomas Chalmers (1780 -- ???) and Sir David Brewster (1781 – 1868) who is responding to Whewell. Whewell, a Christian, was once a pluralist but later writes a book in which he declares that ET’s on a plurality of worlds violates Christian teachings for a variety of reasons, while Brewster, also a Christian, reaches the opposite conclusion. The debate between these two Protestant men is followed by the educated community with the vast majority of people supporting the view that the existence of otherworldly inhabitants does not denigrate Christian theology, essentially Brewster’s position. Some debaters of the period argue that Christ needs to become Incarnate on a variety of worlds, while others suggest that the Incarnation is unique to the Earth while its benefits extend to ET’s. Still others suggest that ET’s may not have fallen and so are in no need of redemption. Many Catholic and Protestant authors not only of earlier centuries but also of today are not at one on this issue of the Incarnation while maintaining that we really don’t know yet and won’t know until we encounter ET’s in the flesh (Crowe and Dick et al.). Sir David Brewster opposes Whewell, engaging in a vigorous public debate that was followed by the academic public religiously. Brewster falls back on the traditional belief that Christ died and rose again for all people on the Earth past, present, and future as well as the people of the antipodes, claiming that extending the benefits of the Atonement to ET’s was simply a logical progression (Crowe 304 – 305). I will place the views of these three men in the context of other numerous authors who make various arguments on the issue of the Incarnation.

As a contrast to the theological debate, one must note that some authors favor a plurality of worlds while disbelieving Christianity. An example is Thomas Paine who in “The Age of Reason” (mid 1790’s) argues that there must be a plurality of worlds (McMullin 164) while ridiculing the idea of a multiplicity of Christs who lived and died and rose again on a multiplicity of worlds (165). Paine argues that one cannot be both a Christian and a pluralist at the same time (Crowe 117). Paine is not a Christian but apparently a Deist who questions Christianity. James Anthony Froude writes against pluralism in 1849 by suggesting it is preposterous that the great Creator of the universe became a mortal human to save souls (Crowe 333).

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 – 1716) favors the plurality of worlds theory along with a belief that inhabitants populate planets around other suns and asks pertinent questions as to whether those inhabitants can be Baptized and serve as priests:

If someone…came from the moon…, like Gonsales [Godwin’s cosmic voyager]…, we would take him to be a lunarian; and yet we might grant him…the title man…; but if he asked to be baptized, and to be regarded as a convert to our faith, I believe that we would see great disputes arising among the theologians. And if relations were opened up between ourselves and these planetary men – whom M. Huygens says are not much different from men here – the problem would warrant calling an Ecumenical Council to determine whether we should undertake the propagation of the faith in regions beyond our globe. No doubt some would maintain that rational animals from those lands, not being descended from Adam, do not partake of redemption by Jesus Christ….Perhaps there would be a majority decision in favour of the safest course, which would be to baptize these suspect humans conditionally….But I doubt they would ever be found acceptable as priests of the Roman Church, because until there was some revelation their consecrations would always be suspect….Fortunately we are spared these perplexities by the nature of things; but still these bizarre fictions have their uses in abstract studies as aids to a better grasp of the nature of our ideas (p. 314) [cited in Crowe 29].

Jewish and Christian theologians of yesteryear adopted the pagan Greek concept of the Logos, the organizing force through which the universe was created, to develop the idea that human beings are rational because we are made in the image of the ultimate Rational Being, the Logos. Many theologians of later centuries write that inhabitants of other worlds are also rational because they are also made in the image of the Rational/Logos. Hence, the rationality of God becomes, after a fashion, somewhat comprehensible in the light of the rationality of the ordered universe which produced rational beings in the image of the Rational Creator Logos. If life, especially intelligent life, has developed on other worlds, there are four possible theories about the work of God throughout the universe, and these are listed below.

Section 2: Four Categories of Opinion on the Incarnation and Redemptive Work of Christ Debate

The authors and theologians whose ideas I describe below permeate the Chalmers/Whewell/Brewster debate and fall into four categories:

Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225 – 1274) suggests that the other Persons of the Trinity other than the Logos could become incarnate. Thomas F. O’Meara of Notre Dame writes, “Incarnation is only one divine activity, involving one creature as the object of that one special divine relationship: it hardly presents all that God can do and is doing” (5). Thomas Aquinas appears to believe that the Logos became Incarnate only once as Jesus Christ.

Guillaume de Vaurouillon (c. 1392 – 1463) avers that intelligent beings on other worlds have not sinned after the manner of Adam. He writes: “As to the question whether Christ by dying on this earth could redeem the inhabitants of another world, I answer that he was able to do this not only for our world but for infinite worlds. But it would not be fitting for him to go to another world to die again” (O’Meara 6).

Philip Melanchthon (b. 15 February 1497, d. 19 April 1560), a German disciple of Martin Luther, espoused the early Protestant view that a plurality of worlds violates Scripture, and since Scripture is the sole rule of faith, God would not have made other worlds without saying so in the Bible (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 88). Since the Bible describes the creation of one world with the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, it follows that he created nothing else, certainly not other kosmoi. O’Meara writes that Melanchthon warns against multiple incarnations and redemptions on the grounds of the Protestant conviction that salvation comes from the God-man Jesus Christ and the Bible (O’Meara 2). Melanchthon wrote in Initia doctrinae physicae (Wittenberg, 1550), fol. 43:

We know God is a citizen of this world with us, custodian and server of this world, ruling the motion of the heavens, guiding the constellations, making this earth fruitful, and indeed watching over us; we do not contrive to have him in another world, and to watch over other men also…the Son of God is One; our master Jesus Christ was born, died, and resurrected in this world. Nor does He manifest Himself elsewhere, nor elsewhere has He died or resurrected. Therefore it must not be imagined that there are many worlds, because it must not be imagined that Christ died and was resurrected more often, nor must it be thought that in any other world without the knowledge of the Son of God, that men would be restored to eternal life [cited in Dick, Plurality of Worlds 89].

The heart of the theological dispute lies in whether life on other worlds expatriates human beings as the most important creations in the universe as well as has deleterious effects on the relationship of human beings to their Creator in terms of the Incarnation of Christ, Redemption, justification, sanctification, and salvation. It raises the issue as to whether ET’s are tainted with Original Sin and need to be redeemed by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Dick asks, “Was Jesus Christ to be seen as a planet-hopping Savior in the new cosmology? Moreover, extraterrestrial inhabitants were nowhere to be found in the pages of Scripture. Such a Pandora’s box of puzzling questions and implications was sufficient to give even many Copernicans, especially in Catholic countries, cause for grave concern” (Plurality of Worlds 89).

Tommaso Campanella (1568 – 1634) defends Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) by simultaneously defending the plurality of worlds theory, arguing that the theory does not violate Catholic teachings including Scripture but only the teachings of Aristotle. Campanella disbelieves that “men” on other worlds had sinned and needed redemption, asserting that therefore Jesus did not have to die for them, an idea at one time implying that Christ needed to die and rise again for the people populating the antipodes of the Earth, but he is unclear as to how theology would be affected if ET’s did exist and had sinned (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 92-93), simply saying, “If there are humans living on other stars, they would not be infected by the sin of Adam since they are not his descendants. Hence they would not be in need of redemption, unless they suffered from another sin” (O’Meara 2). Galileo himself expresses concern especially about how his Church would react to the speculation of the effects of the Incarnation and Redemption on inhabitants of other worlds and so denies that otherworldly beings exist. Galileo’s friend, the Jesuit Giovanni Ciampoli, warns Galileo in 1615 that ideas about inhabitants on other worlds have profound consequences when taking into consideration the view that such inhabitants are not descendents of Adam nor descendents of the folk aboard Noah’s Ark (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 90).

Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657 – 1757) wrote Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds in 1686 depicting a fictional conversation in which he supports the notion that inhabitants exist on other worlds, claiming that their existence does not violate Scripture or the human faculty of reason. De Fontenelle claims that, because they are not descendents of Adam and Eve, then the concepts of the incarnation of Christ and redemption are not applicable (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 124).

Rev. Richard Bentley (1662 – 1742), in correspondence with Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727), assures us that otherworldly inhabitants are not necessarily human in order to allay the fears of the theologians that the relationship of ET’s to the Incarnation and Redemption does not apply since they are not the descendents of Adam and Eve. Brewster notes that Dr. Bentley asserts that simply because Scripture mentions only the creation of creatures upon the Earth, it doesn’t follow that God did not create inhabitants of other worlds. Bentley notes that the Pentateuch does not mention the creation of angels, but faithful Christians are certain that angels were created (Brewster 139 – 140). Bentley continues, “Neither need we be solicitous about the condition of those planetary people, nor raise frivolous disputes how far they may participate in Adam’s fall or in the benefits of Christ’s incarnation” (Brewster 140).

Timothy Dwight, Yale president/minister (1752 – 1817) writes a series of sermons collected as Theology Explained and Defended in which he argues that Christ’s Incarnation and Redemption are not only unique to Earth but that Redemption applies only to human beings: “in this world there exists a singular and astonishing system of Providence; a system of mediation between God and his revolted creatures….This system, never found elsewhere, is accomplished here….” (V, p. 509) [cited in Crowe 177]. Dwight also argues, among other things, in favor of pluralism and inhabited worlds, claiming that the Lord made

…the countless multitude of Worlds, with all their various furniture. With his own hand he lighted up at once innumerable suns, and rolled around them innumerable worlds. All these…he stored, and adorned, with a rich and unceasing variety of beauty and magnificence; and with the most suitable means of virtue and happiness. Throughout his vast empire, he surrounded his throne with Intelligent creatures, to fill the immense and perfect scheme of being… (I, pp. 78 – 79) [cited in Crowe 175].

Dwight argues that the Lord can understand a cosmos “inhabited by beings…emphatically surpassing number” yet whose minds he knows intimately (I, p. 93) [cited in Crowe 175 – 176]. He argues forcefully the traditional view that Christ created the universe and continues to maintain it:

Throughout immensity, [Christ] quickens into life, action, and enjoyment, the innumerable multitudes of Intelligent beings. The universe, which he made, he also governs. The worlds, of which it is composed, he rolls through the infinite expanse with an Almighty and unwearied hand….From the vast store-house of his bounty he feeds, and clothes, the endless millions…and from the riches of his own unchangeable Mind informs the innumerable host of Intelligent creatures with ever-improving virtue, dignity, and glory. (I, p. 203) [cited in Crowe 177].

Dwight’s position is that Christ’s Incarnation and Redemption are not only unique to Earth but that Redemption applies only to human beings. Rev. William Leitch (1818 – 1864) believes the Incarnation of Christ is unique to the Earth and also rejects the idea that the merits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice applies to ET’s (Crowe 452). Leitch believes that extending the atonement to ET’s is unscriptural with the implication that only inhabitants of the Earth require redemption (329) [cited in J.J. Davis 26].

Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock (1724 – 1803), a German poet, wrote enthusiastically about a universe created by God with Christ at the center. He portrays the angel Gabriel traveling from planet to planet, all with Fallen creatures, including the Earth, but describes the Earth as

Of those secret sublime deeds of the great Messiah! (I, 517—520) [cited in Crowe 145].

For Klopstock, the universe is Christocentric, and his poetry reflects his belief that Christ is the redeemer of Fallen humanity while simultaneously portraying the life, death, and resurrection of Christ amidst a plurality of worlds populated with intelligent beings (Crowe 144). Nevertheless, Klopstock believes that “only the inhabitants of the earth have fallen into sin and they alone need salvation through a divine mediator” (cited in Crowe 145). Even so, Klopstock believes that Christ brought goodness that permeates the universe (ibid.).

The theological significance of intelligent beings who are not descendents of Adam and Noah is that such beings are not bound to the covenants God establishes with Adam and Noah (Rabbi Norman Lamm) and may have other economies of salvation (Greeley). Scripture attests that where there is no law, neither is there violation (Romans 4:15). Therefore, in order for ET’s to sin, they must violate a set of laws that are different from the ones given to inhabitants of the Earth of whom, if one takes Scripture literally, all are descendents of Adam and Noah. This raises questions such as whether morality is truly universal. The Divine Command Theorist asserts that God’s laws are just and right and good because God commands them, but if God’s commandments do not apply to ET’s, then ET’s may have different economies of salvation (Greeley). Another question this raises is the nature of sin: What is wrong for one species may not necessarily be wrong for another, unless one takes the view that the concept of sin is universal and that moral rules are also universal and must be universally applied. One may also take the view that some sins are universal while others are specific. For example, certain actions are sins for Jews but not for non-Jews. Since Christians are not antinomians, it follows that some moral rules may be universal while others apply only to either Jews or inhabitants of the Earth and not necessarily to ET’s, while other rules are universal and do apply to ET’s. Certainly, it is not currently possible to attempt to define what moral rules are universal in the absence of knowledge of the cultural and theological beliefs and ethics of beings from other worlds. Whewell argues that “truth and falsehood, right and wrong, law and transgressions, happiness and misery, reward and punishment” stem from divine Government, claiming that “to transfer these to Jupiter or to Sirius, is merely to imagine those bodies to be a sort of island of Formosa, or new Atlantis, or Utopia, or Platonic Polity, or something of the like kind….there is no more wisdom or philosophy in believing such assemblages of beings to exist in Jupiter or Sirius, without evidence, than in believing them to exist in the island of Formosa, with the like absence of evidence” (61 – 62). I will argue in Section 4 that God’s divine Government is quite capable of extending to inhabitants of other worlds.

Whewell argues that the very fact of the Incarnation on Earth indicates that Earth is unique as the habitation of intelligent beings in the universe:

The earth, thus selected as the theatre of such a scheme of Teaching and of Redemption, cannot, in the eyes of any one who accepts this Christian faith, be regarded as being on a level with any other domiciles. It is the Stage of the great Drama of God’s Mercy and Man’s Salvation; the Sanctuary of the Universe; the Holy Land of Creation; the Royal Abode, for a time at last, of the Eternal King. This being the character which has thus been conferred upon it, how can we assent to the assertions of Astronomers, when they tell us that it is only one among millions of similar habitations, not distinguishable from them, except that it is smaller than most of them that we can measure; confused and rude in its materials like them? Or if we believe the Astronomers, will not such a belief lead us to doubt the truth of the great scheme of Christianity, which thus makes the earth the scene of a special dispensation (64).

Thus, for Whewell, Christianity is not compatible with the notion that intelligent beings populate other worlds which are also governed by God precisely because of the uniqueness of the Incarnation and the Christian message.

Whewell uses the science extant in his time to disprove logically the notion that other worlds are inhabited. He writes: “The notion, then, that one period of time in the history of the earth must resemble another, in the character of its population, because it resembles it in physical circumstances, is negatived by the facts which we discover in the history of the earth. And so, the notion that one part of the universe must resemble another in its population, because it resembles it in physical circumstances, is negatived as a law of creation” (128). Using Whewell’s logic, it would seem that we cannot assume that life develops on worlds in the Goldilocks Zone simply because the Earth orbits the Sun in the Goldilocks Zone. I think such logic is flawed on the grounds that similar circumstances are often followed by similar events. On the theory that liquid water is essential for life, it follows that life often occurs where liquid water is present. If God is the Creator of a process that leads to life, it seems to follow that other places in the universe where similar processes have occurred will also result in life, though perhaps not life as we know it.

