Now that which those that follow Boetius urge against the other definition is, they say, it doth not at all difference Eternity from the nature of Time; for they say if it be composed of many Nunc's, or many instants, by the addition of one more it is still encreased; and by that means Infinity or Eternity is not included, nor ought more than Time. For this, see Mr. White, de dial. mundo, Dial. 3. Nod. 4.
[Indeed he only is, etc.]] This the Author infers from the words of God to Moses, I am that I am; and this to distinguish him from all others, who (he saith) have and shall be: but those that are learned in the Hebrew, do affirm that the words in that place (Exod. 3) do not signifie, Ego sum qui sum, et qui est, etc. but Ero qui ero, et qui erit, etc. vid Gassend. in animad. Epicur. Physiolog.
Sect. 12. Pag. 20.
[I wonder how Aristotle could conceive the World Eternal, or how he could make two Eternities:]] (that is, that God, and the World both were eternal.) I wonder more at either the ignorance or incogitancy of the Conimbricenses, who in their Comment upon the eighth book of Aristotle's Physicks, treating of the matter of Creation, when they had first said that it was possible to know it, and that actually it was known (for Aristotle knew it) yet for all this they afterwards affirm, That considering onely the light of Nature, there is nothing can be brought to demonstrate Creation: and yet farther, when they had defined Creation to be the production of a thing ex nihilo, and had proved that the World was so created in time, and refused the arguments of the Philosophers to the contrary, they added this, That the World might be created ab æterno: for having propos'd this question [Num aliquid à Deo ex Æternitate procreari potuit?] they defend the affirmative, and assert that not onely incorporeal substances, as Angels; or permanent, as the celestial Bodies; or corruptible as Men, etc. might be produced and made ab æterno, and be conserved by an infinite time, ex utraq; parte; and that this is neither repugnant to God the Creator, the things created, nor to the nature of Creation: for proof whereof, they bring instances of the Sun which if it had been eternal, had illuminated eternally, (and the virtue of God is not less than the virtue of the Sun.) Another instance they bring of the divine Word, which was produced ab æterno: in which discourse, and in the instances brought to maintain it, it is hard to say whether the madness or impiety be greater; and certainly if Christians thus argue, we have the more reason to pardon the poor heathen Aristotle.
[There is in us not three, but a Trinity of Souls.]] The Peripatetiques held that men had three distinct Souls; whom the Heretiques, the Anomæi, and the Jacobites, followed. There arose a great dispute about this matter in Oxford, in the year 1276, and it was then determined against Aristotle, Daneus Christ. Eth. l. 1. c. 4. and Suarez in his Treatise de causa formali, Quest. An dentur plures formæ in uno composito, affirmeth there was a Synod that did anathematize all that held with Aristotle in this point.
Sect. 14. Pag. 23.
[There is but one first, and four second causes in all things.]] In that he saith there is but one first cause, he speaketh in opposition to the Manichees, who held there were Duo principia; one from whom came all good, and the other from whom came all evil: the reason of Protagoras did it seems impose upon their understandings; he was wont to say, Si Deus non est, unde igitur bona? Si autem est, unde mala? In that he saith there are but four second Causes, he opposeth Plato, who to the four causes, material, efficient, formal, and final, adds for a fifth exemplar or Idæa, sc. Id ad quod respiciens artifex, id quod destinabat efficit; according to whose mind Boetius speaks, lib. 3. met. 9. de cons. Philosoph.
O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas,
Terrarum Cœliq; sator qui tempus ab ævo
Ire jubes, stabilisq; manens das cuncta moveri: