Eternall which neither had beginning nor shall haue end and such is God alone who onely being immutable subiect to none no not the least alteration is therefore only from euerlasting to euerlasting for that cause termed in holy writ the Ancient of daies amongst the old Egyptians resembled to a decrepit-old-man and pourtraied like a youth in the prime of his flourishing yeares by that first Image signifying his long continuance from before by the second his liuelinesse and immunity from all manerdefect and alteration by cancred corrupting time For as his power is infinite extended not onely to all things in the world but euen vnto things which are not as first hee made all things of nothing as his greatnesse is vnmeasurable not limited or bounded by any place or compasse and therefore said to haue his centrum vbique from which the essence of al things is drawen as lines and where they end and are all conioyned his circumference no where finally as all his attributes are infinite and immeasurable so is his continuance altogether boundlesse Wherefore not to enter at all into this inextricable Labyrinth of Gods infinite continuance let vs proceed vnto the next part of the distinction Beside God who is onely Eternall there are other things in a middle degree tearmed by the moderne Philosophers Euiternall hauing beginning from God the fountaine of being yet without end either of annihilation or corruption such are all spirituall creatures Angels and the Soules of men Where notwithstanding there is a doubt to be answered For in the whole Historie of the Creation recorded by Moses we finde no mention of the making of Angels nor any word of them till the narration of the Womans treacherous seduction by the diuel in the serpent so that either they were not created and so were from euerlasting or else Moses his Chronicle is in this point defectiue But wee may well answer that they had a beginning seeing that eternity is Gods peculiar attribute and the same though inclusiuely expressed by Moses in his booke of beginnings for by Heauen is signified not onely the body of heauen but the things also therein contained Now of the indirect and inclusiue mention made of these admirable creatures there may this reason be giuen The men of those times being very superstitious and giuen vnto Idolatry for the Egyptians euen at that time worshipped the Sunne the hosts of heauen Moses fearing to giue new occasion to their false will-worship of purpose refrained from expresse mentioning of their names or natures in his history For if these bodily visible creatures wrung from them such diuine worship the Angels by how much more excellent their nature is would haue so much the more added new fewell to their begun fire of superstition Secondly lest the detractory Nature of corrupted man should haue ascribed some part of the glory of the worlds creation to those heauenly creatures the wise pen-man of this excellent story of purpose concealed what hee knew either of their Creation or Nature so that Moses his history is in this regard not defectiue howsoeuer giuing no expresse notion of the creation of Angels Neither are the Angels though most excellent creatures void of beginning there being but one thing which one made all things of it selfe eternall The third degree is of those things that had both beginning with time and shal haue their end in time such are all bodily creatures as well simple as mixt although touching the celestiall bodies there be some doubt Now as concerning the world the question is to which of these three kinds it may and ought to be referred And I finde three seuerall opinions The first is of them that make the world eternall wanting beginning and incapeable of end The second of them that grant both beginning and end of being There is a third sect that parts these two opinions affirming that it had a beginning and shall haue no end But lest wee sticke in the words let vs in one word or two set downe the sense and meaning of the Question and because that crror is the child of confusion distinguish the things doubtfull lest through the equiuocation of the words by mistaking wee come vnto a contrary sense By the world therfore sometime is meant the whole compasse of things that are as well spirituall as bodily extended in this sense euen vnto God himselfe Secondly it is taken for all things only God excepted euen the whole worke of the Creation excluding no creature how excellent soeuer no not the Angels Thirdly it signifieth onely the circuite of bodily Creatures whether you interpret bodily things to be such as haue bodies as parts of them or such as though in regard of composition haue no bodies yet haue their being onely in creatures bodily as those things which we call Accidents For the first acception it concerneth not our purpose For Nature it selfe excludeth God from all kinde of beginning and it is a principle both in reason and in religion that God is from euerlasting In the second sense wee may take it comprehending all things both spirituall and bodily for euen the Angels as is before said had their beginning by creation