William Whewell, once a pluralist, turns against pluralism in a highly influential work entitled Of the Plurality of Words: An Essay as well as an unpublished dialogue called Astronomy and Religion in 1850. Whewell’s major concern seems to have been related to the Incarnation and Redemption of people on Earth by Christ, seeming to suggest that one may accept either Christianity or pluralism but not both, just like Paine except that Whewell comes down firmly on the side of Christianity.

William Whewell writes Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 – 1855) on 4 March 1854 that the only inhabited planet in the universe is the Earth since “all intelligent beings are by their nature sinful and the redemption (crucifixion) can not be repeated on the many millions of nebulae observed by Rosse” (cited in Crowe 208). Gauss replies on 5 May 1854 that the notion of ET’s does not contradict even the most fervent defender of the Christian faith (ibid.).

In his Plurality of Worlds Whewell responds to Dr. Chalmers by suggesting that the very reason why humans are the only hnau in the universe is because God is mindful of them (17 – 18). Humans cannot be insignificant creatures on an insignificant planet because God was so mindful of us that he became Incarnate on our planet to redeem us.

John Heinrich Kurtz (1809 – 1890), a Lutheran theologian who denies pluralism, argues against Chalmers and the Incarnation of God on other worlds, claiming that either ET’s are not fallen and therefore have no need of redemption or, if they are fallen, then Christ does not save them (Crowe 261 – 262). This, I think, is a rather bleak outlook for intelligent beings on other worlds.

The Rev. Dr. George Croly (1780 – 1860) also disagrees with pluralism claiming that if other worlds were inhabited by intelligent beings then there would necessarily be “a Bethlehem in Venus, a Gethsemane in Jupiter, a Calvary in Saturn” (cited in Crowe 334).

Abbe Francois Xavier Burque (1851 – 1923) suggests that pluralism cannot be reconciled with the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ (Crowe 421). He claims that Christ being crucified numerous times on other planets to save intelligent beings contradicts Hebrews 9:26 (Crowe 421). Hebrews 9:25-26 says: “Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice” (NAB). Burque does not address, as far as my research can tell, whether the benefits of the work of Christ on Earth extend to intelligent beings on other worlds.

E.W. Maunder, an opponent of the “Martial canals” controversy, also opposes pluralism, stating that it is unlikely that life exists elsewhere in the universe, claiming that God became Incarnate to pleasure the company of human beings and not, apparently, ET’s (cf. Crowe 542). O’Meara writes: “The Son of God is one: our master Jesus Christ, coming forth in this world, died and was resurrected only once. Nor did he manifest himself elsewhere, nor has he died or been resurrected elsewhere. We should not imagine many worlds because we ought not imagine that Christ died and was risen often; nor should it be thought that in any other world without the knowledge of the Son of God that people would be restored to eternal life” (Initia doctrinae physicae, Corpus Reformatorum 13 (Halle: Schwetschke, 1846; reprint, Frankfurt; Minerva, 1963) 1.221) [cited in O’Meara 2].

a question arises which has been carefully avoided by many traditional theologians, even though it is consciously or unconsciously alive for most contemporary people. It is the problem of how to understand the meaning of the symbol 'Christ' in the light of the immensity of the universe, the heliocentric system of planets, the infinitely small part of the universe which man and history constitute, and the possibility of other worlds in which divine self-manifestations may appear and be received....our basic answer leaves the universe open for possible divine manifestations in other areas or periods of being. Such possibilities cannot be denied. But they cannot be proved or disproved. Incarnation is unique for the special group in which it happens, but it is not unique in the sense that other singular incarnations for other unique worlds are excluded...Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place for incarnation (cited in Peters, "Contemporary Theology” 2-3).

Kenneth Delano, a Catholic priest, agrees with Tillich that the Incarnation may have occurred (and may occur in the future) on other planets. Delano reacts to a writer who claims that if human beings are not the epitome of God’s creation, then Scripture is completely wrong in its estimation of the relationship of human beings to God, by suggesting that God may have declined to mention ET’s in Scripture because during the time and in the culture in which the text was written, it did not theologically or morally edify the faith community (Dick, Life on Other Worlds 250). I maintain that the authors of Scripture may not have fully comprehended the extent of the meaning of their words when they wrote them since the Bible contains many prophecies that did not become apparent and faithful people did not understand until later in history. For example, prophecies of the Messiah did not become comprehensible until the manifestation of Jesus to Israel and the world, so it’s possible that prophecies about the mission of Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the cosmos did not or perhaps will not become apparent until human beings encounter living ET’s.

As we see, numerous authors during the Incarnation and Redemption debate favor the notion that the Incarnation is unique to the Earth and the benefits of the Redemptive work of Christ extend only to human beings on the grounds that humans are uniquely intelligent beings in the universe (such as Whewell argues) or on the grounds that extraterrestrial beings, if they exist, do not participate in the salvation of Christ since they are not human (such as Kurtz). On the theory that intelligent beings on other worlds are sinners and need redemption, we come to Category 2 authors who argue in favor of multiple incarnations.

Category 2 authors are an interesting breed of scholars and theologians who argue that the Logos needs to become Incarnate on a multiplicity of worlds in order to save sinful intelligent beings on those worlds. Some of the most famous philosophers and theologians support this view since it appeals to a sense of fairness and compassion on the part of God. Descartes began writing about multiple incarnations centuries after Origen. O’Meara writes, “Origen wanted to give a cosmic scope to Incarnation as the source of grace and in so doing intimated various incarnations” (4).

Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650), a good Catholic and a highly influential philosopher, largely popularizes the idea of a plurality of worlds in the 17^th century; he writes to Chanut on 6 June 1647: “It seems to me that the mystery of the incarnation and all the other advantages which God bestowed on man do not preclude the possibility that he might have granted infinitely many others, very great, to an infinity of other creatures” (Dick, Plurality of Worlds 106).

William Haye (1694 – 1755) wrote Religion Philosophi: or, The Principles of Morality and Christianity Illustrated from a View of the Universe, and Man’s Situation in it (London) that, like Copernicus, “with the greatest Probability (almost Certainty) imagine each Fixed Star to be a sun with Planets…surrounding it…; and all such Planets to be inhabited as well as the Earth….” In addition, he claims that “…Praise and Thanksgiving are continually ascending to [God’s] Throne…from every Quarter of the Universe,” making as a result “a general Religion, a joint Communion, a Universal Church” implying that we as human beings of Earth should love ET’s “not as our own Species, but as our Fellow-creatures, and as Members of the same Church and Communion….” (pp. 14 – 15) [cited in Crowe 86]. Haye speculates that ET’s have fallen just as we have and God acts on those worlds either as “Judge” or as “indulgent Parent…. exalting the Rational Creatures of each Globe from a Material to a Spiritual, and from a Mortal to an Immortal State; transforming them into Angels; and from those Seminaries perpetually increasing the Host of Heaven (pp. 34-35) [cited in Crowe 86-87)]. Nevertheless, Haye diverges from traditional Christianity by asserting that Jesus saves only human beings while ET’s need the salvation of other ET’s who were the Incarnations of the Logos with respect to their individual planets (Crowe 87).

