to addresse my selfe herunto so farre as out of the old store of my Philosophy I have in readines And yet if thinges be considered aright there is no necessitie of any such course For certenly we have no neede of it for the fortification of our faithe that being built only upon the word of God and according to that old sayinge Fides non habet meritum quoties humana ratio praebet experimentum And as for Atheists may we not justly say of them as Abraham saythe of the rich Gluttous bretheren If they believe not Moses and the Prophets neyther will they believe thougheÌ„ a man shoulde rise from the dead Especially consideringe that the Scriptures suppose in my judgement the creation to be acknowledged by generall instinct actualed by consideration of the course of the world as where it is sayde The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament sheweth his handy woorke Day unto day uttereth the same and night unto night teachethe knowledge There is no speach or language where their voyce is not heard And as is the voyce of the Prophets in the old Testament such is the voyce of the Apostles in the newe The invisible thinges of God that is his eternall power and Godhead is seene from the creation of the World being considered in his workes so that they are without excuse And Paul preachinge before the Athenians in an Vniversitie much addicted to Aristotles Philosophy yet is bolde to suppose this as a thinge without his preachinge receaved amongst them God that made the World and all thinges that are therin seing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earthe dwellethe not in Temples made with handes Neyther is woorshipped with mens handes as thoughe be needed any thing seinge he giveth to all life and breathe all thinges And hathe made of one blood all mankinde to dwell on all the face of the Earth and hathe assigned the seasons which were ordeyned before by the boundes of their habitation And the being of the World from everlasting thoughe by creation doth apparantly limit the power of God thus farre that he coulde not then have made it sooner And if God coulde make the creature like unto himselfe in everlastingnes why not in any thing els seinge the Apostle speaking of the Godhead as evidenced by his workes noteth it to consist in his eternall power But come we to that manner of demonstration which is expected leaving such arguments as Mornay prosecutethe as namely the novell invention of all Arts and Sciences as appeares by History and the like evidencinge that the World had a beginninge It is well knowne that the most generall opinion is even of Aristotle himselfe that an infinite magnitude or a number actually infinite is a thing utterly impossible as that which implyethe manifest contradiction Now let those arguments be well observed and considered whether the most pregnant amongst them may not with as great evidence be accommodated against the everlastingnes of the World to proove it to be a thing impossible As for example One of the most forcible arguments that I have founde to proove the impossibilitie of an infinite magnitude is this If a magnitude were actually infinite then it shoulde consist of an infinite number of yards or ells for if it consisted but of a finite number of them the whole coulde be but finite Nowe it is manifest that such an infinite magnitude can consist but of an infinite number of inches And herehence it followethe that the number of inches and the number of yardes or ells in such a magnitude are equall herehence it followeth that an inch in this case should be equall to a yarde or â—ll which is impossible and consequently as impossible it is that there shoulde be any magnitude infinite In like sort if the World were everlasting then the dayes past shoulde be infinite not so only but the yeares past shoulde be infinite and so the number of dayes and number of yeares past shoulde be equall and consequently a day shoulde be equall to a yeare For if twenty dayes were equall to twentie yeares then certeynly one day shoulde be equall to one yeare For fi ab aequalibus aequalia demas quae remanent erunt aequalia Now it is impossible that a day shoulde be equall to a yeare consequently it is impossible that the World shoulde be everlasting without beginninge Perhaps some may say that the same reason might proove as well that it is a thing impossible the World shoulde be without ende But this is untrue thoughe at first sight men are apt to be deceaved with a shewe of paritie where indeade there is no paritie For thoughe we shall continue as the Angells allready doe without ende yet herehence it shall never come to passe that it can be verified of such that they have continued an infinite space of time but still the space is finite thoughe with addition of continuance longer longer in infinitum But if the World were without beginning then an infinite space of time were actually past allready which implyeth manifest contradiction as before hathe bene shewed Now consider the answere to the former argument whether it be of any force The only course to weaken it is to maynteyne that datur infinitum infinito insinitius One infinite may be greater then another to witt an infinite number of yeares past greater then an infinite number of dayes past This at first sight seemes to be a madde kinde of answere For hence it followeth that one infinite can not be admitted but that therwithall you must admitt an numberles number of infinites As for example If there were past an infinite number of yeares then seinge every yeare conteynes 365. dayes you must acknowledge that this infinite space of yeares consists of 365. parts each wherof is infinite And wheras if the World were eternall the space of time past infinite then the millions of yeares past were infinite allso whence we inferre that the space of millions of yeares past being infinite consists of tenne hundred thousand parts each wherof is infinite and each infinite part consists of 365. parts each wherof is infinite allso And this is the very argument that Aristotle useth in his Metaphysickes to proove that there cannot be an infinite magnitude for then it shoulde consist ex infinitis now indeede this they doe grant that streyne their witts to maynteyne the possibilitie of infinitie in magnitude as namely Hurtando de Mendosa in his disputations as being necessarily driven herunto And the like course they must needes take that maynteyne the possibilitie of infinitie in time past But as for the possibilitie of it in time to come that is alltogether of another nature as before I have shewed Nowe I will clearly overthrowe this answere and proove evidently that an infinite number of yeares is not greater then an infinite number of dayes and I proove it thus If upon the
and such cautions are very frequent with you which in this place I take to be moste needelesse Now as time and place were as you sayde shadowes of Gods eternitie and immensitie So the power of the creature is a shadowe of Gods infinite power Yet shadowes we all knowe have proportioÌ„s to the substances shadowed by them but betweene finite and infinite we commonly say there is no proportion 2. God you say is more infinite in every kinde then all the united powers of severall natures though they were for number infinite and each infinitly operative in its owne kinde But let us not lye for God as man doth for man to gratify him True and naturall beauty needeth no painting And Gods perfection needeth no Mountebanke like amplifications to sett him forth The powers of the creatures are not formally in God but eminently that is they are sayd to be in God in as much as he can produce them and they re effects allso As for example though he be not hott yet can he produce heate in greater measure then fier dothe But consider I pray you Can God produce a greater heate then that which is infinite or can he produce a greater number then that which is infinite It is apparent that he cannot not by reason of any defecte of power in God but by reason that a greater then that which is infinite to be produced is a thing utterly impossible You are pleased to take notice of a former observation of yours which was this That thinges by nature most imperfecte doe oftentimes best shadowe divine perfection You have allready intreated of Gods immensity and eternity and therein you have tolde us that no positive entity no numerable parte of this vinverse doth so well represent the immensity and eternity of God as the negation of all thinges which we describe by the name of Nothinge I thinke there never dropt a more vile assertion from the penne of any wise man then this yet you desire here agayne to commende it unto the Reader as some quainte observation But what doe you meane to repeate it under such forme as by calling it somethinge though imperfect Is Nothinge or the negation of all thinges to be accoumpted somethinge though imperfect yet the same observation you will have to have place here allso As if this which we call nothinge were the most fitt to represent Gods immensity by yea and his eternity yea and his infinite power allso How neere drawes this to the making of God to consiste of nullities since you say his naturall properties are best resembled unto nullities well we have heard what that is which best representeth his immensity and eternity now we are to expecte what that is which best represents his infinite power And this after a long deduction you expresse to be the center of the earth which you say is matter of nothing And thus you maintaine a just proportion of discourse concerning Gods attributes for still your witt serveth you to resemble them either to Nothinge or to that which you call matter of just nothinge But herein you proceede by degrees And first you seeme to conceave that this center of the earth is in the language of the Holy Ghoste made to be the foundation of the earth as in that speeche of the Lord to Iob chap. 38. 4. 5 6. Where wast thou when I layed the foundation of the earth and whereupon are the foundations therof fastned who hath layde the corner stone therof And first you commende the phrase as surmounting all poeticall decorum and will have the Majesty therof consiste therin sufficiently testifying that it was uttered by God himselfe Now hertofore you have made poeticall witt to stande in opposition unto Metaphysicall truth But of poeticall de corum especially in this place like enough you have a better opinion For my part I am persuaded the Majesty of Gods speeche consists in the power of the Spirite rather then the Wisdome of the wordes Paule allso spake by the Spirite of God and some have observed greate parts in his very language but see what Castellio a freind to your opinions writes of Bezaas judgement concerning this in the defence of his translations upon the 2. Cor. 11. 6. Paulum sayth he of Beza grandiloquentiâ Platoni vehementia Demostheni Methodo Aristoteli atque Galeno anteponit in quo mihi videtur Pictores imitari qui Christi matrem dum honorare volunt regio vestitu pingunt â—idem tamen ita cogente historia praesepe in quo jaceat Christus infans appingunt nobili sane solaecismo Quid enim mundanis regibus cum praesepibus Mariae gloria est paupertas pictores eam divitiis exornant Sic Pauli gloria gloriatio est Sermonis imperitia But lett the Majesty of the speech passe as nothing pertinent to our present purpose where doe you find the center of the earth to be mentioned or pointed unto in all this doth the corner stone there mentioned signifie so much or by the foundation there expressed muste we necessarily understand the center of the earth The Holy Ghoste seemes rather in this inquisition to have reference to something without the earth that should uphold it or fasten it and withall signifieth that no such supporter can be found Then you proceede to admiration at this that the center shoulde beare up the earth and all thinges theron which center is no body or substance no not so much as a meere Angle or corner nay such as forth with you say is a matter of nothing And so in the issue it comes to this that nothing beares it up which is true in the forme of a negative but not as an affirmative as if there were any power in the center to beare it up And why should we conceave that the center of the earth should beare it up more then the center of a tennis ball beares it up which allso might be the center of all if it lay in the middle of the earth And if any side of the earth were removed from the center to the heavens it would forthwith appeare that the center of the earth beares not up the rest for that which before was the center would now be driven aÌ„ greate deale higher and become the outside of the earth So that the center of the earth will not serve your turne will you then runne to the center of vacuum or of the space imagined to contayne the earth Yet you distinguish not of centrum Physicum and centrum Mathematicum For who doubts but that one side of the earth may be heavier then an other Againe it was woont to be a received Maxime that Terra non gravitat in loco suo and therfore there is no neede of any thing to beare it up For the middle of the world is the naturall place of the earth which when it hath gotten it swayes not nor propendes not nor can be swayed to weighe downewards which indeede were
thinges then hinders or excludes the conceyte of coextension with the things that are especially wheras you maynteyne that God is in all thinges not only as conteyning them with cannot be attributed unto God in respect of his essence as I have shewed but rather in respect of his power and wil but by way of penetration thoroughe all and that in respect of his essence and not in respect of his power only like as light is diffused thoroughe our Hemi spheare which similitude I am bolde to adde because you fayle in affoording us any resemblance to succour our capacitie of apprehension this way But I dare not adventure vpon such an apprehension because in my opinion it is too grosse to be attributed to the nature of God I content my selfe with this that as God before the world was in himselfe so he is in himselfe still according to that old verse Tunc ubi nunc in se quoniam sibi sufficit ipse But then nothing being made he had nothing to conteyne governe and worke by or in as nowe he hathe As touchinge all other manner of being in all thinges I content my selfe with ignorance You magnify Trism gâ—sts definition of Gods immensitie and much good doe it you It is suitable with your dicourse But doe you remember what censure Aristotle passed vpon Empedocles for this figurative obscure manner of expressions in Philosophicall discourse And indeede when we take paynes in searching out the truthe why shoulde we encumber our selves with resolving figures into playne speeches that so we may have somethinge wheron to dispute Hertofore you tolde us that God was the center of all thinges and that of supportance now out of Trismegist you tell us that God hathe a Center and that every where but not of supportance passive I thinke as wherby he shoulde be supported but of supportance active wherby he supporteth all thinges Now herof we can easily finde bothe a center and a circumference For Gods supporting of the earth may well be accoumpted the Center and Gods supporting the heavens may well be accoumpted the Circumference of Gods supportinge the earthe In as much as there is no divine supporting without it at least of materiall creatures but all with it Thoughe it be true that God coulde can make the world much bigger then it is But Gods will hathe herein circumâ—scibed himselfe thus farre to proceede as he dothe in supporting all thinges no farther I doe not like your phrase of inlarging the actuall coexistence of Gods essence For dare any sober divine say that Gods actuall existence hathe boundes and that these boundes may be more or lesse enlarged And yet the face I confesse of your discourse lookes hitherwardes How then doe you say that the boundes of Gods coexistence with his creatures are or can be enlarged The only way to helpe it is to say that Gods existence is never enlarged but the existence of creatures by the encreasing of newe may be enlarged and consequently Gods coexistence with them may be sayde to be enlarged not that his existence is more then it was but that the existence of created substances is more then it was And more creatures coexisting with God then formerly there did he doth coexist with more then he did His existence is no greater then it was nor hathe no larger boundes then it had but creatures are supposed to exist by the power of God more then formerly did exist And yet the omnipotency of God hathe pitcht a circumference to Gods coexistence with his creatures and that is the circumference of the world For without it God seems to have no coexistence with his creatures but all within And albeit God coulde make the world greater and greater yet still it shoulde be but finite as there should be a circumference of all creatures existing so likewise of Gods coexisting with them To say that God only truly is is one of the paradoxes That God alone is id quod est that is that whatsoever is attributed unto God is essentiall to him not accidentall I have often read But that God only truly is I never read but in your writings In him we live and moove and have our being saythe Saint Paul but this by your subtile commentary must be understood with a distinction In him we live but not truly in him we moove but not truly in him we have our being but not truly That God conteynes all things and is not conteyned in any thing we easily grant Spheares doe conteyne by way of place but I hope you will not say that God in such sort conteynes any thinge thoughe therfore called by the Hebrewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he conteynethe all thinges And yet certeinly there is no Spheare conteynes so much but that a square figure may conteyne as much thoughe not under the same limits And can any man make doubt but God coulde make a World of a square figure that shoulde conteyne as much as this World dothe thoughe in this case the