more remote cause, and so ascend continually by right ratiocination from cause to cause; yet he will not be able to proceed eternally, but wearied will at last give over, without knowing whether it were possible for him to proceed to an end or not. But whether we suppose the world to be finite or infinite, no absurdity will follow. For the same things which now appear, might appear, whether the Creator had pleased it should be finite or infinite. Besides, though from this, that nothing can move itself, it may rightly be inferred that there was some first eternal movent; yet it can never be inferred, though some used to make such inference, that that movent was eternally immoveable, but rather eternally moved. For as it is true, that nothing is moved by itself; so it is true also that nothing is moved but by that which is already moved. The questions therefore about the magnitude and beginning of the world, are not to be determined by philosophers, but by those that are lawfully authorized to order the worship of God. For as Almighty God, when he had brought his people into Judæa, allowed the priests the first fruits reserved to himself; so when he had delivered up the world to the disputations of men, it was his pleasure that all opinions concerning the nature of infinite and eternal, known only to himself, should, as the first fruits of wisdom, be judged by those whose ministry he meant to use in the ordering of religion. I cannot therefore commend those that boast they have demonstrated, by reasons drawn from natural things, that the world had a beginning. They are contemned by idiots, because they understand them not; and by the learned, because they understand them; by both deservedly. For who can commend him that demonstrates thus? "If the world be eternal, then an infinite number of days, or other measures of time, preceded the birth of Abraham. But the birth of Abraham preceded the birth of Isaac; and therefore one infinite is greater than another infinite, or one eternal than another eternal; which," he says, "is absurd." This demonstration is like his, who from this, that the number of even numbers is infinite, would conclude that there are as many even numbers as there are numbers simply, that is to say, the even numbers are as many as all the even and odd together. They, which in this manner take away eternity from the world, do they not by the same means take away eternity from the Creator of the world? From this absurdity therefore they run into another, being forced to call eternity _nunc stans_, a standing still of the present time, or an abiding now; and, which is much more absurd, to give to the infinite number of numbers the name of unity. But why should eternity be called an abiding now, rather than an abiding then? Wherefore there must either be many eternities, or _now_ and _then_ must signify the same. With such demonstrators as these, that speak in another language, it is impossible to enter into disputation.