and the like but such also as are against reason as Intemperance Adultery and the like Whence Cyrill of Hierusalem mocketh the Heathens for calling Jupiter an adulterer a God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he be an adulterer let him not be called a God Plato now seeing the ingagement unto vice by these examples as the fellow in Terence Ego verò feci lubens He braggeth what he had done in imitation of Jupiter was provoked for this cause to remove them Secondly because it was not meet that such obscene borborologie and filthy speeches as they used should proceed out of the mouth of man The words are good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to be thought fit that the tongue the instrument of Gods praise and of conference with good men should be soiled and polluted with such speeches Neverthelesse he doth not absolutely condemne them For in the beginning of the eighth of his Laws he prescribeth what kind of poemes are to be used in a solemnity the qualification of the Poets and himself now and then useth their sayings Our Apostle S. Paul Tit. i. 12. where he quoteth Epimenides his saying calleth the Poets Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he seemeth to expresse the nature of the profession in a way of resemblance and that may be two wayes either ratione personae or ratione officii First Ratione personae in two respects either as accounted by common esteem as Prophets or by great ones honoured like them As Jeremiah xxxix 11. was honoured by the king of Babylon so were Poets respected by kings and were familiar unto them as Pausanias writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Polycrates Anacreon with Antigonus our Aratus Secondly there is a resemblance of Poets with Prophets ratione officii and that three wayes either 1. in regard of dictation of their poemes so that as the Prophets were inspired by God for the penning of their prophecies so the Poets were accounted to have been inspired in their poetries Whence Plato saith of them in the third of his Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The generation of the Poets is a divine and inspired generation Or 2. in regard of their style The Prophets of God spake in a high style and strain hyperbolically obscurely as Ezekiel and therefore the Jews forbad Ezekiel to be read before the thirtieth yeare whence that is called annus sacerdotalis the Priests yeare besides other reasons so also did the Poets as might be shown 3. In regard of their end The Prophets as they are taken largely were rebukers of sinne and exhorters unto godlinesse although ut sic the proper denomination is from Prediction foretelling This also was the peculiar office and scope of the Satyrists amongst the Poets and the very worst of them now and then gave virtue a commendation and vice a censure But now out of S. Pauls use and expression of them what deduction what inference what corollary shall we raise That they promiscuously are to be read or if the choice ones much or if sparingly at times with immoderate delight Nay shall we at all reade them Shall Plato banish them Christians use them I would Christians did not use some things which Heathens forbid Aristotle in the fourth of his Ethicks the first chapter and in one page condemneth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the usurer and the dicer and yet some Christians blush at neither Plutarch passeth a determination upon Poetrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely plus aloes quà m mellis habet There is picking work enough Yet as Virgil being asked what he meant when he read Ennius replied that he did è coeno colligere margaritas so if a Christian did reade Virgil he might being asked the same question answer in the same manner Or if from this hint of Poets we should rise to a generall discourse of humane authours as the fellow that was asked whether light was pleasant said It was a blind mans question so if it should be asked Whether humane knowledge were usefull it might be answered It is an illiterate question Certainly there is some good to be gotten in the study of Greek authours or else Julian the Apostate would never have interdicted to the Christian youth the use of them Nicephorus in his tenth book of Ecclesiasticall history bringeth in Julians reason why he forbad the use of Greek authours Nè linguis eorum acumine perpolitis facilè disputatoribus nostris resistere sacra quidem sua amplificare religionem autem nostram refellere facilè queant I might now tell you Nicephorus his arguments for the point and that Basil hath wrote a book to this purpose and I might tell you what S. Augustine saith concerning this in the end of his second De doctrina Christiana and what others and how learned the Fathers were and that S. Paul after conversion did not burn his books nor parchments But it is an errour to bring this into question in an Universitie In lieu of all arguments this may serve that in this dispute of S. Paul where he useth both Philosophy and Poets a woman Damaris and many others likely not of the learned nation were converted From hence also the Teacher of the Gentiles instructeth us Christians not to disembrace goodnesse in any nor truth in any Plato's rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not consider so much who saith as what is said who doeth as what is done Let not the authority of the teacher tempt thee to erre as Vincentius Lirinensis saith the errours of the Fathers were temptations to the Church nor let the badnesse or meannesse of the preacher