These opinions though condemned by lawful Councils, were not Heresie in me, etc. ] For to make an Heretique, there must be not only Error in intellectu but pertinacia in voluntate. So St. Aug. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, quærunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Hæreticos deputundi. Aug. cont. Manich. 24, qu. 3.
Sect. 9 Pag. 16.
The deepest mysteries ours contains have not only been illustrated, but maintained by Syllogism and the Rule of Reason, ] and since this Book was written, by Mr. White in his Institutiones Sacræ.
And when they have seen the Red Sea, doubt not of the Miracle. ] Those that have seen it, have been better informed then Sir Henry Blount was, for he tells us that he desired to view the passage of Moses into the Red Sea (not being above three days journey off) but the Jews told him the precise place was not known within less than the space of a days journey along the shore; wherefore (saith he) I left that as too uncertain for any Observation. In his Voyage into the Levant.
Sect. 10. Pag. 18.
I had as lieve you tell me that Anima est Angelus hominis, est corpus Dei, as Entelechia; Lux est umbra Dei, as actus perspicui.] Great variety of opinion there hath been amongst the Ancient Philosophers touching the definition of the Soul. Thales, his was, that it is a Nature without Repose. Asclepiades, that it is an Exercitation of Sense. Hesiod, that it is a thing composed of Earth and Water; Parmenides holds, of Earth and Fire; Galen that it is Heat; Hippocrates, that it is a spirit diffused through the body. Some others have held it to be Light; Plato saith, 'tis a Substance moving itself; after cometh Aristotle (whom the Author here reproveth) and goeth a degree farther, and saith it is Entelechia, that is, that which naturally makes the body to move. But this definition is as rigid as any of the other; for this tells us not what the essence, origine or nature of the soul is, but only marks an effect of it, and therefore signifieth no more than if he had said (as the Author's Phrase is) that it is Angelus hominis, or an Intelligence that moveth man, as he supposed those other to do the Heavens.
Now to come to the definition of Light, in which the Author is also unsatisfied with the School of Aristotle, he saith, It satisfieth him no more to tell him that Lux est actus perspicui, than if you should tell him that it is umbra Dei. The ground of this definition given by the Peripateticks, is taken from a passage in Aristot. de anima l. 2, cap. 7, where Aristotle saith, That the colour of the thing seen, doth move that which is perspicuum actu (i.e. illustratam naturam quæ sit in aere aliove corpore trunsparente) and that that, in regard of its continuation to the eye, moveth the eye, and by its help the internal sensorium; and that so vision is perform'd. Now as it is true that the Sectators of Aristotle are to blame, by fastening upon him by occasion of this passage, that he meant that those things that made this impress upon the Organs are meer accidents, and have nothing of substance; which is more than ever he meant, and cannot be maintained without violence to Reason, and his own Principles; so for Aristotle himself, no man is beholding to him for any Science acquir'd by this definition: for what is any man the near for his telling him that Colour (admitting it to be a body, as indeed it is, and in that place he doth not deny) doth move actu perspicuum, when as the perspicuity is in relation to the eye; and he doth not say how it comes to be perspicuous, which is the thing enquired after, but gives it that donation before the eye hath perform'd its office; so that if he had said it had been umbra Dei, it would have been as intelligible, as what he hath said. He that would be satisfied how Vision is perform'd, let him see Mr. Hobbs in Tract. de nat. human, cap. 2.
For God hath not caused it to rain upon the Earth. ] St. Aug. de Genes. ad literam, cap. 5, 6, salves that expression from any inconvenience; but the Author in Pseudodox. Epidemic. l. 7, cap. 1, shews that we have no reason to be confident that this Fruit was an Apple.
I believe that the Serpent (if we shall literally understand it) from his proper form and figure made his motion on his belly before the curse. ] Yet the Author himself sheweth in Pseudodox. Epidemic. lib. 7, cap. 1, that the form or kind of the Serpent is not agreed on: yet Comestor affirm'd it was a Dragon, Eugubinus a Basilisk, Delrio a Viper, and others a common Snake: but of what kind soever it was, he sheweth in the same Volume, lib. 5, c. 4, that there was no inconvenience, that the temptation should be perform'd in this proper shape.
I find the tryal of Pucelage and the Virginity of Women which God ordained the Jews, is very fallible. ] Locus extat, Deut. c. 22, the same is affirm'd by Laurentius in his Anatom.
Whole Nations have escaped the curse of Child-birth, which God seems to pronounce upon the whole sex. ] This is attested by M. Mountaigne. Les doleurs de l'enfantiment par les medicins, et par Dieu mesme estimees grandes, et que nous passons avec tant de Ceremonies, il y a des nations entieres qui ne'n fuit nul conte. l. 1, des Ess. c. 14.
Sect 11. Pag. 19.
Who can speak of Eternity without a Solœcism, or think thereof without an Extasie? Time we may comprehend, etc. ] Touching the difference betwixt Eternity and Time, there have been great disputes amongst Philosophers; some affirming it to be no more than duration perpetual consisting of parts; and others (to which opinion, it appears by what follows in this Section, the Author adheres) affirmed (to use the Authors Phrase) that it hath no distinction of Tenses, but is according to Boetius (lib. 5, consol. pros. 6), his definition, interminabilis vitæ tota simul et perfecta possessio. For me, non nostrum est tantas componere lites. I shall only observe what each of them hath to say against the other. Say those of the first opinion against those that follow Boetius his definition, That definition was taken by Boetius out of Plato's Timæus, and is otherwise applyed, though not by Boetius, yet by those that follow him, than ever Plato intended it; for he did not take it in the Abstract, but in the Concrete, for an eternal thing, a Divine substance, by which he meant God, or his Anima mundi: and this he did, to the intent to establish this truth, That no mutation can befal the Divine Majesty, as it doth to things subject to generation and corruption; and that Plato there intended not to define or describe any species of duration: and they say that it is impossible to understand any such species of duration that is (according to the Authors expression) but one permanent point.
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