but we rather hold our selues vnto the last signification as being most vsually meant by those that handle this controuersie And this also according to its threefold consideration hath three seuerall acceptions For first it is taken for that Idaea type preconceiued of the Maker God by which he was ruled and directed in the building thereof And this is tearmed by Plato the Ideal or exemplary world as it were the copie which God followed in the creation whereby if he vnderstand Gods decree to create we may without error entertain it otherwise it is somwhat harsh for we are not to imagine that God needeth any long premeditate or fore-conceiued type of his workes as our finite artificers do but as his wisedome and power is infinite so doth hee in an vnutterable manner at the same moment deuise the manner and performe the worke and yet not rashly but most wisely and with great deliberation For as he said in another sense so may I say in this case One day with God is as a thousand yeares and a thousand yeares as one day length of time adding nothing to his ability and wisedome nor fewnesse of daies any way detracting from the perfection of his workemanship Secondly it is taken for the vniuersity of things contained within the compasse and cope of heauen and earth now really and actually subsisting and this is called of Plato the world reall as hauing an actuall and externall being in Nature not onely in conceit and intention Thirdly man is called the lesser world in regard of that perfect analogie and similitude betwixt him and this greater world wherein there is nothing whose likenesse and resemblance may not be seene in man and this you may call the Analogicall world Now by the world in our question we principally vnderstand the frame of all things in heauen and
being to an vtter not being at all hauing a limited and finit power To which purpose a learned frier said excellently well That the first maker of all things in respect of its being and not being is subiect onely vnto Gods wil permitted to the rule of Naturall agents onely in regard of transmutation For a Naturall agent may induce or expell a forme either substantial or accidentall But how farre soeuer mans Power or Nature is caried in fury laboring by might and maine towards an vtter ruinating and distruction of things yet shall it neuer attaine vnto Annihilation They may indeed by tyrannous inflicting of death make that which is neere the matter of a man the matter of a carcase they may also with fire burne the dead corps but though a thousand thousand woods should bee spent in burning of one poore carcase yet were they neuer able vtterly to annihilate and bring it vnto nothing So that Nature is too weake to cause Annihilation But yet saie the scrupulous aduersaries God who by his infinite and supernaturall power was able of nothing to make the world is by the same his boundles power able at his pleasure to returne it to nothing It is true indeed out of question that God by his absolute vndecaied power is sufficient as well to distroy the world as he was at the beginning to make it by his absolute power I say considered without regard of his will but if we respect his power restrained by his will that is regard what he will and hath decreed to do if by his word we may learne his will we may truly answer that God himselfe cannot annihilate the word because he can do nothing that implieth contradiction or that any way importeth mutability whereby of God he should be made no God Nor do we heerby take away his omnipotency nay rather we establish his power it being a chiefe point of infirmity and weakenesse to bee capable of change and able to deny it selfe but God hath decreed not to annihilate the world therefore he cannot now turne it vnto nothing how then may some man say shall it haue an end for if neither of it selfe it incline nor can be by any meanes naturall inforced to Annihilation no nor God himself can turne it into nothing what end shall it haue The answer is that as man hath his end by death whereas notwithstand his soule is immortall his body is onely changed into its first matter not turned into nothing so the world though incapeable of annihilation as hath beene proued yet hath in it an end vneuitable when it shall be changed from the present corrupt estate into a far more excellent and heauenly condition of indurance and immortality But heere ariseth a doubt moued by those scoffers that Peter prophecied should come in the last daies which demaund Where is the promise of his comming For since the father fell on sleepe all things haue continued alike from the beginning of the creation Where by the way let vs obserue that they make the time of Christs comming and the end of the world things of one and the same signification so that as many testimonies of scripture as warrant the certainty of Christs comming serue also to proue the worlds end and dissolution To their reason we may answer with Peter that the worlds long and hither to vnchanged continuance is no sure proofe of impossibility to bee destroied For God that by his bare word could of nothing make the