To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
But he goe's on to prove, that these men are at warre one with another (for saith he) [Warre consisteth not in battaile only] true,* 1.1 for the Schoole distinguish betwixt Bellum and pugna, fight or battaile, and warre, or the act of fighting [but in a tract of time, wherein the will to con∣tend by battaile is sufficiently knowne: and therefore the no∣tion
of time is to be considered in the nature of warre.] He is the most unhappie man in his manner of defining that ever writ; can any man think that warre consists in a tract of time? It is true, time is necessary to warre, it is the measure of all rest or actions in the world, it is the measure of their existence, how long they stay and tarry in the world, and so may be reckoned amongst those outward accommodations with which all natural things are fitted; but it is no essential part of any: To say, that the nature of warre or peace, a Horse, or Tree, or Men consists in time, were foolish; they are in time measured by time; but time is not essentiall constitutively, as his friends the Schoolmen, and University learning teach∣eth, but consecutively; they doe not make these things follow them; and therefore it was weakly explained by him, when he said, that the notion of time is to be con∣sidered in the nature of warres.
Time being no essential con∣stitutes no war.