spoil thy attention Learn not badnesse of the best but learn goodnesse of the worst Lastly me thinketh from hence we may raise a meditation upon an embleme of the strangenesse of the happinesse of the Gentiles being received into grace As unlikely as Poets sayings were to be made canonicall were Gentiles to be made divine As unlikely as an Heathens saying to be put in the book of truth was an Heathens name to be wrote in the book of life The Heathen are come into thine inheritance O God may be sung now with joy as it was sometimes by David with complaint And so much of the Profession of the Quoted Poets Nextly followeth the Appropriation of them YOUR OVVN Poets As certain also of YOUR OVVN Poets have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul maketh use of their writings but rejecteth them he approveth what they say but he owneth not them YOUR OVVN Poets They bring their gift unto the altar and then go their way One or two reade it vestratium in reference unto their countrey But that is very disputable in two respects of the thing and of the phrase For the first though we know not what countreymen they were whom S. Paul includeth in the CERTAIN and therefore cannot judge whether they were conterraneous unto
under heaven Callimachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall declare the works of Jupiter But I will adde no more lest I should seem to offend against S. Pauls example who balked a number of authours whom he could have cited Sanctius an Expositour upon my text is of opinion that he had collected a syllabus a roll a pandect as it were of all the sentences which the Heathens had spoke concerning the immensitie and power and works of God Why therefore doth he use but one of their authorities If we may make a conjecturall descant where we cannot find a certain demonstration happily first he concealed the testimonies of the rest out of humble modesty The Teacher of the Gentiles had learning enough to boast of and reading to glory in and eloquence to triumph in and he confesseth of himself I have tongues more then ye all 1. Corinth xiv 18. and yet he seemeth to keep the same posture of humility which our Saviour struck him into when he was in the heat and ruff of persecution Many strains of Rhetorick he hath in his Epistles and in the Acts but all subordinate as it were unto the strain of modestie I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago 2. Cor. xii 2. When he was to speak of his rapture how the Apostle denieth himself and pronounceth it in a fashion upon another man in tertia persona as if so transcendent an elevation did not well become him who in his own esteem deserved rather to be thrown down below the earth O excellent grace of Modesty ever in season but when thy self art to be commended Modestie with ignorance is due and proper Pride with ignorance is haynous and insufferable Learnednesse worth excellency with modestie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing so amiable so comely like the coupling of a Muse and a Grace aut ubi flavo Argentum Pariús ve lapis cùm cingitur auro As in the clothing of thy reall matter thy body so in the dressing of thy notionall matter thy discourse it is very ingenuous to be civill and modest in a kind of negligent handsomenesse or handsome negligence lest to avoid nakednesse in the one and in the other thou runnest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into another shame as an Ecclesiastick writer speaketh of flaunting apparell A fastuous affected swelling exercise doth at once undo thy commendation if it be cared for and the end which should be S. Paul knew more spake lesse as was said of an Heathen He acted his own precept Rom. xii 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wise unto sobrietie But secondly I conceive art in this sobriety that by the meek concealment of the other authours sentences he might the more win upon his Auditours taking off from himself the envie of much reading and in a couchednesse granting that they themselves were very well read in such books as questionlesse they were and were not a little I suppose proud of it the scope and end whereof might be that in his modesty of himself and respective commendation of them though privately intimated he might make his person more gracious and consequently his discourse more acceptable For as God doth to man so man to man God first accepteth Abels person then his offering so man first accepteth mans person then liketh his exhortation Therefore when a bad man in Rome propounded a good law for the people the Senate knowing that the naughtinesse of the person would countermand and be prejudiciall unto the virtue of the law put it into an honest mans mouth to be promulged Rhetorick is an artificiall goodnesse of the speaker goodnesse in the speaker is inartificiall Rhetorick And the approbation as it might appear unto the Philosophers of their knowingnesse in this point might especially work upon them It is none of the least things which belong unto the facultie of eloquence respectively to take notice of the auditours understandingnesse in the present matter of treatise Our S. Paul I think one of the best Rhetoricians that ever spoke was not seldome in this insinuation Acts xxiv 10 11. unto Felix and Acts xxvi 27. unto Agrippa the King For the King knoweth of these things before whom also I speak freely For I am perswaded that none of these things are hidden from him for this thing was not done in a corner King Agrippa believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest as if he would perswade him into a perswasion concerning the Prophets And the power of this manner of speaking the king himself expressed for he saith to Paul in the next verse Almost thou perswadest me to be a Christian Thirdly as there was Modesty in the use of but one saying of the Heathens and Art in that modesty so was there also I conceive Discretion in that art It was a mixt audience as we may suppose in such a solemn place and as we may gather by the last verse of this chapter wherein there is mention made of Damaris and many others besides Dionysius the Areopagite who were converted by that dispute Now a large enumeration of a beadroll of Poets and of their sentences had been out of question lost unto the meaner of the assembly which like little fishes usually bite more then the greater Rationall souls are all equall and the reason is because they are not ex traduce but from God as God saith himself Ezek. xviii 4. Behold all souls are mine As the soul of the father so also the soul of the sonne is mine The soul that sinneth it shall die And as God here signifieth a generall care of souls without any different respect so that he will not punish the sonne for the fathers fault but the soul that sinneth it shall die so the Apostle would not have the meaner sort to be punished with hearing so much which they understood not because the Philosophers were better read The punishment of the ignorant Plato saith is to learn of the wise but then it must not be the untowardnesse of the Teacher not to condescend unto the capacitie of the illiterate Mixt assemblies require at least mixt discourses that the plainer form may win the plainer sort the learneder the learneder But neither doth our Doctour say all the Poets as he might unto the Philosophers though he had produced the testimonie but of one Here we have a restriction certain not all not many And this is the second considerable in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With a fairer ingenuity doth our Disputant proceed in his discourse then some Athenians in theirs who having found the suffrage of one or two Fathers or Schoolmen or Expositours or of any other order take their writing and set down all much like the fellow who having read an obscure Authour and being asked his judgement of him replied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which I understood is good and so is that which I understood not as I suppose So those which they have read say
so and so do the rest they suppose With very good confidence might S. Paul have spoke in a catholick form in a full universalitie the thesis being at first imprinted in them as men and therefore the matter was necessary yet he speaketh in a mortall number in a paucity certain Now certain are sufficient to make an evidence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle in the second book of his Rhetoricks even one good witnesse is considerable At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established Deut. xix 15. May Rome then be a little more moderate in her brags of multitude of Professours of swarms of her Catholicks The Species may be conserved in one Individuum A few are enough to make a being of religion though not a flourishing visibility which is no way essentiall unto to the truth of a Church And very good authority may be brought for the proving that in every century since Christ we have had some or other more or fewer who have mainteined the greatest parts of the Protestants most important and fundamentall opinions whatsoever Campian prattleth And let them enjoy their multitude Surely it is not like to be good friendship which is amongst very many and the reason is very good as he in his Ethicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there are very few truly good So the religion may be suspected whereof so many are studious because there are so few truly religious Moreover Number belonging unto Quantitie which issueth from the wombe of Matter by sequele of a proportionable effect must be as dull as uneffectuall as its mother and skilleth as little to any importance being in it self indifferent or rather of the two supposing weaknesse Multitude is of little use in nature but where there is deficiency and therefore some would have every angel to be a distinct species because plurality of Individuums under a species is onely by reason of their mortality which is not competible to angels Certainly a strange canvase it would be wherein truth should go by voices and be judged by the poll as it were of free-holders Non tam autoritatis in disputando quà m rationis momenta quaerenda sunt as Tully in his first De natura Deorum Disputations are to have more reason in them then authority But if Rome will yet glory in number let her glory in the septenary number of her hills spoken of in the description of Antichrist Rev. xvii 9. let her glorie in the criticall number of the Beast DCLXVI which the numerall letters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth their nation do amount unto let her glory in the title of universall Bishop which Gregory predecessour to Boniface who first usurped the appellation affirmed to be an antecedent signe of Antichrist As for us we are not ashamed of our paucitie in the times of their persecutions The gleaning of Ephraim is better then the vintage of Abiezer Veritie hath its exsistence though there were never a man in the world to own it and Falsity will be nothing though all the men in the world maintein it Humane testimonies are but probable arguments Many are