world can now also with as great facrlity alter the state of the same But their supposition is most vntrue for the world hath not from the beginning continued in the same state vnaltred the whole earth being in Noahs floud ouerwhelmed with waters But to this they may answer that it was no generall or vniuersall destruction being extended onely to the liuing creatures they also in part preserued in Noahs arke It is true indeed that this was onely a particular or partial destruction the heauens remaining altogether vntouched the other elements also incorrupted But yet this sheweth a change in the worlds estate which they seemed to deny Touching the generall distinction of all things Peter after answereth to which place we wil refer them But that wherein the difficulty of the whole controuersie consisteth is the immutable estate of the heauenly bodies wherein hath beene obserued by experience of all ages a constancy almost admirable when in this sublunary region of elementish bodies there hath beene as great variety and almost a circular alteration And indeed were the heauens capable of corruption how could the spheare of the Moone situated so neere the fire haue continued so long vnconsumed Let vs therfore a little examine how the cause stands with the heauens in the matter of corruption There are two different opinions of them that make the heauens incorruptible some to deliuer them from corruption haue made them void of all matter others allot them a matter but in a distinct kinde from that of the sublunary bodies all agreeing that they be incorruptible The chiefe of the first sect is Auerroes a learned Turke who expostulating the matter with vs demands by what meanes we came to know the matter of the heauens For the onely meanes to prooue the existence of matter in any thing is as he calleth it Substantiall transmutation or more plainely the succession of formes But in heauen there hath beene no such succession no nor any alteration of qualities therefore the heauens are immateriall But wee may answer first that the being of matter in anie thing is knowen as wel by accidentary or locall as by substantiall transmutation But the heauens haue a locall Motion or Mutation at least in their parts therfore they consist of matter Secondly we answer thus that although the heauens haue all this while lasted without change in their substance yet seeing they are capable of future transmutation we may thence conclude the presence of matter in them For who would say that there is in a sucking child no reasonable soul because he seeth in him no actuall vse of reason or present conceit of learning we know that his potentiall disposition and sitnesse to conceiue is testimony sufficient of that soule which is in him Their second argument is this all things consisting of a corporall matter are withall corruptible for the ability of receiuing the yet absent formes being a propertie inseparable from the matter which also is accompanied with a longing desire to supply its defects there must needs be granted an expulsion of the incumbent forme for induction of a new successor wherein is corruption or els this The matters inclination and ingrafted desire as it were must be alway frustrate which folly the most wise God of Nature detesteth therfore there is in the heauens no such matter as we talke of To which argument they that make the matter of the celestiall bodies different from that of the sublunary creatures frame this answer
formes of the sublunary bodies may be separated from their matter but the heauens forme is vnseparable when in my iudgement they proue rather a distinction of formes than any diuerfity of the matter Or if they thence prooue a diuersity of matter because the formes incident are of greater and lesse excellency one in respect of an other we may as well say that the body of a man is of distinct matter from that of the other more base creatures because his form is so passing excellent Or if they restraine their comparison onely to the power of separation that because the matter of the heauens is ioyned inseparably to the forme when contrariwise the elementish matter hath often separation therefore there is not the same matter of both wee answer that the same matter in kinde may so inseparably bee vnited to its forme as that it can neuer be seioyned not that we deny a power of future separation of the heauens matter from the present forme but that this may bee a sufficient reason of their hitherto inseparable vnion A second argument is that of Aristotle saith he whatsoeuer things participate the same matter are capable of mutable transmutation but the heauens can neuer bee changed into the inferior bodies for somuch as the elements are altogether passiuely disposed for receit of the heauens action without any reaction vpon the heauens therefore there is not the same matter of both To which we answer that the proposition or first sentence must be vnderstood of a potentiall transmutation and that with this exception vnlesse the matters imperfectiō be perfected by the formes inherent excellency or resistance be made of some