Circumference of the World shoulde be greater then now it is But because that all thinges cannot comprehend God therfore you say He is rightly resembled to a spheare whose Circumference is no where A proper resemblance of the nature of God to a thing utterly impossible and fitt matter for Atheists to make themselfes sport withall I say impossible more then one way For first it is a thing impossible that a body should be infinite Secondly it is impossible that a body infinite should be Sphericall If you aske of what figure then shoulde it be my answeare is it should be of no figure For figures are the boundes of quantities it is contradiction to make a boundles quantitie consist of boundes or a bounded and figured quantitie without boundes And yet if all this were receaved as fitt and convenient what shall we gayne therby when all this while we imagine him to be merely corporall who indeede is merely spirituall For I doe not thinke you looke to finde spheares any other where then among bodies We reade and heare of the Spheares of Heaven but I never read or heard of the Spheares of Angells or Spirits as if they might be of a round or square figure as bodies are much lesse is any such figure fitt to resemble God Yet upon these conceytes as extraordinary atchievements of yours in the way of Metaphysicall discourse you proceede in the next place to the solution of certeyne difficulties that so Drismagist his definition of Gods immensitie may finde the more easy admittance into the Articles of our imagination if not into the Articles of our Creede Which yet truly I should not have excepted against but rather have admitted if to no other ende yet to this even to cutt of curious speculations about the immensitie of God had you not so farre magnified it as if it had bene some Oracle of natures light and made use of it not as a Rhetoricall flashe and
such courses all they must needes take that seeke out to satisfie imagination For imaginatio as we commonly say in Schooles non transcendit continuum You proceede to shewe how Gods immensâ—ie hathe no diversitie of parts and your argument intends to drawe to an inconvenience as many as maynteyne the contrary But the inconvenience which you inferre depends only upon peradventure thus A concurrence of all parts in number infinite would perhaps be impossible why then perhaps it would not be impossible and what then shall become of your argument Besides this the whole frame of your argument is unsound For infinite natures such as man is there is no necessitie of the concurrence of all parts to the performing of all actions no nor to the performing of any action As for example if he gives himselfe to study and meditate there is no necessary use of other then of the inward faculties of his minde If he playeth upon the Lute there is no use of his legges and feete If he fighteth with his enemies there is no use of his tongue or teethe nor so much use of his legges as of his handes thoughe sometimes one payre of leggs is better then two payre of handes yet not to fight but to runne away rather thoughe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes sometimes sayde being put to his witts to save the credite of his courage Indeede if God were not as he is he coulde not be so omnipotent as he is we neede no paynes at all to proove this 10. We are never so safe in matter of divinitie as when we goe along with scripture one place may easily prevent the mistaking of another if we give our selves to the due consideration of it and submitt unto those meanes which God hathe appoynted for our edification And the Scriptures represent his being every where in respect of two thinges 1. In respect of knowinge all thinges as Why sayest thou o Iacob and speakest o Israel My way is hid from the Lord and my judgement is passed over my God Knowest thou not or hast thou not heard that the everlasting God the Lord hath created the ends of the Earthe c. 2. In respect of his power conteyning them as whither shall I goe from thy Spirite or whither shall I slee from thy presence If I ascend into Heaven thou art there c. Let me take the winges of the Morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the Sea yet thither shall thine hand lead me and thy right hand hold me But to talke of Gods essence penetrating and diffufed is to vent such phrases as I dare not adventure on I have allready tolde you what I have read to the contrary in some naming my Author as you take libertie to doe the like without naming of them Quando dicimus sayth Durand Deum esse in rebus non intelligimus eum esse in iis ut partem intrinsecam vel intrinsecus rem penetrantem ut magis infra patebit sed intelligimus eum esse praesentem rei non solum secundum durationem quia est quando res sunt nec secundum contactum corporalem quum non sit corpus nec virtus in corpore sed secundum ordinem qui in Spiritibus tenet locum situs in corporibus In hoc tamen excellit ordo in Spiritibus fitum in corporibus quia persitum se habet anum corpus ad aliud immendiate quoad sui extremum sed per ordinem se habet Spiritus ad corpus immediate secundum quod libet sui saltem non est hoc dubium de Spiritu increato scilicet de Deo quicquid sit de aliis propter quod potest dici esse non solum juxtares fed in rebus And agayne in a question following Per eandem rationem dicendum est quod non competit Deo esse ubique ita quod infinitas suae substantia sit ei ratio ubique essendi sed est ubique solum ratione suorum effectuum us dictum fuit in praecedente questione Si enim competeret Deo esse ubique ratione suae essentiae infinitae tunc competeret ei esse necessariò ubique vel in loco infinito nullo modo finito sicut à contrariò dicitur de Angelo quod ratione suae essentiae finitae convenit ci esse in loco sinito nullo modo infinito Esse autem ubique non est esse in loco infinito Ergo infinitas Divinae essentiae non est ipsi ratio essendi ubique quod tamen assumebat ratio aliorum In a word I have no edge to cast my selfe upon any curious inquisition hereabouts because errours are dangerous about the nature of God eyther in denyinge unto him what is beseeming him or ascribing such things unto him as doe unbeseeme him which in the Schooles are accoumpted certeyne kindes of blasphemies I content my selfe with the simplicitie of Scripture institution which professethe that God filleth Heaven and Earthe and this undoubtedly is true as Durand saythe in respect of Gods effects wherewith he filleth all thinges as allso that he knowethe all thinges that he cannot be any where as conteyned but is every where as conteyninge governing orderinge working the good pleasure of his will in and by all thinges Now whether God conteynethe all thinges by his penetrative and diffused essence and not rather by his power and will let every sober Reader judge Before the World was God was in himselfe and so he is still how his power is extended to the making and conteyninge of his creatures I easily conceave but how his essence is extended I conceave not I conclude with those old verses Dic ubi tunc esset cum praeter eum nihil esset Tune ubi nunc in se quoniam sibisufficit ipse CHAP. VI. Of Eternity or of the branch of absolute infinities whereof Successive Duration of the imaginary infinity of time is the modell I See no reason to subscribe unto the proposition wherewith you begin your discourse on this Argument as touching the exact proportion betweene immensity and eternity For Gods immeÌ„sity is that whereby he is ubique or every where like as by his eternity he is semper or alwayes But to be every where supposeth the creations but to be semper alwayes doth not For God was alwayes ever before the world Againe God in proper speech hath true being and consequently true Duration of Being which having neyther beginning nor ending is properly eternall But God in proper speech hath no quantity and consequently neyther extension and so in proper speech cannot be coumpted immense which signifieth extension without beginning and end and having no extension at all being merely spirituall and not materiall And ere you turne over a new leafe your self make doubt whether Time hath the same proportion to eternity as magnitude created hath to Divine Immensity In a word I doe not beleive you are like to find so many nothings to resemble
God by in this argument of eternity as you did devise in the other of Immensitie That saying of TertulliaÌ„ you mention is no more appliable to Gods eternity as t is sayd he was to himselfe Time then to his immensity as 't is therein sayd he was unto himselfe a World And for ought I see God is so still and not onely was so before all things in as much as he hath no more need of them then before all things he had You say we cannot properly say God was in time before the world was made I say such a speech in my judgement seemes to be neyther proper nor improper but directly false even as false as to say God was in place before he made the world For before the world was made there was neyther time nor place Nowe he is in neyther as conteyned in them but only as conteyning both time and place which before the World absolutely were not at all consequently could not be conteyned by him I doe not think that Austin himselfe was conscious of any acutenes in inferring that God could not have bene before all times if he had alwayes bene in time for common sense doth justifie that that legge which was ever in the stockes was never out of the stockes But whereas you say that we believe God to be as truly before all times future as before all times past seeme to affect it as a subtlety of opinion herein I willingly professe that if it be a subtlety it is of so subtle a sense as quite passeth mine intelligence I had thought it might be avouched of every thing that is past that it is before all times to come And that all future things are behind the things that are past Neyther had I thought any reason needfull to be given of this because common sense I think doth justifie it Yet you seeme to make this a peculiar propertie of God that like as he is before all times past so allso he is before all times to come Yet I gesse at your meaning For we now existent allbeit we are before the things that are to come yet it is not necessary that we should be after them But God as he is before all so if it please him he may be after all For God is that which was is is to come that is which shall be and that for ever of himselfe Now this phrase to be after all in a sublimate streyne of conceyt attributed unto God is more truly and perfectly to be accoumpted his being before all then after all in your opinion as it seemes like as the Heavens invironning the Earth though they seeme to sense to be under the Earth and under our Antipodes yet indeed they are above them So God in being after all things future is more properly and truly to be accoumpted before them This mystery I seeme to find by your subsequentd iscourse and I wonder what you meane to carry your selfe so in the cloudes when you might have exprest your selfe playnly And surely it is no glory to affect a lofty understanding of your owne phrase above the apprehension of your Reader when your termes are not sufficient to expresse your meaning This is to equivocate like the Iesuites Of that conceyt of yours I will prepaÌ„re my selfe to consider against the time I shall arrive to your more full discourse thereof in the paâ—s subsequent of this Chapter In the next place you propose a conclusion which is this His eternity then is the inexhaustible founteyne or Ocean from which time or Duration successive doth perpetually flow But I can neither justifie this inference nor the truth of the proposition inferred For I know not from what premises of yours it can be inferred That which went immediately before was this God is before all times future as well as all times past Now to inferre that God was before all time therfore all time flowes from his eternity is no good consequence You might as well argue thus God was before all place therfore all places flowes from Gods eternity We our selfes are before all times that are to come but herehence it followes not that all times to come flow from our eternity or from us Suppose Angells had bene made before the World yet would it not thence followe that the World did flow from them Now for the proposition it selfe inferred it is subject to exceptions divers wayes The phrase to flow savoureth of a natural necessary emanation so much the more when it is resembled by the flowing of water from a founteyne But nothing created doth in such sort flow from God Naturall emanations from God are not to be found but in God and that in respect of the Persons the Sonne being naturall and necessarily begotten of the Father the H. Ghost naturally and necessarily proceeding both from the Father the Sonne Againe the water that floweth from the founteyne on from the Ocean is of the same nature with the founteyne on with the water of the Ocean so is not time of the same nature with eternity from whence you say it flowes Agayne it is untrue that eternity produceth time or duration of things created for the duration of them is nothing els but the continuance of their existence Therefore looke what produceth the things themselves maynteynes them being produced from thence they are to be accoumpted to have their beginning Now it is the power and will of God wherby things are created and preserved not the eternity of God By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made all the hoast of them by the breath of his mouth We no where read that by the eternitie of God all things were made Angells and Men Heaven and Earth And so likewise as by his word he made all things so by the power of his mighty word he supports all things Heb. 1. And therefore all things both touching theyr being and duration depend upon the mighty word of God this we have ground for But that they depend upon his eternity we have no ground to affirme though it is true that both God and his Word and Spirit are eternall otherwise he could not be the Creator of the World Vpon the back of this you come in with a new Paradox namely that From all eternity there was a possibility for us to be as if it were possible for a creature to be from all eternity Yet I know some Scholemen have maynteyned it as what will not wild witts dare to undertake but doth it therefore become a Divine to suppose it without all proofe I hold it to be impossible and Durands reasons to the contrary are more pregnant in my judgement then any that are brought for it to witt that then yeares and months dayes and hours should be equall for each of them even yeares should be infinite and dayes and houres yea and minutes past should be but infinite whence he inferres that to every minute
continue the same and ever shall In the last sentence you teach us that it may stand well enough with eternitie to be sayd to be past present and to come so we doe not affirme it to be more properly past then present or to come Yet I promise you I nothing like to say that God is past I had rather say he was and is and is to come As much as to say God is of necessary being and still continueth and it is impossible he should be otherwise in which respect we may truly and properly say he was coexistent with every thing that is past to witt in the time of its existence is coexistent to every thing present shall be coexistent to every thing that is to come to witt in the time of the existence of each thing and all this not by any succession of parts in himselfe as who is subject to no motion but by succession of parts in outward things with which or whom he is sayd to coexist his owne existence being perpetuall and invariable These your propositions I can finde reason to make them good in some tolerable construction Yet you adde a reason of it which should be more evident then the Conclusion but indeed is farre more obscure and when the meaning of it is perceived is found to have most need of reason to proove it as being in shew contrary to all reason yet you content your selfe with dictating it thence proceed to a wild goose race of illustration by the heavens that environ both us and the Antipodes so to make way for the circular duration which formerly you attributed unto God by comparing it with the heavens turning round upon supposition in a moment The rationall proposition without reason delivered is this For that onely is eternall which allwayes is and so allwayes is that it hath precedence or preexistence infinite to all successions which way soever we look upon them or take they re beginninge whether backwards or forwards Now this saying of yours is full of incongruities if not rather of foule absurdi its For first you suppose the beginning of succession may be taken backwards or forwards but how is this possible is succession indifferent to beginne backwards or forwards Is time indifferent to beginne backwards or forwards The first time is the beginning of it but as for the last of time will any sober man call that the beginning of it unlesse you make time like to a pudding where a man may beginne at which end he will And surely I see no reason but a pudding may be in better sense acknowledged to have two ends then time two beginnings Especially two such beginnings as you ascribe unto it the one backwards and the other forwards for beginne at which end of a pudding you will you may be well sayd to goe forwards and not backwards Agayne suppose your owne phrases be allowed you and that the end of time may be taken for the beginning yet where there is no end to be found how will you devise a beginning As for example Time we all know had a beginning but you suppose that time to come shall have no end for though this world shall have an end yet men and Angells shall have no end but live with God for ever For the same reason though God be infinitely prexistent before times past yet he cannot be sayd no not in your phrase and your meaning that he is infinitely preexistent to all times to come the meaning whereof is to continue infinitely longer then all ages to come for that were to suppose that God shall