better for the multitude fewer are sufficient for the wiser sort So the Apostle certain not one onely certain not all not many Thirdly we have in this manner of speech a certain disrespectivenesse without so much as naming the Quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confusedly neither Who nor What neither welt nor gard plain Certain Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did he not so much as call them by their names No surely our Apostle mentioned them rather for his own use then for their credit to shame the Philosophers practice rather then to honour the Poets sayings There is not as ye know the name of a great learned Heathen man in all the holy book of God neither Poet nor Philosopher nor Historian nor Oratour Where is Homer either in Greek for whom severall nations contended to honour themselves with such a countreyman or where is Homer in Latine as he is called Virgil the stately Poet Where is Alexanders Tutour Aristotle though the Patriarch of Philosophy as one termeth him Where is Seneca the divine Moralist whatever Salmeron feigneth of letters which he wrote to S. Paul and S. Paul again to him the matter whereof he saith is not much unlike that of S. John to the Elect Lady and to Gaius or that of S. Paul to Philemon Where is Plato whom Zanchy supposeth to have read the books of Moses In Tullie's Hortensius S. Augustine could find nothing of Christ In the Christians book there is none of Tully We have mention of Philippi but of no Philippick not the divine one as Juvenal calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where do we find the grave oratour of Greece Demosthenes yet would not the Doctour of the Gentiles who said that he magnified his office vouchsafe so farre as to name those Authours whose sayings he is pleased to insert into sacred Scripture and by his consecration of them to make them more divine then any of Plato's works neither Aratus nor Menander nor Epimendies nor any other if there be any other whose sentences he borroweth Was it the wisdome and policie of this Teacher of the Gentiles to leave their names out on purpose that so he might ingage us to the reading over of the Greek Poets as if we should find in them some great matter worthy of our pains Or did he well remember the speeches but forgat the Authours names or had he not his books and parchments about him or could he not in that ex-tempore dispute look in them One would have thought he might have named Aratus though none else if it were but for his beginning the piety of his beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us begin from God as S. Paul expoundeth him or for the continuation of his devotion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us never cease to extoll him Every street every assembly aboundeth with him or again for the divinenesse of his subject the heavens more sublime and pure matter then useth to be in the wanton and obscene pages of some other Poets We have indeed in the last verse of this chapter mention of Dionysius and lest the honour should miscarry upon another of the same name for distinction the Areopagite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first happily this Dionysius was no very great learned man As for that saying which is received as his at the passion of our Saviour Either the God of nature suffereth or the world will be dissolved me thinketh it was no argument of any extraordinary knowledge it being easie for them to know that the eclipse then was supernaturall it being not then conjunction-time of sunne and moon and also in regard of the continuance of the eclipse as Thomas Aquinas observeth Upon this saying also is conjectured that he caused the consecration of
an altar to the Unknown God which S. Paul speaketh of But whether he was the authour of this is very doubtfull if not improbable For they had more anciently an altar inscribed UNTO THE UNKNOVVN GODS which Pausanias maketh mention of in his fifth book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concerning the books which the Pontificians father upon his name De caelesti hierarchia Deecclesiastica hierarchia De Divinis nominibus it were not very difficult to determine them not to be his For Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers maketh no mention of them Valla and Erasmus have proved by many arguments that they are none of his as Chemnitius relateth And in his Ecclesiastick Hierarchy he speaketh of Temples of Altars of Monks whereof in Dionysius the Areopagites time whom S. Paul converted certainly there was no being In his fifth chapter De ecclesiastica hierarchia we have them in a manner all in one line 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priest standing before the Altar chanteth out some monasticall invocation Where the Altar is and the Priest the Temple may be supposed Now settled temples in Dionysius his time almost certain it is there were none Questionlesse no Monks the order whereof was instituted first by Paul the Hermite some two hundred and seven years after the conversion of Dionysius as the Chronologer hath it Dionysius then who is named in Scripture was no very learned scholar for ought we know But secondly if so surely he was a Christian before he had the honour to be mentioned in the book of God God I see respecteth not excellencie of learning where there is no measure of grace but he respecteth the least degree of grace in whatsoever person Damaris is named with Denys a woman with an Areopagite O Christianitie that either findest us or makest us honourable