John Foster, a Baptist, responds to Chalmers (see above prior to Section 1 and below in Section 4) by suggesting that the Incarnation may have occurred on other planets. Foster also disagrees with Chalmers’s view that other planets know about the religious events that have occurred on the Earth (Crowe 191).

Reverend Baden Power (1796 – 1860) attempts to find a middle ground between Brewster (see Section 4) and Whewell (see Section 1). Although Power embraces Darwinism, he is a devout Christian who writes in his The Unity of Worlds: “If it be an inscrutable mystery wholly beyond human comprehension that God should send His Son to redeem this world, it cannot be a more inscrutable mystery…that He should send His Son to redeem ten thousand other worlds” (p. 291) [cited in Crowe 310].

R. M. Jouan, a Catholic, suggests multiple incarnations are possible (Crowe 420). Rev. Joseph Pohl (1851 – 1922) speaks little of religion but does note that ET’s need not necessarily have fallen, but if they did, then multiple incarnations may have been the result (Crowe 433 – 434).

Alice Meynell (1847 – 1922), a Catholic poet, also writes poetry apparently favoring the notion of multiple incarnations and multiple gospels (Crowe 444 – 445). The vision of a universe permeated by the ever-acting, ever-working, and potentially explicit self-expression of the divine Word/Logos was never better expressed than in her poem:

Karl Rahner, a modern Catholic theologian, suggests that inhabitants of other worlds do not live their lives apart from sin and grace, implying that the grace of Jesus Christ applies to extraterrestrials as well as humans (O’Meara 7). Rahner regards the notion of the Incarnation of the Logos on our world as a problem for the intellect inasmuch as our world is but a tiny mote in a vast universe (ibid.). That said, Rahner does not dismiss the possibility of a multiplicity of incarnations (O’Meara 8).

If intelligent beings throughout the rest of the universe know about the Incarnation and Redemptive work of Christ, then why are they not here discussing the issue with human beings? Perhaps, in the view of Category 2 authors, intelligent beings on other worlds have no need to visit the Earth because they have already experienced the salvation of Christ in their lives. Perhaps for the same reason, in this view, human beings need not visit other worlds to learn anything theologically new. It’s possible that God made the great distances among planets impossible to traverse in order to maintain the uniqueness of each world’s intelligent beings or for theological reasons we don’t yet comprehend. This view contrasts with Category 3 authors who maintain that Christ becomes incarnate on multiple worlds despite the sinlessness of their inhabitants.

Many authors maintain that Earth is unique in that the first intelligent inhabitants sinned against God and fell from grace. For whatever reason, other races of beings did not experience a Fall from grace and so remain, like angels, as superior servants of God. Let’s begin with Terrasson.

Abbe Jean Terrasson (1670 – 1750) argues in favor of plurality and intelligent inhabitants, claiming that the teachings of the Church including the Bible do not unequivocally deny the pluralist position (Crowe 135). He also suggests that God became incarnate even on worlds which had not Fallen, claiming such inhabitants would deserve the honor even more than sinful beings (ibid.). He concludes, “We infer from all this not only that the Word has incarnated himself on all the planets, but in those where sin has not entered, he is born as other men” (p. 67) [cited in Crowe 135].

Crowe writes, “At another point he [Terrasson] counters the claim that Scripture explicitly states that there is but one Lord by interpreting it as applying only to the divine part of Christ’s nature. Admitting that Christ’s terrestrial incarnation and redemption have sufficient merit for the entire universe, he nonetheless suggests that because Christ has a role both as savior and as teacher, his incarnation as teacher on sinless planets is fully appropriate (pp. 89 – 90)” (ibid.). Terrasson claims there is an infinite number of men on an infinite number of planets “chanting the praises of the Lord….” (cited in Crowe 135 – 136). He goes on, “What an admirable spectacle is also presented by the advance of the infinite number of men-God, who in the last day of the planet present to the eternal Father this infinite number of bands of the elect” (pp. 92-93) [cited in Crowe 136]. Terrasson further claims that angels are the resurrected souls of destroyed planets while demons are the resurrected evil souls (ibid.). The vast majority of authors in this era who expressed religious ideas, whether Catholic or Protestant, favor the idea of a plurality of worlds populated with ET’s yet disagree on the issue of whether there are different economies of salvation, particularly with respect to multiple incarnations.

Dick says in Plurality of Worlds that a Cartesian author [Note: Mike Crowe says this author is Terrasson] wrote Traite de l’infini cree (written before 1746, published 1769) in which he fundamentally changes the arguments regarding the incarnation and redemption so that man becomes one with God, “man in the plural, God in the singular, because the hommes-Dieu [God/man] would be several in number as to human nature, but only one as to Divine nature” (139). The notion that the Incarnation is a universal event rather than one that pertains exclusively to the Earth challenges us to new heights of thought that are not for the faint of heart (ibid.).

Monseigneur de Montignez writes in a series entitled “Theorie chretienne sur la pluralite des mondes” that Christ became Incarnate on the Earth because it is insignificant and its people worthless in order to show forth more grandly the power of God: “the relative smallness of the earth acts only to strengthen our belief in the mystery of the redemption…; the more you represent the earth as a useless point, the more you make man a stunted, weak, pitiful, disgraced being, the more you justify the preference of which he is the object…” (9, pp. 403-4) [cited in Crowe 412]. Montignez claims that Scripture is not understandable in the absence of pluralism. He claims that Christ became Incarnate only once on the Earth yet rules the cosmos, and “the blood which flowed on Calvary has gushed out on the universality of creation…; has bathed not only our world, but all the worlds which roll in space….” (10, p. 272) [cited in Crowe 412]. Nevertheless, he holds to the belief that ET’s have not fallen as humanity has done, which seems a bit inconsistent because if the redemptive work of Christ applies to inhabitants of other worlds, then it follows that they need such redemption due to sin.

Reverend Baden Power (1796 – 1860) attempts to find a middle ground between Brewster and Whewell. Although Power embraces Darwinism, he is a devout Christian who writes in his The Unity of Worlds: “If it be an inscrutable mystery wholly beyond human comprehension that God should send His Son to redeem this world, it cannot be a more inscrutable mystery…that He should send His Son to redeem ten thousand other worlds” (p. 291) [cited in Crowe 310].

The view that the Logos becomes Incarnate on multiple worlds seems to imply that there are benefits other than redemption from sins for numerous local incarnations. It may be that Earth would not be swaying in the balance had our first father and mother not eaten the apple. However, the Bible says that Adam and Eve did eat the apple, and their descendents experience the consequences of original sin. What if free will inevitably results in a fall from grace? This question leads us to Category 4 authors who maintain that, while the Incarnation is unique to the Earth, its benefits apply universally to inhabitants of other worlds.

Scripture tells us that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that inhabitants of other worlds fall under the category of “all” and have sinned, resulting in a fall from grace, just like Adam and Eve and all human beings (except Jesus and, according to Catholic teachings, the Virgin Mary who was preserved from the stain of original sin by the grace of Jesus Christ imputed to her at her conception). Is it possible that the grace of Jesus is imputed to sinful inhabitants of other worlds? Category 4 authors seem to think so. Let’s begin with More.

Henry More (1614 – 1687), although he later breaks with Descartes by his particular pro pluralism position, rejecting both the Epicurean and Cartesian systems as well as atomism, maintains his support for a plurality of worlds, arguing that God reveals to ET’s the good news of Christ’s Incarnation and Redemption and saves them just as he saves human beings (Crowe 17).