be when all ages have runne they re course and are come to an end which you suppose shall never be Thus from your Antipodes which you devise in the course of time I come to the consideration of the Antipodes in respect of place and situation And hereupon I remember what you delivered in the entrance upon this discourse of eternitie and it is this whatsoever hath beene or rightly may be conceaved of divine immensitie will in proportion as well suite unto eternitie and in like manner whatsoever is incident to space of place the same in porportion may be verified of space of time And therefore like as Antipodes are found in place so in some proportion Antipodes may be found in time For when you beginne at the ends of time you seeme to turne the heeles of it upwards And like as the roundnes of the heavens environing all salves this and makes it appeare how the heads every where are uppermost howsoever it seemes otherwise to vulgar capacities so heere you have a devise of a circular duration to salve the turning of times heeles upwards for by this it appeares that in truth time hath no heeles to turne upwards but rather wheeles to turne roundwards like as eternitie hath a Circular duration by way of supermotion or a vigorous rest as you phrasifie it Well let Lactantius passe with his errour in denying Antipodes and the vulgar with theyr errour passe that think the heavens if they be â—ound be under us Now wee come to the comparison and comparative demonstration which is this As the heavens are every way above the earth so is eternitie every way before all worlds Suppose there be truth in the parts of this assertion yet I find no convenience in tho resemblance It is true that Tiburne is three square and a Citizens capp is round but there is no congruitie in saying that as Tiburne is three square so a Citizens capp is round Yet I find as litle accuratenes in the propositions considered by themselfes as in saying the Heavens are every way above the earth for I know no other wayes of the Heavens being above the whole earth which is round then by compassing it In my judgement it is more proper to say the heavens are every where above the earth then every way above it and on every side above the earth or which way soever we goe whether East West North or South we shall still find the Heavens to be above the earth So likewise I know but one way how eternitie can be sayd to be before all Worlds and that is by being before they had beginning As for that other way which you devise as it were an Antipodes in time as well as in place namely to be when all Worlds are at end that is to be after all Worlds rather then before them And yet you flatter your selfe in this erroneus conceite as if it were some exquisite invention by another fiction that is by conceyting eternitie to compasse and inviron time as the heavens inviron the earth Now because the earth is immoveable but time hath succession of parts and the heavens wonderfull nimble in motion and contrariwise eternitie a constant and permanent instant therefore you may doe well to salve the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Spheare of your discourse to consult with Copernicus about blowing some quicksilver into the dull
and sullen earth set it going round and on the other side persuade the Heavens to favour themselves and take theyr rest the modell of eternitie and time represented by you would be something the more accurate Some helpes for this you have I confesse of your owne divising to witt by supposing the Heavens to move in an instant leaving it to the Readers judgment whether to accompt that motion a cessation from motion or a vigorous rest besides that of the topp scourge which we may have time to consider of in due place But to proceede of the beginning of this World past and the end of it to come there is no difference betweene us To this you adde that the eye of eternall providence lookes thorough the World thorough all the severall ages successions or durations in the World as well from theyr last end to theyr first beginning as from theyr first beginning to theyr last end This World as it had a beginning so it shall have an end But successive duration even in your opinion shall have no end And therfore you cannot say without contradiction that God looks thorough the severall ages thereof from theyr last end to theyr beginning Yet this last end you might have called a beginning according to your phrase and tenent maynteyning God to be before all ages not onely before ages past one way but allso before ages to come another way Agayne that all things are knowne to him as well things to come as things past or present is without all question This is to be present unto God in esse cognito But you have another wilde conceyt of the coexistence both of things past and of things to come with God that for this present which turne of yours this will nothing serve that God knows all things Last of all as touching this manner of knowledge which you attribute unto God it is nothing decent We confusse we may indifferently consider the course of the World past eyther from the beginning unto this present day or from this present day rising upwards unto the beginning of the World because our understanding is of such a nature as to consider things in succession one after another But Gods understanding as you well know is of no such nature as to consider things one after another for so you should maynteyne succession in the nature of God and consequently subject him unto time Agayne God doth not looke out of himselfe in knowing the course of the World throughout for he knew it as well what it might be and what it should be before the World was made as now he knowes what it is yet certainly before the World was he knew it not by looking without him for then there was nothing without him to looke into And surely since the World was made the manner of Gods knowledge is nothing altered for with him is no variablenes nor shadow of change Neyther doe I see any reason why the knowledge of God whereby he knowes all things should be called the eye of his Providence seing Providence beganne with the world but his knowledge was the same before the world beganne and by his providence it is more properly sayd that he governes all things then that he knowes all thingâ—s Agayne you returne to the devised Circular forme of eternitie yet that will not warrant a Circular duration thereof which was your former sigment and tell us that there is no period of time which is not so environed with eternitie as the earth or center is with the Heavens save onely that the Heavens are finite and eternitie infinite Give me leave to professe the absurditie of this conceyte of yours amongst many others For what doe you talke of environning that which hath no sides but onely hath a kind of extension of succession in lenght of parts one after another Every period of time hath eternitie before it and eternitie after it but this is not sufficient to maynteyne that eternitie environs time as the Heavens environ the earth My selfe was borne before many thousands whom allso I have outlived but yet I cannot be sayd to environ them as the Heavens environ the earth If a Crowe lives many ages of a Man and an Hart more then the Crowe and the Raven more then the Hart how many thousands have begunne to breath ceased to breath within the limits of theyr duration yet what an absurde thing were it to say that they environed them all as the Heavens environ the earth yet you proceed sitting upon these addle eggs to hatch congruous conclusions you say that in this sense were it possible the world might have bene created from everlasting the Eternall notwithstanding should have bene everlastingly before them Which as it is most false so it is most inconsequent Most false for like as God cannot be after that which hath no end as your selfe before in a manner professed and the reason is manifest Because to be after a thing as for instance to be after the world is to be after the world is come to his end which were untrue if the world had no end In like sort to be before the world is to be while the world had yet no being which is contrary to the supposition of being everlasting Neyther doth it follow that because God is before every period of time which hath a beginning therefore he should be before such a time which is supposed to have no beginning I grant he should be before it by prioritie of cause and by prioritie of dignitie but he should not be before it by priority of duration which is the onely prioritie whereof this discourse proceedeth Yet you will bring a reason to prove the former assertion and that is this For that period of motion which must terminate the next Million of yeares shall have coexistens with eternity now existent whose insinity doth not growe with succession nor extend it selfe with motion but stands immoovable with times present being eternally before times future as well in respect of any set draught or point Whence we imagine time future to come towards us as in respect of the first revolution of the Heavens when time tooke beginninge This reason hath number enough of words but let us consider what is the waight of sense it carryeth And this is an hard matter to doe by reason of the obscurity that accompanieth it one peuliar character of your discourse For what doe you meane by the next Million of yeares I know not how to accompt them whether in respect of the time present and so they proceede of the next Million that are to come or rather of the Million of yeares next past For I presume you meane it not of the first Million of years of the world in case it were eternall For if eternall then it had no beginninge and consequently as it had no first yeare so neyther had it any first Million of years Therefore I understand it of the next Million