superiour forme to turne away the violence of the oppugning agent We say that the forme now being in the heauens is of so powerfull and vnconquerable a nature as that no naturall contrary agent is able to compasie any the least new impression Thirdly thus they reason Were the heauens of the same matter with the bodies of the elements then in like fort should they at least by nature be corruptible but the corruption is altogether abhorrent from the heauens nature To which assumption Damascen answers by a flat deniall for euen the heauens in his Philosophie are naturally subiect to corruption To which accordeth that of Plato in his Timaeus that attributes the heauens incorruptiblenes to a superior more powerfull cause For so hee brings in the maker of the world speaking vnto the celestiall bodies By nature you are dissoluble but through my will preserued from dissolution Nor shall the destintes of death preuaile ouer you to destroy you because my will is a bond of more power to keepe you from corruption than that wherewith at your first making you were holden together And thus haue we hastily runne ouer the difficult question of the heauens matter Touching the certainty and meanes of their dissolution we will briefly speake by and by after the resolution of the other ar-arguments for the non-dissolution of the world Simon Magus as it is recorded lib. 3. Recog Beati Petri. cap. 3. if the records be true thus replied vpon the learned Apostle for the worlds immortalitie If God be infinitely and only good and the world also good how shall God in the end destroy the world If hee destroy that which is good how shall himselfe continue good If hee pull it downe because it is euill how shall he then be free from euill that made it euill To which wee answer with S. Peter in the same place That the world in its first originall state was good yet so as it was foreordeined to dissolution nor doe wee thereby detract from Gods goodnesse for the heauens the most excellent part of the world being not made for themselues but for some end after to be reuealed how good soeuer yet were to be dissolued that that for which they were ordeined might appeare which also Peter thus familiarlie sheweth Who seeth not how cunningly an egshell is framed yet for manifestation of the end of its making it must be broken of necessitie So must the present estate of the world of necessitie be destroyed that the more excellent condition of the kingdome of heauen may be made manifest at which time also this degenerated euill state of corruption shall be done away that a more glorious estate of incorruption may be restored So then that the world shall haue an end I take it it is manifest and that not an end of annihilation but of corruption which indeed shall be a way vnto its perfection Now concerning the times and seasons of the worlds dissolution we will not take vpon vs curiously to determine seeing God the beginning and end of all things hath left the time vnreuealed vnto vs. Touching the means and maner of the dissolution the Stoicks glanced at it a farre off being of opinion that the world should by fire be dissolued For thinking the starres and the skies fire to haue a wasting action vpon the inferiour elements their nourishing moisture by little and little decaying when neither the earth can haue refection by the water nor the aire procreation after its absolute consumption there shall-remaine nothing but fire to consume both the heauens and the earth of which afterward a new world should be made whose opinion is very consonant vnto that of Peter saue onely that they thought this destruction should come of a natural necessity for Peter also taugnt it should be by fire wherewith God withdrawing his hand of preseruation should consume this world and of the ashes heereof create a new yet so as neither the seate of the blessed souls in heauen nor the dungeon of the damned in hell should be destroied that neither the iotes of the Saints nor the torments of the wicked should be interrupted As for the firmament and the other inferiour spheres together with the elements they shal be indued with another that a far more excellent cnodition putting off these accidents and affections of corruption fit for the continuall generation and corruption of the naturall bodies and receiuing other qualities agreeable to the incorruptible estate of the world to come so that their substance shall be all one howsoeuer they alter their qualities As in the resurrection mens bodies shall bee of the same substance but of a different disposition For this corruption must put on incorruption and this mortall must put on immortality So that as Saint Paul said our imperfect knowledge which we haue in this life shall in the after-world be abolished because then we shall haue a morefull and perfect knowledge of God and his Christ So may we well say this world shall be destroied because it shall lose this present estate of imperfection and put on a more glorious condition fit for the world to come And so as I take it are those places of scripture to bee vnderstood where niention is made of the worlds perishing that is the present estate of this world shall
