ict any principle of reason.
However, I will set downe the two chiefe of his arguments from his owne
workes, and from them you may guesse the force of the other. The 1. is
this,[2] since every heavy body doth naturally tend downwards, and every
light body upwards, what a hudling and confusion must there bee if there
were two places for gravity and two places for lightnesse: for it is
probable that the Earth of that other World would fall downe to this
Center, and so mutually the aire and fire here ascend to those Regions
in the other, which must needes much derogate from the providence of
nature, and cause a great disorder in his workes. To this I answere,
that if you will consider the nature of gravity, you will plainely see
there is no ground to feare any such confusion, for heavinesse is
nothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in 'its subject
to tend downewards towards its owne Centre, so that for some of that
earth to come hither would not bee said a fall but an ascension, since
it moved from its owne place, and this would bee impossible (saith
_Ruvio_) because against nature,[3] and therefore no more to bee feared
than the falling of the Heavens.

[Sidenote 1: _De Coelo_ l. 1. c. 8. 9.]

[Sidenote 2: _Ibid._]

[Sidenote 3: _De Coelo_ l. 1. c. 9. q. 1.]

Another Argument hee had from his master _Plato_,[1] that there is but
one World, because there is but one first mover, God.[2]

[Sidenote 1: _Metaphys._ l. 12. c. 8.]

[Sidenote 2: _Diog. Laert. lib._ 3.]

But here I may deny the consequence, since a plurality of worlds doth
not take away the unity of the first mover.

_Vt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem
solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam materiam_

(saith a Countreyman of ours.)[1] As the substantiall forme, so the
efficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particular
matter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Arguments
more fully answered by _Plutarch_ in his Booke (why Oracles are silent)
and _Iacob Carpentarius_ in his comment on _Alcinous_.

[Sidenote 1: _Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379._]

But our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often doe
_jurare in verba magistri_) will grant that there is not any strength in
these consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could not
convince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont to
bee swayed by th