Immanuel Kant wrote Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens in 1755 in which he questions whether inhabitants of the large planets in our solar system may be “too noble and wise” to commit sins and also questions whether the inhabitants of the smaller systems “are grafted too fast to matter…to carry to the responsibility of their actions before the judgment seat of justice.” He also speculates that Martians may be just as sinful as the inhabitants of the Earth (Crowe 53).

Edward Young composed poetry in praise of God the Son. Here are a few verses from: “The Complaint: Night Thoughts on Life, Death, and Immortality”:

Against the cross, Death’s iron scepter breaks! (IX, 2262-5, 2348, 2352-5) [cited in Crowe 86].

Famous writers as divergent as Napoleon, John Wesley, and William Blake cherished this poem and encouraged its wide dispersion, keeping it alongside their Bibles and John Bunyan (Crowe 86). Yet Young’s vision of a Fallen Earth amidst a wide variety of inhabited planets inspired Thomas Chalmers and, in the 20^th century, the great C. S. Lewis, proving that the ideal of a plurality of worlds populated with redeemable ET’s was within the realm of traditional piety and its Christian practitioners (Crowe 86). Clergyman Andreas Ehrenberg (d. 1726) and school rector Johan Schudt (1664 – 1722) both examine the question of the atonement with respect to ET’s (Crowe 34). Hymnologist David Schober (1696 – 1778) writes in a book that ET’s inhabit a plurality of worlds, an idea he wishes to harmonize with the Christian concept of the Redemption to which he devotes half his book (Crowe 34).

On the question of whether ET’s inherit the sin of Adam, James Beattie (1735 – 1803), a poet and professor of moral philosophy and logic, Marischal College, Aberdeen, writes of redemption that ET’s “will not suffer for our guilt, nor be rewarded for our obedience. But it is not absurd to imagine, that our fall and recovery may be useful to them as an example; and that the divine grace manifested in our redemption may raise their adoration and gratitude into higher raptures and quicken their ardour to inquire…into the dispensations of infinite wisdom” (p. 184) [cited in Crowe 102]. He goes on to say that his position is “not mere conjecture [but] derives plausibility from many analogies in nature; as well as from holy writ, which represents the mystery of our redemption as an object of curiosity to superior beings, and our repentance as an occasion of their joy” (p. 184) [ibid.].

Beilby Porteus (1731 – 1808), bishop of Chester and subsequently of London, wrote in favor of the plurality of worlds theory and redemption, remarking, “on what ground is it concluded, that the benefits of Christ’s death extend no further than to ourselves?” Moreover, in support of his theory that the Crucifixion’s benefits extend to ET’s, he quotes the Apostle Paul:

We are expressly told, that as “by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible; and by him all things consist: so by him also was God pleased (having made peace through the blood of his cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him” (Colossians 1:16-20) [cited in Crowe 103].

Porteus goes on to assert that “if the Redemption wrought by Christ extended to other worlds, perhaps many besides our own; if its virtues penetrate even into heaven itself; if it gathers together all things in Christ; who will then say, that the dignity of the agent was disproportioned to the magnitude of the work…?” (p. 81) [cited in Crowe 103]. Porteus supports my contention that it is consistent with Christian theology to say that Jesus saves ET’s by his life, crucifixion, and resurrection. Since the efficacy of the Redemption Jesus acquired for us extends to all, humans and ET’s alike, it follows that it is incumbent upon Christians to spread this good news not only to other human beings but also to ET’s.

George Adams (1750 – 1795) writes that Christians should experience pleasure due to our Redemption by Christ, remarking:

…since the inhabitants of…other planets…must equally be objects of the Divine favor with ourselves; and since the rational inhabitants of some few or more among so many myriads may have been found disobedient; is a man to blame for thinking that if they stand in need of restoration, they must be fully as worthy of it as ourselves; and may for anything that we know, have been already redeemed, or may yet be redeemed?” (Adams, Lectures, vol. IV, p. 244) [cited in Crowe 105].

Barthold Heinrich Brockes (1680 – 1740) writes a conversation between two people, one a philosopher and the other a Christian, with the Christian asking, “Of more than one world what say you?/How do you prove that it is true?/The new heresy I cannot believe.” The text goes on to say about the “new heresy”:

Dr. Andrew Fuller (1754 – 1815) is a Baptist minister who wrote The Gospel Its Own Witness in 1799-1800, arguing against Tom Paine’s Age of Reason. Fuller claims that the doctrine of a plurality of worlds is consistent with Christianity and Scripture. He further writes that the idea of our Redemption by Christ is “strengthened and aggrandized” by pluralism, that human beings and angels are not necessarily the only beings who have Fallen from grace, and that any ET’s who have Fallen from grace may be comforted to know that the Incarnation and Redemption brought to us by Christ “are competent to fill all and every part of God’s dominions with everlasting and increasing joy” (p. 272) [cited in Crowe 172]. Fuller agrees that Christ’s Incarnation is unique to the Earth while his Redemption spreads across the entire universe, averring “The consistency of the Scripture doctrine of Redemption with the modern opinion of the Magnitude of Creation” (i.e., pluralism) and “the credibility of the redemption is not weakened by this doctrine, but, on the contrary, is, in many respects, strengthened and aggrandized” (cited in Brewster 162).

Rev. Edward Nares (1762 – 1841) also agrees that Christ’s Incarnation and Redemption are unique events to the Earth (Crowe 172 – 173). Nares writes that Christ’s redemptive work is manifest “in some way inscrutable to us, to every rational creature throughout the mighty firmament…” (p. 18) [cited in Crowe 173]. Nares asks whether God, though One, may give ET’s “such a knowledge of his ways and will, as their several wants and infirmities may need and require?” (pp. 19-21) [cited in Crowe 173]. While Nares believes that Christ’s mediation work occurred on Earth alone, he writes, “Upon this Earth [Christ’s] body was bruised, and his blood was shed; if there are other worlds in the universe, it is impossible for us to know how it may have pleased God to notify to them the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ….” (pp. 268 – 269) [cited in Crowe 173]. Nares believes that support for the plurality of worlds view expands our understanding of God’s work throughout the universe (ibid.). Nares analyzes the Hebrew and Greek words in Scripture for “world(s)” and “heaven(s),” arguing that such analysis may lead to an expanded understanding of meaning. For example, he cites Nehemiah 9:6 with his translation: “Thou, even thou, art God alone; thou hast made the WORLDS, the UNIVERSE OF WORLDS; with ALL THEIR INHABITANTS; the EARTH, with all things that are therein; and thou fillest the whole with life; and THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLDS worship thee” (pp. 177 – 178). Alas, Nares’s work is not as popular as Paine’s.

Comte Joseph de Maistre (1754 – 1821) criticizes theologians who reject pluralism on the grounds that it somehow damages Redemption dogma, claiming that believing God has created the vast universe with innumerable stars and planets without ET’s does a disservice to God’s omnipotence (Crowe 181). De Maistre writes:

If the inhabitants of the other planets are not like us guilty of sin, they have no need of the same remedy, and if, on the contrary, the same remedy is necessary for them, are the theologians of whom I speak then to fear that the power of the sacrifice which has saved us is unable to extend to the moon? The insight of Origen is much more penetrating and comprehensive when he writes: “The altar was at Jerusalem, but the blood of the victim bathed the universe” (II, pp. 319 – 320) [cited in Crowe 181].

John Herschel, the famous son of the famous astronomer William Herschel, favors pluralism, as did his father, but his reasons are religious and metaphysical rather than scientific (Crowe 217).

Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805 – 1865) favors pluralism and, according to Robert Perceval Graves’s Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, vol. II, Dublin 1885, p. 38), speculates that Christ’s ascension and Pentecost may have consisted of visiting other planets one by one: “May not [Christ’s] transit from the cloud to the throne have been but one continued passage, in long triumphal pomp, through powers and principalities made subject? May not the only begotten Son have then been brought forth into the world, not by a new nativity, but as it were by proclamation and investiture, while the Universe beheld its God, and all the angels worshipped Him?” (cited in Crowe 221 – 222).

Samuel Noble (1779 – 1853), after reading Paine’s Age of Reason, becomes a Christian pluralist, writing Astronomical Doctrine of a Plurality of Worlds in which he attempts to assert that pluralism is consistent with Christianity and also, after reading Swedenborg, becoming convinced that Yahweh (Jehovah) became Incarnate on the Earth because humans were the worst sinners in the universe while Christ’s salvific work extends to ET’s (Crowe 228). Philip James Bailey (1816 – 1902) writes a poem in 1839 called Festus in which Christ speaks to the angel in charge of the hnau on Earth:

Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventists was a pluralist who writes that Christ became Incarnate only once on Earth and that the inhabitants of other solar systems, although evil has not extended beyond the Earth, rejoiced when Jesus cried out, “It is finished!” (Crowe 240 – 241).

Thomas Chalmers wrote Astronomical Discourses in which he preaches fervently on the doctrines of Christ’s Atonement and the sinfulness of human beings who desperately need grace while also arguing in favor of pluralism; he does not believe that Christ became Incarnate on other worlds but believes his redemption extends to other planets (Crowe 186 – 187). Chalmers believes it is acceptable to reinterpret Scripture according to modern knowledge of science and astronomy. For example, he interprets Luke 15:7 (“I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance”) to mean that possible ET’s rejoice over the repentance and conversion of one sinner (ibid.). Accord to Crowe, Chalmers’s sermons and writings were instrumental in the debate over pluralism and ET’s (190). Chalmers writes, “How do Infidels know that Christianity is set up for the single benefit of this earth and its inhabitants? How are they able to tell us, that if you go to other planets the person and religion of Jesus are there unknown to them?” (Chalmers, Astronomical Discourses, Discourse II 69 – 70). Chalmers also writes, “For any thing he can tell, many a visit has been made to each of them on the subject of our common Christianity, by commissioned messengers from the throne of the Eternal. For any thing he can tell, the redemption proclaimed to us is not one solitary instance, or not the whole of that redemption which is by the Son of God; but only our part in a plan of mercy, equal in magnificence to all that astronomy has brought within the range of human contemplation” (72). For Chalmers, astronomy widens our vista, enabling us to experience more vividly the greatness of God by observing his creation and realizing the magnificence and sublimity of the Incarnation.

Chalmers continues: “For anything he can tell, the eternal Son, of whom it is said, that by him the worlds were created, may have had the government of many sinful worlds laid upon his shoulders; and by the power of his mysterious word, have awoke them all from that spiritual death, to which they had sunk in lethargy as profound as the slumbers of non-existence” (73). Chalmers writes that the “Infidels” argue that it is inconceivable that the omnipotent God would deign to visit our paltry little planet orbiting an ordinary star in the vast universe, that the Almighty would actually take on human form and die a wretched death for the purpose of saving a wretched species who live upon a tiny world floating in infinite space (Discourse III 89 – 90). Yet, for Chalmers, that is exactly what happened. He writes:

But tell me, O tell me, would it not throw the softening of a most exquisite tenderness over the character of God, should we see him putting forth his every expedient to reclaim to himself those children who had wandered away from him; and few as they were when compared with the host of his obedient worshippers, would it not just impart to his attribute of compassion the infinity of the Godhead, that rather than lose the single world which had turned to its own way, he should send the messengers of peace to woo and to welcome it back again; and if justice demanded so mighty a sacrifice, and the law behooved to be so magnified and made honorable, tell me whether it would not throw a moral sublime over the goodness of the Deity, should he lay upon his own Son the burden of its atonement, that he might again smile upon the world, and hold out the scepter of invitation to all its families? (94).

The position of Chalmers is that no world is too small or mean for God to care for its inhabitants, and the way God cares for the inhabitants of all worlds is through the mediation of his Son (107 -- 112). He also writes, “Let us put forth an effort, and keep a steady hold of this consideration – for the deadness of our earthly imaginations makes an effort necessary – and we shall perceive, that though the world we live in were the alone theatre of redemption, there is something in the redemption itself that is fitted to draw the eye of an arrested universe” (Discourse IV 130). Chalmers seems to imply that the greatness of the Incarnation and Redemptive work of Christ suffuses the universe and all its inhabitants, Earthly and Extraterrestrial.

Chalmers continues, “Now, though it must be admitted that the Bible does not speak clearly or decisively as to the proper effect of redemption being extended to other worlds, it speaks most clearly and most decisively about the knowledge of it being disseminated among other orders of created intelligence than our own. But if the contemplation of God be their supreme enjoyment, then the very circumstance of our redemption being known to them may invest it, even though it be but the redemption of one solitary world, with an importance as wide as the universe itself” (134 – 135). For Chalmers, ET’s are aware of the Incarnation and events surrounding the Redemptive work of Christ (135 – 136). He writes, “[God] does not tell us the extent of the atonement; but he tells us that the atonement itself, known as it is among the myriads of the celestial, forms the high song of eternity – that the Lamb who was slain is surrounded by the acclamations of one wide and universal empire – that the might of his wondrous achievements spreads a tide of gratulation over the multitudes who are about his throne; and there never ceases to ascend from the worshippers of Him who washed us from our sins in his blood, a voice loud as from numbers without number, sweet as from blessed voices uttering joy, when heaven rings jubilee, and loud hosannas fill the eternal regions” (139 – 140). Chalmers cites Revelation 5:11-13 to support his contention that all creatures throughout the universe praise the name of the Lamb. The Reverend Professor David Cairns in “Chalmers’ Astronomical Discourses” suggests that, for Chalmers, Earth is a battleground between light and darkness that is going on to this day, although Jesus defeated Satan “in single combat” (419). The effects of Christ’s defeat of Satan permeates the universe and its many inhabitants with God’s grace, but the war goes on.

Rev. Thomas Rawson Birks (1810 – 1883) writes Modern Astronomy in which he suggests that two contradictory possibilities exist with respect to the Redemption and the insignificance of the Earth in the vast universe: Either “ours is the only world where sin has entered,” an idea that violates “the plainest lessons of moral probability” (pp. 53 – 54) or the Advent of Jesus is the only one of a “series of revelations” (cited in Crowe 296 – 297). Birks denies the second assertion because the Incarnation has “the plainest impress of eternity…Christ…is the Son of God and the Son of man, in two distinct natures and one person, forever” (pp. 54 – 55) [cited in Crowe 297]. Birks writes an imaginary comment by Christ during the Wedding at Cana:

My hour to people these worlds of light with myriad worshippers is not yet come. Your planet, little though it is…, is the Bethlehem where I now choose to reveal the mystery of my love to sinners, the guilty and despised Nazareth of the wide universe from which streams of light and heavenly wisdom shall go forth to gladden the countless worlds I have made (cited in Crowe 297).

Birks implies that “when the work of redemption is complete, a celestial emigration may begin from our little planet….It may be, that as fresh planets are prepared…to receive a race of inhabitants, unborn patriarchs may be sent forth, like Noah, to people its desolate heritage….” (p. 63) [cited in Crowe 297].