yea oftener makest us then findest us so yea ever makest us yea never findest us of any reall worth onely in a shew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Untill we come to be Christians we are not worthy the naming Silly were the Heathen who knew not this religion impious they were for hating it unjust for hating they knew not what as Tertullian in his Apologeticus Vacante meriti notitiâ unde odii justitia defenditur Though it was sometimes a stranger on earth and none would own it yet it had genus spem gratiam dignitatem in caelis as the same Father Very respectively doth Scripture speak of religious Christians The Bereans were more noble then those of Thessalonica in the seventh verse of this chapter more noble 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were of better descent which is as we may speak the very bloud of Nobility But how more noble Non per civilem dignitatem sed spiritualem dignationem It is subjoyned in that they received the word with all readinesse of mind and searched not the records of their antiquity but the Scripture daily whether those things were so And whereas in the next verse the Scripture mentioneth honourable women happily they are said to be honourable in way of a Prolepsis as being to be believers Neverthelesse also if I seem not somewhat too criticall we may observe that those in the former verse have the better term in the notion of the originall These are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 women of good fashion the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more noble Not as if the honour of every ones place were forfeited by the badnesse of the person in an humane society but thus it is with God Plato commendeth the Attick countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Thucydides more plainly in the beginning speaking of the same countrey saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same men ever inhabited it not as if they were immortall but the same of nation it was the mother and nurse to them all in his opinion By the way that is false as may be demonstrated out of the twenty sixth verse of this chapter where God is said to have made of one bloud that is of one man Adam all men to dwell upon all the face of the earth From one Adam were derived all mankind which after the confusion of Babel severally dispersed themselves throughout the earth so that those who first inhabited the Attick countrey were not born there as Plato supposeth nor did the same men ever inhabit it as may be supposed men of other languages very likely mingling themselves after that dispersion Yet if so as Plato and Thucydides would have it it would be no commendation to that which followeth in Plato as himself confesseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first and greatest is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either actively or passively either loving of God or beloved of God They go both together Meats commend us not to God as S. Paul so neither nation nor whatsoever other secular respect and qualitie Nor doth he like what he is himself Authour of in a subject which is not such as it should be Wit and Eloquence and Erudition are Gods creatures yet doth he not vouchsafe them a power to move his delight unlesse they be exercised to his glory Melior est humilis rusticus qui Deo servit quà m superbus Philosophus qui neglecto seipso coeli motum contemplatur as a devout Dominicane The Greeks expresse learning and goodnesse in one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for both as if they were not learned who are not good So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually understood by S. Chrysostome for Action and the Scripture calleth a wicked man generally a fool Now in this mean esteem of humane knowledge without divine goodnesse we are the more fit to passe over briefly the Poets without envying them And this is the next particular according to our division the Profession of the Quoted Poets What shall I call them reall men of an imaginary world or imaginative men of a reall world who as if nature were not fruitfull enough to bring forth reall entities must multiply to the world a new brood of things which live onely in a phansie Plutarch calleth Poetry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of the Muses or a piece of learning Simonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speaking picture Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imitation Plato is said to have banished them out of his Common-wealth Proclus upon Plato giveth us the reasons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Since Poetrie is an imitation according to Plato and the subjects whose lives and actions they imitate being the gods and the Heroes their sonnes the Poets not knowing certainly what they did but supposing they lived in pleasure phansied unto them such pleasure as men then or themselves delighted in just as Eusebius saith of Cerinthus that he held that our Saviours kingdome after the resurrection should be voluptuary because he himself delighted so much in carnall pleasure So that the Poets did not onely attribute unto them such things as were merely humane as Eating Sleeping