facility of their sciences For as Apelles said well vnto a Painter that bragged of his speedy workmanship when shewing his picture he said This I drew euen now Surely said Apelles though thou hadst saied nothing yet should I easily haue guessed by the workemanship that it was done in haste So may we well say to these quicke-witted mechanicall tradesmen a man that hath but a little insight into their trade may well thinke their craftes are soone learned and I rather maruell as Apelles said that they learned no more in the same quantitie and length of time But it fareth with their grosse phantasie as it doth with our eie-sight in an vnequall distance from the obiect for as being far off we conceiue of the vnmeasurable greatnesse of the most huge hilles to bee but as a point so the infinite excellencies of the heauenly Artes being too farre remooued from their grosse or rather narrow capacity come into their conceite as things of lesse moment which if their dimme or rather weake eie sight were able to beholde in their diuine nature they would soone confesse their surpassing excellency and exceeeding difficulty But to leaue them to their pleasing opinions and to come to our purpose which is in briefe to handle the differences of the Ages of Mans life as also the causes thereof together with the incident qualities to euery of them which being in some sort auaileable to the knowledge of our selues the highest point of knowledge which can be attained vnto by the iudgement of the wise Apollo as also either altogether omitted or very slightly handled by others I hope my small paines and lesse ability shall be accepted in good worth and accounted of rather according to the good intent of the author than the worthinesse of the worke In which hope of acceptation for my good indeuors and fauourable pardon of my manifold errors I come without any longer Preface to the substance of the Treatise THE DIFFERENCES of the Ages of mans Life Together with the originall causes progresse and end thereof MAN the Epitome of the whole world Lord of the creatures in regard of that perfect analogie and resemblance betweene him the great worlds frame is not vnfitly by the Learned both Diuines and Philosophers termed The Lesser world for there is nothing in the vaste compasse of this vniuersall circumference whose likenesse and liuely representation we haue not summarily comprised in man as in a most perfect compendium and abridgement For as the first-moued-sphere carieth with its motion the subiect inferiour circles so the seruile vnderfaculties as the sensuall desire appetite are by nature subdued to the dominion and guidance of the more principall and mistris-power of the soule which wee call reason And as in the middest of heauen there is situated the Sunne that enlightneth all things with his raies and cherisheth the world and the things therein contained with his life-keeping heat so the heart of man the fountaine of life and heat hath assigned to it by nature the middle part of our body for his habitation from whence proceedeth life and heat vnto all the parts of the bodie as it were vnto riuers whereby they be preserued and inabled to performe their naturall and proper functions But not to be infinite in prosecuting the particulars of this well knowen comparison as in other things we see a perfect proportion so also beside the analogie we may obserue a mutuall coexistence For as the world at the beginning was created for man so with man it shall also be abolished for it is an vndeniable principle in Philosophy that God and Nature or rather the God of Nature neither effectually worketh nor permissiuely suffereth any thing but vnto some good end For being infinitely wise nay wisedome it selfe how can we imagine so high a point of folly resident in his Godhead as to allow of vanities things so hatefull and so abhorring from all mediocrity of wisedome Wherefore man hauing a determinate date of endurance which hee cannot passe the world also which is only for mans vse and seruice must of necessity haue an end of being Now because there is as we said a mutuall coexistence of the world and man as the world is not but for man so neither is man but in and by the world For as in Nauigation those that are in the shippe haue rest and motion with the mouing cessation of the ship so we that are tossed in the rough sea of this world in our voiage vnto heauen our safest hauen when our vessell of carriage once perisheth we also perish together For as Aristotle said truely that whatsoeuer hath being hath of necessity being in some place so from thence ariseth this necessary illation that when there is once left no place to be in then shall there remaine no longer being So that intending to shew this truth as very pertinent to our purpose viz. that man hath an appointed time of being which hee cannot passe the Question of the worlds eternity is fitly incident especially seeing as is aforesaid the world is for mans sake and man by meanes of the world Now if any man shall call into question the pertinency of