Hugh Miller (1802 – 1856) believes that Christ’s Redemptive work applies to ET’s, denying multiple incarnations of the Logos, asserting that “though only one planet and one race may have furnished the point of union between the Divine and the created nature, the effects of that junction may extend to all created nature….If it was necessary that the point of junction be somewhere, why not here?” (p. 33) [cited in Crowe 322]. Miller appears to desire to maintain the integrity of both pluralism and Christianity by defending both revelation and natural theology (ibid.).

Rev. Josiah Crampton (1809 – 1883) favors pluralism by claiming that the Christian belief that Jesus ascended into heaven is proof that the “material heavens [are] places of habitation” (p. 30) [cited in Crowe 335]. Rev. Robert Knight wrote in 1855 that Scripture indicates that the Incarnation of the Logos is a unique event affecting the whole universe (Crowe 336).

An anonymous author in 1858 wrote The Stars and the Angels which claims that Jesus redeems only human beings of Earth yet supports pluralism by saying that the inhabitants of other worlds are also made in the image of God (Crowe 340). The author speculates that humans from earth may resurrect to become inhabitants of other worlds (ibid.). Rev. Charles Louis Hequembourg in 1859 agrees with the theory that humans resurrect to become inhabitants of other worlds (Crowe 344 – 345). An anonymous review of Whewell writes in favor of pluralism while maintaining that the Incarnation occurred only on the Earth while the benefits extend to ET’s (Crowe 349).

Camille Flammarion (1842 – 1925) is a French enthusiast of pluralism who expresses belief in the non-Christian metemphyschosis and transmigration of souls to other planets. Nevertheless, Flammarion expresses support for Brewster’s contention that Christ’s Redemptive work affects ET’s (Crowe 383).

Abbe Francois Moigno (1804 – 1884) says that he received permission from “the Commission of the Roman Index to declare formally to [Flammarion] that the creation and the redemption are by no means an obstacle to the existence of other worlds, of other suns, of other planets, etc., etc” (cited in Crowe 414). Jules Boiteux, while maintaining the ET’s may not have fallen, does not preclude the possibility of multiple incarnations even while suggesting that Christ’s redemptive work on Earth extends to ET’s (Crowe 415). Pierre Corbet wrote in an 1894 essay in Cosmos that the Logos may have become Incarnate on Earth because “the human race is perhaps…the most guilty of all [and had] the greatest need to profit directly from the redemption” (p. 273) [cited in Crowe 416]. Corbet denies that Christ became Incarnate elsewhere arguing in favor of the uniqueness of the Incarnation on Earth even while favoring the extension of the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work to ET’s. Corbet writes that perhaps ET’s benefit from the redemptive work of Christ without knowing it in the same way that a baby benefits from Baptism without knowing how or why (Crowe 417). His intent is, as a Catholic, to combat the view that pluralism somehow stands in direct opposition to the Christian faith (ibid.). Theophile Ortolon (b. 1861) cites Scripture passages such as the shepherd searching for the one lost lamb while leaving the others behind and the one in which Christ says “In my Father’s house are many mansions” to support his pluralist interpretations (Crowe 417). Ortolan suggests that either extending the benefits of Christ to ET’s or claiming that ET’s have not fallen are equally supportable by Scripture and Christian theology.

Johann Ebrard (1818 –1888) wrote against pluralism and multiple incarnations while simultaneously claiming that applying Christ’s redemptive work to ET’s does not contradict Christian theology (Crowe 428). Catholics and Protestants alike posit on the subject of ET’s and Christianity both positively and negatively in the 19^th century and into the 20^th century.

Aubrey de Vere (1814 – 1902), a Catholic poet, wrote “The Death of Copernicus” in which the fictional Copernicus reflects:

Rev. Edwin T. Winkler (1823 – 1883) wrote in favor of the view that Christ’s redemptive work extends to ET’s throughout the universe (Crowe 450).

Rev. George Mary Searle (1839 – 1918), a Catholic, acknowledges that ET’s may exist and questions why God chose Earth of all the planets in the universe upon which to Incarnate his Logos (Crowe 454). While suggesting that God may have created human-like beings on other planets, he denies multiple incarnations (ibid.). De Concilio writes that God made ET’s “in and through Christ” and that Christ’s redemptive work is universal although his Incarnation is unique to the Earth, so that ET’s who have fallen may also be saved (Crowe 455). To the criticism of Thomas Hughes (1849 – 1939), a Jesuit, who argues against De Concilio’s arguments but not his conclusions, De Concilio writes, “when Christ died and paid the ransom of our redemption, He included [extraterrestrials] also in that ransom, the value of which was infinite and capable of redeeming innumerable worlds” (Harmony between Science and Revelation, 1889, p. 232) [cited in Crowe 456].

Sir David Brewster, as mentioned above, favors the notion that Christ’s Redemptive work extends to inhabitants of other worlds. He writes, “the same constellations, Arcturus, Orion, and the Pleiades had sung together when the foundations of the world were laid and they rolled in darkness over Calvary, when the Prince of Life was slain” (19). He also writes:

If we reject, then, the idea that the inhabitants of the planets do not require a Saviour, and maintain the more rational opinion, that they stand in the same moral relation to their Maker as the inhabitants of the Earth, we must seek for another solution of the difficulty which has embarrassed both the infidel and the Christian. How can we believe, says the timid Christian, that there can be inhabitants in the planets, when God had but one Son whom He could send to save them? If we can give a satisfactory answer to this question, it may destroy the objections of the infidel, while it relieves the Christian from his anxieties.

When, at the commencement of our era, the great sacrifice was made at Jerusalem, it was by the crucifixion of a man, or an angel, or a God. If our faith be that of the Arian or the Socinian, the skeptical and the religious difficulty is at once removed: a man or an angel may be again provided as a ransom for the inhabitants of the planets. But if we believe, with the Christian Church, that the Son of God was required for the expiation of sin, the difficulty presents itself in its most formidable shape.

When our Saviour died, the influence of His death extended backwards, in the past, to millions who never heard His name, and forwards, in the future, to millions who will never hear it. Thought it radiated but from the Holy City, it reached to the remotest lands, and affected every living race in the old and the new world. Distance in time and distance in place did not diminish its healing virtue” (148 – 149).

Brewster seems to believe that the benefits of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ extend to the inhabitants of other worlds throughout the universe in the same way that they extend to the inhabitants of lands on the Earth outside Jerusalem (149 – 150).

Crowe notes that, of the published Christians examined in America and Europe between 1860 and 1900, fourteen Catholics and nineteen Protestants support pluralism while ten Catholics and four Protestants oppose pluralism (457).

ET’s may have their own theologies based on God’s intervention in the history of their worlds, but what about the Logos? Did the Logos become Incarnate only once on Earth for the salvation of all intelligent beings throughout the cosmos? Some theologians I have discussed hold the belief that Christ became incarnate on every world with intelligent beings throughout the cosmos, that he lived and died and rose again over and over again….poor Jesus! No, I will argue that, according to mainstream Christian theological principles, one must hold that the Logos became incarnate only once, and that Jesus suffered on the cross only once and rose again only once, and also that the Redemptive effects of Christ applies to ET’s. A reasonable question to ask is why did the Logos become incarnate on the Earth out of all the billions of planets in the cosmos? The answer to that question brings with it a whole host of new questions about Christ and the Incarnation and whether his redemptive work on Earth applies to all planets in the universe. Some writers, like C.S. Lewis, ponder the question and come up with the solution that other worlds need not necessarily have fallen in the same way that Adam and Eve fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and that subsequent incarnations are therefore unnecessary. In “Religion and Rocketry,” Lewis acknowledges that God may provide inhabitants of other worlds other economies of salvation which do not necessarily involve local incarnations of the Logos/Christ (J.J. Davis 28). Some scholars contend that ET’s are not the descendents of Adam and Eve and therefore are not held to the same covenants or subject to the same inherited disease of Original Sin. Perhaps ET’s fell just as Adam and Eve fell, and so all ET races are fallen in the same way that the human race is fallen. It’s possible that falling from grace is an inevitable consequence of free will. (Augustine and Aquinas do not necessarily agree on this point.) Origen argues that falling from grace is an inevitable consequence of intellectual life while Paul Tillich argues that it is an inevitable consequence of existence (O’Meara 11). I will argue that it is consistent with Christian theology to maintain that ET’s have fallen into sin as an inevitable consequence of free will stemming from intelligence and that the unique Incarnation on Earth as well as the unique Crucifixion and Resurrection purchased the benefits of salvation to sinful humans and sinful ET’s alike. O’Meara argues that we should not impose humanity’s fall from grace and salvation history onto extraterrestrial civilizations, but I think that, inasmuch as sin is inevitable for members of any civilization, the humanity and divine nature of Christ necessitate his extending his grace to inhabitants of other worlds.