that the greater force ariseth from the contraction of parts Now hath God any parts to be thus contracted and united that so his vigour might be greater what base comparisons are these to represent the infinite power of God by them Then you roule in your woonted Rhetorick to amplifie the vehemency of his motive power in that it cannot be exprest by a motion that should beare levill from the Sunnesetting in the west to the Moone riseing in the East which is a very faire marke I confesse for the case put is in plenilunio when the Moone is att full Then to cast the fixed starres downe to the center belike you meane one after another otherwise there would be no roome for them in the center and hoyse the earth up to the Heavens within the twinkling of an eye or to send both in a moment beyond the extreamities of this visible world into the wombe of vacuity whence they issued would not straine his power motive Yet all this you confesse to be lesse then to bring nothing unto something that is to take not your words but rather your good meaning to create out of nothing Wherby nothing doth not become something but something hath a being which before it had not But here you power out many wilde conceits besides this first as when you say Essence swallowes up infinite degrees of succession in a fixed instant I had thought rather this had bene the property of eternity not of essence You might as well say essence swallowes up all places into an indivisible unitie or point Then how may eternitie be sayde to swallow up that which it doth not contayne neyther formally for certeynly there is no formall succession in eternitie nor eminently For to conteyne eminently is to be able to produce succession but it is not Gods eternitie that denominates him able to produce time or the existence of thinges in time but his power So neyther his essence nor his eternitie swallowes up motion for the same reason But as for the swallowing up of motion into a vigorous rest to witt by mooving the eighth spheare round in a moment Of the nakednesse and absurditie that is shamefull nakâ—dnesse of such an assertion we have discoursed enough Againe is it not enough for you to maynteyne motion in vacuo but you must needes affirme that this visible world issued from the vacuum which now we imagine without the extreamities of it where now the world is was a vacuum before the world was but yet the world issued not from it neyther in the kinde of a materiall cause nor in the kind of a formall cause nor in the kind of an efficient cause much lesse did it issue from that vacuum which you terme without the extreamites of this world Then againe I know no measure of perfection derived unto the creature from Gods immensitie but only from the counsayle of his will by his immensitie he fills all places but distributes not the measure of perfections therby When you call Nothinge the mother of Gods creatures tell mee I pray did you affect poeticall witt or Metaphysicall truth I had thought Nothing had not afforded so much as the matter of any thinge as the Mother doth the matter at least of the childe It is true we were not any thing before God made us And as sure I am that this which we call nothinge did not contribute any thinge to the creation of men The basenes of mans originall is a common place of another nature Now your text is the Infinity of Gods power but you may squander from it as you please Whatsoever implyes not contradiction the production therof is within the compasse of Gods power and whatsoever God can do he can doe with ease His head aked not in the makeing of the World neyther doth it ake in providing for and preserving all things But to talke of the possibilitie of more worlds hand over head under colour of gratifying God in the amplification of his power I leave unto them that are not satisfied with the demonstration of his infinite power in this Yet as touching Gods omnipotency for the strengthening of our faith we are promised somethinge hereafter as if all hitherto tended to the strengthening of our imagination by comparing it first to the susteÌ„tative force of a center which is a matter of nothing and then to the force of gunpowder which undoubtedly is a matter of something Whether we are like to meete with a more wise discourse concerning Gods infinite Wisedome if others know yet I know not CHAP. VIII Of the Infinitie of divine Wisedome That it is as impossible for ought to fall out without Gods knowledge as to have existence without his power or essentiall presence 1. IN the first Section there is nothing that I mislike we acknowledge God could not be infinite in power unles he were infinite in Wisedome allso And that power ungoverned by Wisedome would bring forth very enormous effects But if a duble portion of witt matched with halfe the strength would effecte more then a triple portion of strength with halfe so much witt surely where the power is equall the Wisedome insinitly unequall there the effects cannot be the like Yet you have bene bold to affirme in another treatise of yours not yet extant I confesse that If a man had the same infinite power that God hath he might well thinke he coulde dispose thus of thinges as God hath disposed by the Wisedome which man allready hath And you give this reason for in thinges wee can lay any necessitie upon wee can tell well enough how to dispose of them to the end which we seeke As uncouth an assertion as hath passed from the mouth or penne of any man For we manifestly perceave that the difference of artificiall operations in the World doth not arise from the difference of mens powers but merely from the difference of theire skill and Wisedome in severall trades 2. You doe not well to confounde power with strength for strength is only power naturall but there is a civill power goeth beyond that And there is no question to be made but Wisedome is to be preferred before the strength of the body by how much the qualities of the minde are to be preferred before the qualities of the body But where civill power is supreame that ruleth over the wisest Counsaylers No question God is as infinite in Wisedome as in power But I take it to be very absurd to say that Gods wisedome is greater then his power For is it possible that God by his wisedome can thinke of any course fitt to be done for the setting forth of his glory which his power were not able to effect and seing you confesse his power to be infinite as well as his wisdome what should move you to maynteine the one to be greater then the other I can not devise Princes have guides to governe them which yet are not therfore greater theÌ„ they but inferior by farre
Ezek. 14. 23. They shall comfort you when you see their way and their enterprises and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it saith the Lord God Secondly when God doth chastise not as parents for their owne pleasures but with an eye to the good of those whom hee chastiseth Rom. 12. 10. According thereto is that of Augustine Qui trucidat non considerat quemadmodum laniet sed qui curat considerat quemadmodum seret This is my answer following the course of your owne reading of the place whereas Piscator blames the vulgar translation in this place which you follow for saith hee in the Hebrew it is not I will not the death of a sinner but this I am not delighted in the death of a sinner But saith he A man may will that wherein he takes no delight as a ficke man may will to drinke a bitter potion wherein he takes no delight For he may will to take it not for it selfe but for something else to wit to recover his health And so God willeth the eternall death of reprobates for his owne glory to wit for the manifestation of his just wrath in punishing of their sinnes And Iunius reades it and translates it in like manner and with these accordeth our last English translation As I live saith the Lord God I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turne from his way and live Ezek. 33. 