strict and clear substance of the words will be this We are Gods offspring The question now is concerning the supposition of the subject of the proposition WE how much it importeth If we consider the words without any reference unto Saint Pauls consequence out of them in the next verse this WE may signifie in a double acception reduplicativè specificativé First reduplicatively most universally comprehending all Entities all creatures whether of Being onely or Life besides Being or Sense besides both or Reason besides all or pure Reason without Sense as Angels all of him and from him from the highest Angel in heaven to the lowest in hell Bad ones as of men so of Angels as ones his Gods as bad their own It is a rationall creatures weaknesse to be able to sinne It is Gods omnipotence to create from the king to the begger from Dan to Beersheba from the greatest mountain to the slenderest atome all of all all proceed from him who proceedeth from none But this all is too much for S. Pauls drift and for the common expression WE This sense is fit for the proposition but too wide and redundant for the inference Secondly then WE specificativè or indeed specially We men So the Apostle meaneth it in the next verse Since then we are the offspring of God we are not to think that the Godhead is like to gold or silver or stone graven by art or mans devise as if man should be the image by which God should be worshipped if he would be worshipped by any In man is the image of God though defaced by that originall sinne And no better Embleme for representing the God of the whole or of all as Ignatius in his Epistles and Theodoret in his Questions calleth him then Man who is the Epitome of the whole of all the Docquet of the book of the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole world in a world a little one in a great one so that Democritus in his opinion of more worlds was out but in quantity for there be many little worlds And we are Gods offspring in a threefold respect in respect of our bodies in respect of our souls in respect of both together These severall considerations for our more distinct proceeding may serve if you please in lieu of a division First of the first we are Gods offspring in respect of our body Now God is the Authour of our bodies to speak in an universalitie two wayes immediately or mediately immediately of our first Parents though in some difference of manner mediately of the rest The immediate production is also twofold Ex parte Materiae ex parte Efficientis Immediate production in respect of matter maketh a simple creation when somewhat is made out of no praeexistent subject at all So Adam was not made in respect of his body it being formed of the dust of the earth Gen. ii 7. And God formed man of the dust of the ground The second immediate production is in respect of efficient So Adam was created immediately by God no other Agent coming betwixt and helping the Divine omnipotence in raising so glorious a fabrick out of so unlikely a subject And therefore this is also called a Creation secundùm quid no created virtue being able out of such an indisposed matter to make such a work And as Adam was thus immediately produced by God in respect of his body so was his wife Eve They had a different matter but the same efficient of their being God made the woman off the rib of man Indeed Constantinus Manasses saith that Adam was to Eve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Authour spake here as a Poet as the Fathers sometimes like Rhetoricians Adam concurred not in any way of Agency towards the production of his Wife he was not maried to his daughter God took the rib from him when he was in a deep sleep and off it framed the body of Eve Matter in the beginning of time was taken from man to make a woman and matter in the fulnesse of time was taken from a woman to make a man even the man Christ Jesus So God was the Authour without any other of the bodies of Adam and Eve God by this immediate production had a sonne and a daughter as we may speak And this sonne and daughter immediate causes of our ordinary generation are the causes why to us God is not the immediate God almighty who shewed what he could do in that extraordinary production of our first parents is now pleased to bring men into the world in way of a successive traduction by them Parents we have and God will have us account them so for he giveth us a law to honour them by reverence by obedience by gratitude as it is expounded Yet not so are they the authours of our being according to the flesh not so fathers of our flesh as they are called Hebr. xii 9. as if God were excluded from being our Father also according to a common manner of expression God by a proper generation a generation naturall hath but one Sonne the second person in the Trinitie yet God in Scripture is commonly called a Father without any reference unto the second Person God saith Mal. 1. If I be a Father where is my honour And he is a Father as Creatour expressely Mal. ii 10. Have we not all one Father hath not one God created us What more usuall in the Greek then to expresse Authour by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is scarce any other word for it So Martiall for the Latine calleth his books his children So God is said to be the Father of Spirits Heb. xii so the devil the father of a lie in S. John And thus we have expounded how God is said to be our Father and how in the text we are called Gods offspring not in strict proper speech but according to the common use of expressing the producer of any thing by the Father or Parent of it So Tertullian to our purpose in his book De Anima Omne quod quoquo modo accipit esse generatur But more directly in the following words Nam factor ipse parens facti dici potest sic Plato utitur Now that God is the Authour of our bodies by our Parents that he hath a finger nay a hand nay hands in framing our bodies we have the expresse testimony of the Prophet David Psal cxix Thy hands have made me and fashioned me And again Psal cxxxix 12. For my reins are thine thou hast covered me in my mothers wombe I will give thanks unto thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mirificatus sum mirabilibus operibus tuis as Montanus rendreth it I am fearfully and wonderfully made I am moulded I am made as it were and composed altogether in wonders beyond all understanding and expression so strangely so subtilly so beyond the power of man The