this question for his satisfaction and resolution in that behalfe let him consider how necessarily vpon the variation of our temperature whence the distinction of ages proceedeth a finall destructition by an vnperceiueable lingring decay of purity in our substance doth depend For as in the violent motion of things naturall we see it comes to passe that the virtue or power of mouing imprinted by the vnnaturall mouer by little and little decaying at length by continuance of mouing or rather by the resistance of the bodies about it is cleane extinguished So in the naturall proceeding toward the enemie and end of nature death the preseruing meanes of life either by the toilesomenesse of their neuer-ceasing operation or by the corruption and mixture of impure moisture infecbled and disabled to the sufficient performance of their functions more and more euery day at length of force yeelds to the oppressing violence of their resisting aduersaries not able any longer to maintaine their conquering action so that the discussing of this contronersie is very homogeneous to the series of this treatise For till there be granted an end of mans life the mutation of the temperature by decay of nature may well be doubted of forasmuch as a successiuc impairing alway importeth a finall dissolution First therefore touching the continuance of the world whether as it had a beginning so it shall haue an end or rather whether it euer had beginning or shall haue an end of being Dionysius in his booke de Diuinis nominibus distinguisheth things that are according to the difference of their indurance the distinction is after this sort The whole number of things how many and diuers soeuer may be summarily comprised vnder these three seuerall heads There are some things or rather there is one thing
in earth lesse principally Man as being but a part thereof As for the other terme namely Eternall that also hath two acceptions for things are said to bee Eternall two waies First improperly that which neuer shall haue end more fitly called Euiternall or Immortall Properly that is said to be Eternall which neither had beginning nor shall haue end nor as Boethius addeth any succession Now Eternall we take in the more proper and latter sense So that the Question may thus more plainlie be expressed Whether the heauen and earth with the bodily Creatures therein contained had a beginning or shall haue an end of being But because that part of the opinion which concerneth the worlds eternitie a parte ante as the schoole-men speake that is its being from euerlasting is not so directly pertinent vnto our purpose we will with all possible breuitie runne ouer the speciall reasons and foundations thereof the rather because the authors and maintainers thereof from the want of beginning inferre the vncapablenesse of an end Now the chiefe Patron and desender of this opinion in regard of authoritie though not of time was Aristotle who as I take it rather affecting singularitie than for any soundnesse of the matter or strength of argument tanght it in his Lycoeum For the Philosophers which liued before him with generall consent agreed in the contrarie opinion Trismegistus who with his learning watered the then barren countrey of Greece as Diodorus Siculus witnesseth in his first booke of Antiquities Musaeus Orpheus Linus Epicharmus Hesiodus and Homer amongst the Poets Zoroastes Anaxagoras Melissus Empedocles Pherecides Philolaus Democritus and Plato as Philo Indaeus Laertius Diogenes Sulcitius Seuerus Alexander Aphrodisiensis Plutarch and Tully witnesse which also his bookes intituled Timaeus and Critias together with those De Republica doe testifie Onely Aristotle in a selfe-conceit of singularity howsoeuer elsewhere honoring antiquitie rather liketh in this case a new broched opinion of his owne contrary to so many foregoing Philosophers and therefore Hierophantes a deuout though idolatrous Priest condemned him of arrogancie and selfe-loue not onely because contrarie to the common receiued opinion of his countrey continued so many ages vngainsaied hee denied the pluralitie of Gods but also and much more for that he stucke not to teach that the world was from euerlasting which all Greece confessed to haue had beginning in time But to fetch the beginning of this phantasticall opinion somewhat higher we will beginne with Democritus the archpatron of fortune who will haue the World Eternall and withall chanceable But Eternitie and Chance being as the learned Sir Philip obserued things vnsufferable together If Chanceable then not Eternall Againe what is more absurd then to thinke the World was made by the vntended and casuall concourse of indiuisible substances for whence came these substances If you say they came from Euerlasting so were Eternall can you conceiue such chanceable effects to proceed from so certaine necessary causes Nay rather if you wil needs maintane the infinitenes of these diminitiue bodies grant they had beginning from that Infinite One that glued the Infinite parts of your Infinite All together by his vnmeasurable Power and Wisedome For can we imagine such