(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 the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should rather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent to this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was because hee feared to displease his scholler _Alexander_, of whom ’tis related[1] that he wept to heare a disputation of another world, since he had not then attained the Monarchy of this, his restlesse wide heart would have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there had beene another, which made the Satyrist say of him, _Æstuat infœlix angusto limite mundi._[2] “That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend up in a narrow roome, when hee was confin’d but to one world.” Before he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee had done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps superiour Kings. [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de tranq. anim._] [Sidenote 2: _Iuvenal._] It may be, that _Aristotle_ was moved to this opinion, that hee might thereby take from _Alexander_ the occasion of this feare and discontent, or else, perhaps, _Aristotle_ himselfe was as loth to hold the possibility of a world which he could not discover, as _Alexander_ was to heare of one which he could not conquer. Tis likely that some such by-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments he urges for it are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very sleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to prove, that there is not any evidence in the light of naturall reason, which can sufficiently manifest that there is but one world. But however some may object, would it not be inconvenient and dangerous to admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of _Aristotle_, which all the world hath so long followed? This question is much controverted by the _Romish_ Divines; _Campanella_ hath writ a Treatise[1] in defence of it, in whom you may see many things worth the reading and notice. [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo._]