11. And the 18. of Ezekiel doth cleare the meaning of the Holy Ghost where the same phrase is used and in the same manner translated by our worthiest Divines and followed in our last translation vers 23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should dye saith the Lord God and not that hee should returne from his waies and live and verse 32. I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God wherefore turne your selves and live ye Now in this chapter the Lord justifieth himselfe against an imputation of harsh if not unjust dealing as if hee punished the children for the sinnes of their fathers which in a proverbiall manner was delivered thus The fathers have eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge which might occasion a desperate disposition in them and provoke them to cast off all care of amending their waies and turning to God by repentance because all was one whether they repented or repented not because the sowre grapes which their fathers had eaten were enough to set all their teeth on edge Against this the Lord made a solemne protestation that all soules were his even the soules of the children as well as the soules of the fathers and that the soule that sinned that should dye and hereupon expostulates with them thus Have I any pleasure in the death of a sinner to wit so as to bring death upon him notwithstanding his repentance because forsooth his father had eaten sowre grapes No no the Lord hath no delight in their death but if they returne and live hee delights in that and therefore concludes with exhorting them to returne unto the Lord that they may live Now when you forsake the translation of our Church and slicke unto the Vulgar corrupt translation to hold up your odde conceits doth it become you to make question whether they that oppose you in your extravagant tenents and proofes have subscribed to the booke of Common Prayer Piscator proceedeth further and saith that the meaning is not simply that God delights not in the death of the wicked but in case he ceaseth not from his iniquity as appeares saith he by comparing of it with that which goeth before and with that which commeth after for otherwise God takes delight in all his workes like as Lyra upon Ezech. 18. Punitio improbitatis bene est à Deo volita quia justa In Proverbs 1. 26. thus we reade I will laugh at your destruction and mocke when your feare commeth How are these places to bee reconciled Piscator answereth God is not delighted in the death of man as it is the destruction of the creature but is delighted therein as it is the just punishment of the creature which is as much as to say he delights in the execution of his owne Iustice like as wee reade Ier. 9. 24. Let him that glorieth glorie in this that he understandeth and knoweth me For I am the Lord which shew mercy and judgement and righteousnesse in the earth for in these things I delight saith the Lord. 4. Now as if you had made all sure on your side partly out of our authorized devotions wherein you make choice of three prayers whereof two are nothing to the purpose and the third at your uttermost straining of it doth but encourage you to conclude finally that God wils not the death but the life rather of them that of Infidels are made Christians and partly out of the Catechisme where you finde that Christ hath redeemed all mankinde which hath no coloutable extent further then all men and without manifest opposition to Austin you finde this phrase will not serve your turne whom yet you oppose so as without answering any one of his arguments one whereof was drawne from analogie of Scripture phrase another from manifest reason professing therewithall that your construction of this place contradicts the prime Article of the Creed And last of all driving the naile of your discourse home with a concludent proofe depending upon a translation of the text quite different from the most authentique translation of our Church which yet must be without prejudice to your conformity having a sound heart of your owne and therefore some peccadilies may bee well borne withall and you take liberty to question others your opposites whether they have subscribed or no to the booke of Common Prayer such is the height of your imperious cariage bearing downe all before you Now you come to enquire By what will God doth will they should be saved that are not saved and you demand whether God doth will their salvation by his revealed and not by his secret will As if this were our opinion whereas neither Calvin embraceth it nor Beza nor Piscator but all concurre upon that interpretation which Austin gave many hundred yeares agoe and which you impugne and how judiciously we have already considered Peter Martyr proposeth it amongst divers others but embraceth it not neither doe I know any Divine of ours that embraceth it Cajetan indeed embraceth it and Cornelius de Lapide and Aquinas amongst other interpretations As you doubt whether your opposites have subscribed to the booke of Common prayer so if you take a liberty to put upon us the opinions and accommodations of distinctions used by Papists you may in the next place make doubt whether wee have not subscribed to the Councell of Trent We plainly deny that God doth will the salvation of any but of his elect For to
judge there is no chang or alteration at all in God but only in men and in theire actions Gods will is allwayes fullfilled even in such as goe most against it How it may stand with the justice of God to punish transgressours temporall with torments everlasting THe objection that by your Tenet the nature of God is made subject to change and alteration your selfe proposed in the former chapter but you addresse your selfe to make answere therunto in this yet not without fetching a greate compasse which inclines rather to a worke of circumvention then of satisfaction Love you say is the Mother of all Gods workes and the fertility of his power and essence that is the fruitfull Mother of all things and the power and essence of God by love becomes the fruitfull Mother of all things Yet to shew how apt you are to forget your selfe which usually falleth out whē men discourse quicquid in buccam venerit in the 8. chap. and pag. 91. you told us as a quaint conceyte that we may conceave wisedome to be the Father and power the Mother of all Gods works of wonder and I thinke you accoumpt few or no works more wonderfull then the creation And yet that which you say here I preferre before that which you had formerly expressed there because the love of God hath stricter sociation with the will of God then eyther wisedome or power But you have not discovered unto us if love be the Mother what is to be accoumpted the Father Or if you referre this to the loving will and affection of God why this should be accoumpted the Mother rather then the Father of the works of God Agayne we have earthly parents as Father and Mother which are indewed with wills and loves and other affections and it is out of all course to say that theire love or theire will is the Mother of theire children especially consideringe that will is found in the Father as well as in the Mother yea and love also if not in greater measure But I deny not but that God made the world out of love but out of love to whome to the creature Nothing lesse I should thinke as before I have shewed but rather out of love to himselfe as Prov. 16. 4. God made all things for himselfe And greate reason God who is the sovereigne Creator of all things should be the supreame end of all things But let this passe Your next sentence is more serious and ponderous but very preposterous and unsound First it containes a generall proposition with the reason of it and then a qualification or limitation thereof by way of exception unto a certayne time The proposition is this No part of our nature can be excluded from all fruits of his love Now the fruits of Gods love you make to be not only grace and glory but our temporall being also and the preservation therof For you make creation to be a fruit of Gods love Now this proposition so generall to my understanding is utterly untrue For not only God is not bound to give grace and glory unto any For they are merely gratuita dona and it is lawfull to doe what he will with his owne in bestowing it on whome he will and denyinge it to whome he will And therefore the Apostle testifieth that He hath mercy on whome he will and whome he will he hardneth But more then this as God was not bound to create any so neyther can any thing save his owne will binde him to preserve any thing in being But as he deales with other creatures so could he deale with men even take theire temporall being from them without any purpose ever to restore it and not only the being of theire bodyes but of theire soules also turning both into nothing Yet thus could God deale with men and Angells were they never so innocent never so holy as Arminius confesseth But let us consider the reasons wherupon you ground this Now these are two the one because God hath created our natures Now the unsoundnesse of this reason appeares by this that God hath created other things as well as man Yet who will conclude herehence that God must needes preserve them and not exclude them from this fruite of his love Your other reason is because God cannot change and this is as weake as the former For like as God though at one time he gives us