a perfect Order and Stabilitie to consist in these disioined substances Order Constancie are children onely of Wisdome sooner may we prooue Darknesse to proceed from the Sunne than Constancie and Order from inconstant chance constant in nothing but in Inconstancie Finally we must either exclude Gods Wisedome and prouident care of the World made or els Fortune from making of the World for the World is Gods possession onely by right of creation vnlesse we imagine a deed of gift passed by Fortune at her death or Fortune the true Owner if the true Maker disinherited by violence driuen out of her dominion by God as an Vsurper But God hauing nothing to plead for his title vnto his kingdome but the right of creation if that plea be improoued God cannot any longer call the World his owne and therefore without crueltie may cast off all care of this his supposed ofspring For it is onely Gods Fatherhood that bindes him vnto his Prouidence Therefore not to stay long in this opinion of Fortune let vs now come vnto Nature deified especially by Strato a Naturalist who fearing to ouersway God with the weight of this burthen either in the making or gouerning of the World hath granted hm a Remedie or Otium as they terme it thinking it more reason that God should haue an exemption from trouble than Gods priests who for his sake be dispensed withall But let vs see what this Nature may bee so highly by Strato magnified There is a particular Nature and there is a generall or vniuersall Nature The particular is that which in euery seuerall single substance ministreth Essence to the whole compound and withall is author of such action and motion as is agreeable to the subiect wherein it is as the Nature of fire causeth the fires ascention the Nature of earth the earths going downward and in regard of this Nature we say it is Naturall to the fire to ascend to the earth to descend the bodies hauing in them cuen of themselues by their inherent forme a promptnesse and inclination vnto these motions Now if by the conspiring of these many manifold Natures this All we now speake of were made as if the Elements Ethereall parts should in their town-house set downe the bounds of euery ones office then consider what followeth that there must needs haue beene a wisdome ouerruling power which made them concur for their natures being so diuers and contrary would rather haue wrought each others destruction than so friendly haue cōsorted to make vp so vnexpressable an harmony For to grant knowledge vnto them whereby to moderate the extremity of their naturall fury or intendment of such agreement were to enter into a bottomlesse pit of absurdities seeing that knowledge alway presupposeth roason reason sense both which are neuer found either iointly or in part in bodilie senselesse creatures Now touching the Vninersall Nature which some will haue to be nothing but an influent virtue helping furthering the actions of euery particular naturall body others an Vniuersall ouerruling and as it were an Ideall Nature subsisting For as the particular nature of euery particular body causeth and mainetaineth the particular actions of the body wherein it is so this generall Nature is the author and maintainer of all actions and bodies to which the single seuerall bodies are in subiection by their obedience acknowledging a kinde of superiority in that nature which we call vniuersall And in the respect of this nature the fire is said in some cases to goe downeward by nature as to hinder the discontinuitie of things in the world and so that emptines which nature so much abhorreth Now if by this vniuersall nature
before time to make in time Therefore by his euer being goodnesse he for euer purposed by his eternall wisedome hee alway disposed that which by his euerlasting power he once composed Fiftly they reason from the Eternitie of time in this sort Time is Eternall therefore there is also an Eternall motion for Time is the measure of moouing Now the antecedent is thus prooued That which hath beene alway and shall be for euer is Eternall but such is the condition of time for you can designe vs no moment or instant before which Time was not and after which Time shall not remaine For as Aristotle saith euery now or instant of time is the end of time past and begining of time to come as in a right line euery middle point is the end of the fore-part of the line and the beginning of the part following To which we may answer by reiecting this their discription of time for as Scaliger hath well obserued motion is rather the measure of time and thence it is as I take it that Plato called the Sunne and Starres times Instruments and as it were the Iacobs staffe of time because by their motion and dircumuolution we measure the indurance of the world And therefore also as I conceiue of it the Poets called Saturne that is Time Heauens Sonne because that from their circular mouing came the distinction of Daies and Moneths and Yeeres And to say the truth there is a more generall and true definition of times then this of Aristotle and it is this The past present and future indurance of things