O’Meara notes, “When some Protestant theologies identify salvation, sanctification, and redemption with Calvary’s atonement, they conflate quite different enterprises. Incarnation precedes and follows (in the Resurrection) the sufferings of Jesus. The Cross is not the only theology of redemption, nor is it doctrinally the necessary or full purpose of Incarnation” (11). Indeed, the position of the Catholic Church is that everything Jesus said and did is redemptive including his Incarnation, birth, teachings, healings, miracles, passion, suffering, crucifixion, death, Resurrection, and ascension. I maintain that the Incarnation is unique to the Earth, although Jesus may have visited and continue to visit other worlds throughout the cosmos. O’Meara suggests that divine messengers on other worlds may bring important theological messages of truth, but they would not be incarnations (11). In the same paragraph, O’Meara seems to suggest that other incarnations are possible; I’m a little confused about what his position is. [Note: Let Tim read this article to see what he thinks.]

Joseph Pohle (1852 – 1922) says, “No reason compels us to extend to other worlds our own sinfulness and to think of them as caught up in evil….But even when the evils of sin have infected those worlds it does not follow that an incarnation or redemption must have taken place. God has many other means by which to remit guilt” (cited in O’Meara 6). O’Meara continues, “Pohle wonders whether the Incarnation did not occur on earth precisely because our world is weak, small, and not particularly significant. There might be much greater and more impressive planets and planetary systems that have or need no Incarnation, an event giving ‘little earth’ a central significance in a wide cosmos” (6). Indeed, in Scripture, God typically chooses the weakest and least significant people through whom to show forth his power, so it may very well be that God chose earth for these reasons upon which to become Incarnate.

Mainstream Protestants, like mainstream Catholics, are more sympathetic to the view that ET’s are not demons but are probably ordinary people just like we are. The Reverend Billy Graham, a modern Baptist minister who has written many popular books, writes, "I firmly believe there are intelligent beings like us far away in space who worship God, but we would have nothing to fear from these people. Like us, they are God's creation" (cited in Peters, "Contemporary Theology" 2). Billy Graham also writes in a book on angels, "Some...have speculated that UFOs could very well be part of God's angelic host who preside over the physical affairs of universal creation. While we cannot assert such a view with certainty...nothing can hide the fact that these unexplained events are occurring with greater frequency around the entire world...UFOs are astonishingly angel-like in some of their reported appearances" (ibid.).

E.A. Milne in Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God writes that many people have trouble with the concept of the Incarnation in a universe teeming with intelligent life (J.J. Davis 26 – 27). In response to the suggestion of multiple incarnations, Milne writes that a disciple of Jesus would “…recoil in horror from such a conclusion” and avers that Christians cannot believe in their wildest dreams the notion of “…the Son of God suffering vicariously on each of a myriad of planets” (ibid. 27). Milne defends the uniqueness of the Incarnation and Atonement by appealing to the uniqueness of the Earth. He suggests that the necessity of multiple incarnations can be avoided with the evangelization of ET’s by radio (ibid.).

E.L. Mascall in Christian Theology and Natural Science (1956) disagrees with Milne, claiming that no sound theological reasons exist to deny multiple incarnations and atonements (J.J. Davis 27). J.J. Davis writes:

If the Incarnation involved no diminution in deity, why could not the Son of God, in principle, assume other created natures? For Mascall, there would seem to be no compelling reason why “other finite rational natures should not be united to that person too.” This raises the somewhat bizarre image not of the historical “God-man,” but of a “bionic Redeemer” who unites to his divine nature not only the nature of Homo Sapiens but the natures of many other sentient, embodied creatures as well (27).

Mascall acknowledges that other races of intelligent creatures may have so different a civilization that incarnations of Christ on such worlds are unnecessary (J.J. Davis 27).

Father Andrew Greeley, a popular Catholic writer of both nonfiction and science fiction, has written stories in which angels like Gabriel are portrayed as ET’s with unusually long lifespans who serve God as messengers. Father Greeley sent me email in 1996 in which he says, “I think your idea of a survey of what Catholics believe about other life in other places is great. My own feeling is that the Church should be very modest about what it says on the subject and about evangelizing what might be other economies of salvation. We should not mess up as we did in India and Japan when the Jesuit attempt to adjust to those cultures was slapped down by Rome.”

Krister Stendahl, former Bishop of Stockholm and former Dean of Harvard Divinity School, writes at a symposium sponsored by NASA in 1972, when asked about contact with ETs, "That's great. It seems always great to me, when God's world gets a little bigger and I get a somewhat more true view of my place and my smallness in that universe" (ibid.).

A. Durwood Foster asks, "is faith in any way threatened by the possibilities here in view? Why should it be?" (ibid.). Foster suggests that the abiding mystery of God means that we should be open to the prospects of the unanticipated, including, one must assume, encounters with ETs (ibid.). (See section on Scripture below.)

Wolfhart Pannenberg (German theologian) asserts the possibility of ETs in solar systems of the Milky Way or other galaxies. Pannenberg does not follow the Tillich line, arguing that the incarnation of the Logos is Jesus Christ alone through whom the entire created universe came into existence. Through Christ alone God has chosen to bring the entire universe, all of space and time, into a unified whole (Peters, "Contemporary Theology" 4).

Lewis Ford, one of the disciples of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead known as process theologians, says, "salvation is not just limited to men but applies to all intelligent beings wherever they may dwell" (ibid.). Ford asserts that God causes evolution to occur throughout the universe so that God causes in a good way a universe that is more integrated and precious in his eyes and includes both terrestrial and extraterrestrial complex beings for whom he sets in motion processes so that they evolve and develop.

Charles Davis, a widely respected Catholic scholar in Britain who later left the Church, writes “The Place of Christ” in 1960 in which he argues that the events surrounding the experiences of Jesus Christ are the center of all of space and time (711). The reason why Christ is the center of the universe is because Jesus is God, and the God-man permeates the cosmos (ibid.), filling everything with his presence and infusing everyone on all inhabited planets with his grace and love which everyone can accept or reject as they choose. Humanity’s place in the universe as only one species among many does not conflict with Christocentrism (ibid.). What is the relationship of inhabitants of other worlds to Christ? Davis writes:

The entire material creation is understood as involved in His work and destined to be transformed by the glory of His resurrection. This is an anthropocentric view of the universe, based on the primacy of Christ, and Catholic theology has long accepted its application to creatures naturally superior to man, the angels. Must it be extended to embrace other possible rational creatures, so that man would remain, whatever