life another time takes life from us yet all this is done by him without any change in himselfe like as in course of nature though he causeth changes and alterations in the seasons of the yeare in the wether in the heavens in the earth in the Sea in the states and Kingdoms of the World and in the bodyes of all creatures yet without any change at all in himselfe yea though he set an end to this visible World this can inferre no variablenesse in God so if he should take all manner of being from men and Angells and so exclude them from all fruits of his love Yet should all this come to passe without any shadow of change in God Yet you have a third reason which is this Love is the nature of God as Creator You could not be ignorant that God did freely create the World and therfore that it was not naturall to God to create it therfore you say that Love is the nature of God as Creator the sense and meaning whereof I comprehende not And I have made it already appeare that though God creats a thing yet is he not therby bound to preserve it any longer then he seeth good and what other sense you imply when you say Love is Gods nature as a Creator I discerne not You make creation to be a fruite of Gods love it is very incongruous to say that this love of God wherby he creats any thing belongs unto him as a Creator But rather creation of things belongs unto him as he loves them For fitter it is that the effect should be thus modified by the cause then the cause by the effect in denominating any subject Who ever sayd that a man was rationalis quatenus risibilis and not rather risibilis quatenus rationalis But let us proceede to the limitation of this your proposition and that is this No part of our nature can be excluded from all fruits of his love untill the sinister use of that contingency wherwith he indued it or the improvement of inclinations naturally bent unto evill come to that hight as to imply a contradiction for infinite justice or equity to vouchsafe them any favour First touching your meaning in this then touching the manner how you expresse this meaning your meaning in briefe is this No part of our nature can be utterly excluded from all fruits of Gods love untill men have filled up the measure of theire iniquity Of this your opinion I have spoken often I hope it shall be sufficient now to consider the reason whereupon you ground it And that is
to weighe upwards which way soever And have heavy thinges any neede thinke you of supportance to keepe them from weighing upwards Yet we acknowledge the whole world and every part of it is from the finger of God For the very course of nature is the worke of God That fire doth burne that the Sunne and starres doe inlighten the earth that heavy thinges moove downewards and light thinges upwards all this I say we acknowledge to be the worke of God And we woonder at the power of God in making all this by his word and supporting all by his word But being made and as wonderfully preserved by God we woonder not at this that heavy thinges moove downewards light things upwards or how it comes to passe that the earth without a supporter continueth where it is seing if it did not continue where it is it should moove upwards towards the Heavens lighter then a feather which is quite contrary to the nature of the earth We well woonder at the power of God in this that as he made it by his worde so with the turninge of an hande he coulde sett an ende unto it if it pleased him And therefore to talke of chamberinge up sustentative force in the center multiplied accordinge to the severall portions or divisibilities of magnitude successively immensurable to speake in proportion to your owne language is to affect more Rhetoricall witt then Metaphysicall truthe in plainer termes is to multiply woords without sense So then to amplifie the infinite power of God by surpassing the imaginary sustentative force of a center which as your selfe confesse is a matter of nothinge and consequently the sustentative force of it must be a matter of nothing is a very poore amplification of the power of God If the center were able to supporte the earth not where now it is but in the hollowe of the moone that were somewhat to magnifie the sustentative power therof Yet I make no doubte but God coulde doe so by his power Which case is of farre greater force for the manifesting of his power then in bearing up the earth where it is which indeede being created and preserved in being hath no neede of supportarâ—oÌ„ in his owne place where it can moove no lower and if it moove by directe motion it muste needes moove higher which kinde of motion is more proper for a feather theÌ„ for the heavy earth whose wombe is impregnated with stones and mettalls And therfore you doe well to take this power of God into consideration as namely of his ability to tosse this universe with greater case then a Gyant doth a tennis ball yet I never read or heard before of Gyants playing att tennis ball through out the boundlesse courtes of immensitie By the way your overlash in talking of the Courts of immensitie wherin this motion should be For as for the immensitie of God that is no fitt space to tosse the world in And as for the immensitie corporall that is a thing utterly impossible the motion you devise must needes be in vacuo or not att all Now the force of the center is no way fitt wherby to illustrate this power of God For certainly if the earth were placed in the hollowe of the Moone it together with his center would tumble downe againe as little congruous is it for the illustration of that power of God wherby he is able to dissolve Rocks of Adamant with the phillep of his finger sooner theÌ„ bubbles of water with the breath of the Canon In all which you seeme to affect not Metaphysicall truthe only but Rhetoricall if not Poeticall florishes allso We beleeve that God as by his word he made all thinges out of nothing so by his word he can returne them into nothing this is plaine English neyther hath his power neede of any Pyrgopolinices bombast eloquence to illustrate the Majesty therof or sett it forth 3. But from the breath of the Canon you fall congruously upon the consideration of the mother of it which creature is commonly called gunpowder And here you tell us first that our admiration of Gods active power may be raysed by calculating the imaginary degrees of active powers increase in creatures that which followeth divisible as well in quantitie as operation is of no importance but only to fill up The Canon sends forthe his bullet with greater violence then the Sacher like enoughe and so every Ordinance exceedes other in force of Battery according to the quantitie of charge or length of barrell which I leave to the consideration of the Master of the Ordinance To this you adde that if the same quantitie of steele or yron were possible to be as speedily converted into a siery vapor as gunpowder is the blowe would be 10. times more irresistible then it is I doe not thinke your meaning is to instruct the would in a new way of making Saltpeter if it were Saltpeter men should be your scholars I would be none of them So much Phylosophie I apprehend that fire is most swifte in mooving upwards as the Element of earth is most swift in mooving downewards And like as the contraction of more parts of the earth together makes a bodie the heavier so likewise the more siery anything is so much the more swift in motion upwards But to say that the active force or vigour of motion allwayes increaseth according to the degrees of celerity which it accumulates is an idle speech as much as to say the more swiftly it mooves the more vigorously it mooves It had more shew of congruity to say the more vigorously it is mooved to witt in respect of the Agents force that mooves it the more swiftly it mooveth Now you come to the accommodation of all this unto the infinite power of God in this manner Though the moste active and powerfull essence cannot be encompossed with walls of brasse nor chambred up in vaults of steele allbeit much wider then the Heavens yet doth it every where more strictly girde it selfe with strength then the least or weakest body can be girte For what bonds can we prescribe so strict so close or firme as is the bond of indivisible unitie which can not possibly burst or admitt eruption wherin notwithstanding infinite power doth as intirely and totally encampe it selfe as in immensitie How incomparably then doth his active strength exceede all comparison What a mad comparison is it in illustrating the infinitie of Gods power to say that God girds himselfe with strength more strictly then the weakest body can be girt Doe weake persons girde themselfes with strength or is Gods girdinge of himselfe with strength like to our girding of our clothes aboute us By that which followeth it seemes that you have an allusion to Gods girding of himselfe into a narrowe compasse like Ladies that affect slender wasts For to what other purpose doe you tell us that Gods girding is as strict as is the bond of indivisible unitie And before you told us