Which also the authours of this discription distinguish into it kinds There is say they a time perpetuall or eternall Gods owne peculiar attribute who alone indureth from generation to generation and there is an indurance or Time momentary incident vnto the creatures In this sense therefore it is no absurdity to say there was a time when Aristotles time was not for hee maketh time of the same age with the heauens motion so that vntill the heauens began to bee mooued Aristotles time was not yet was there time before the heauens creation that is a long space of indurance in which God alone had being But because time is indeed proper vnto the creatures being as other bodily and spirituall creatures in scripture said to be made by God let vs follow Aristotle in his owne Definition and to his obiection out of his Schoole-interpreters we may fetch this answer That euery Now and instant of time is not both beginning of time to come and end of time past for there is a threefold instant or Now. The first is instans or Nunc initiatiuum an instant onely of beginning The second they tearme Nunc continuatiuum a continuing instant and that is both beginning in respect of time following and end in regard of time past There is a third instant or moment and that they call Nunc finiens or terminatiuum and that is such an instant as only is an end of time foregoing They may all bee thus illustrated as in a straight line the first pricke or point is onely the begining of the line the last point onely the end of the same the rest in the middle are both the end of that part of the line which was before drawn and the beginning of the hinder part So in time we may point out an instant that is onely beginning another that is onely an end a third that is both a beginning and end Aristotle his authority therefore can truely be vnderstood onely of the continuing and coupling instant But against this distinguishing answer Aristotle hath this exception If there be any such instant as is only a beginning in respect of time â—llowing and no end of that time which went before then before this instant there was no time What then Therefore there was an Ante without time which is absurd For Ante and Post before and after are differences of time As for example When we say Philip liued before Alexander this word before signifies a difference in time betwixt Philip and Alexander his sonnes being But who seeth not more subtilty than soundnesse in this reply of Aristotle for we will in like sort thus reason against him In his Physicks he hath this Position Extra coelum nullus est locus Beyond heauen there is no place therefore there is some extra in which is no place For extra and intra without and within are differences of place as for example when we say he is without doores our meaning is that he is in some place without the house Now if wee should thus reason against Aristotle There is out of heauen a roome or place to be in for extra without is a difference of place things being said to be without onely in regard of place But Aristotle saith extra coelum therefore there is without the inward hollow compasse of heauen an external out-roome would he not straight and that iustly reproue our sophistrie for Aristotle his meaning in that place is that all things whatsoeuer are conteined within the inside of the body of heauen and it is as if hee had said there is no place but within the inside of the ouercast circle of heauen In like sort when we say that before this first moment of the heauens motion there was no time our meaning is that all reall time had beginning with the heauens mouing Reall time I say for there is time only imaginarie improperly called time as being rather a part of eternitie and of that indurance and long continuance which wee conceiue to haue beene in God before the creation of the world And thus shall wee reade the words Before and After vsed among the ancient Writers both Christian and Prophane for so did Ouid vse it in the beginning of his Metamorphosis Ante mare terras quod tegit omnia coelum Before that heauen and earth was made So in the Scripture Before the foundations of the world were layd thou art God from euerlasting world without end Where it signifies no true and really subsisting time for this time began only with the motions of the heauens as Aristotle himselfe witnesseth In briefe therefore to shut vp this argument and this whole controuersie The first instant and moment of time reall before mentioned was both a beginning and end a beginning of time reall and an end of time imaginary nor is it any absurdity to say that time imaginary was before true and really subsisting time And thus haue we with all possible speed runne ouer the reasons which be vsually brought to proue the worlds being from euerlasting let vs now with like or lesse breuitie passe ouer those reasons which serue to improue this errour and they are only two which we will but propound auoiding ouer-tedious long discourse and so go on to the other part of the question First then from our owne experience we reason thus It is a trueth confirmed by the triall of all