The gentlemen who defend the science make this reply, they allow the credit and authority of Aristotle as much as the objectors; but as the objectors themselves deny all the authorities for the spirits, and desire that reason may be the only ground they go upon, so the refuters, on their parts desire, that Aristotle's _ipse dixit_ may not be absolutely passed upon them for argument; but that his words may be brought to the same touchstone of reason, and proved if they are standard. If this argument, say they, will hold good, Aristotle should not suppose intelligences moving the celestial spheres; for God sufficeth to move all without ministering spirits; nor would there be need of a sun in the world, for God can enlighten all things by himself, and so all second causes were to be taken away; therefore, there are angels and ministering spirits in the world, for the majesty of God, not for his want of them, and for order, not for his omnipotency. And here if the objectors return and say, who told you that there are spirits; Is not yours a precarious hypothesis? May not we have leave to recriminate in this place? Pray, who told Aristotle that there were intelligences that moved the celestial spheres? Is not this hypothesis as precarious as any man may pretend that of spirits to be? And we believe there are few philosophers at present who agree with Aristotle in that opinion; and we dare pronounce this to be ours, that Aristotle took his intelligences from the Hebrews, who went according to the same whimsical, though pretty notion, which first gave rise to the fiction of the nine muses. But more than all this, it is a very great doubt among learned men, whether this book _de Mundo_ be Aristotle's or no.