words import more then we can say The Prophet may well go on Marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well It knoweth onely that they are marvellous and so above knowledge My bones are not hid from thee though I be made secretly and fashioned beneath in the earth Thine eyes did see my substance yet being imperfect and in thy book were all my members written which day by day were fashioned while as yet there were none of them To this place happily S. Augustine alludeth in his Confessions speaking of his parents Patricius and Monica per quorum carnem introduxisti me in hanc vitam quemadmodum nescio how I know not The wombe is Gods doore which he openeth to give men induction into the world Think we that a little petty matter of seed by the created virtue of a created faculty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they call it could or should without a supernaturall direction and superefficiencie elaborate and frame and square and polish in the obscure wombe in no long time such a structure of flesh so fashionable so serviceable so strong and trimme so ordered and connexed that an Heathen hereupon called God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the best Artist and another called mans body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fair variegated piece of a wise builder Job excellently in this matter chap. x. 8. where speaking to God he saith Thy hands have made me and fashioned me together round about yet thou dost destroy me Remember I beseech thee that thou hast made me like the clay and wilt thou bring me into the dust again Hast thou not poured me out as milk and crudled me as cheese Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh and hast fensed me with bones and sinews Nature that particular power which God hath put in every creature to do actions convenient to its species is it self Gods servant in the working as his creature in the being and although it could by the solitary virtue of its own form without a Divine concurrence work an effect yet that effect also should be Gods it self and the form of it being Gods How much more shall God be the Authour of that which he worketh by it As of the grain committed to the ground S. Paul saith God giveth it a body so it may be said of this humane seed God giveth it a body The Father who knoweth the child better then the child the Father and the Mother that knoweth the child better then the Father and therefore the Father loveth the child better then the child the Father and the Mother loveth the child better then the Father as he speaketh in his Ethicks know not yet how the child is wrought and made in the wombe They know the effect they know not the manner of the effecting Eccles xi 5. the secresie of Gods way in making all things is expressed by the privatenesse and obscuritie how the bones do grow in the wombe of her that is with child This is one of the wayes whereby he describeth there symbolically the abstrusenesse of Gods works As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit nor how the bones do grow in the wombe of her that is with child even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all Certainly the matter of generation is not much unlike that matter out of which all things were created at first which matter Moses Gen. i. calleth the heaven and the earth not formally so but because there was out of it to be produced not by a physicall but omnipotent virtuality the particulars of heaven and earth And the same power that could and goodnesse that would and wisdome that knew how to fashion out of such a disguised matter so brave a world doth and must if ever it be done raise out of the semblable subject the most exact and excellent structure of the body of the modell of the universe The Egyptian Doctour Trismegist shall conclude the truth of this point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnderstand O Sonne the framing of man in the wombe search out accurately the art of the building learn who made this fair and divine shape of man as he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who turned the eyes who bored the nostrils and eares who extended and tied the sinews who derived the veins who set and firmed the bones who invested the flesh with skin who divided and branched the fingers who hath inlarged our steps who hath digged our pores who hath stretched out the spleen who hath made the heart like a pyramid who hath drawn out the liver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath made the lungs like a pipe who made the capacious belly who made the honourable parts of the body so visible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who made all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what mother what father who but the invisible God who made all things with his will Thus we see that God is the Authour of us and we are his offspring in respect of our bodie Now from this discourse of Gods being the Authour also though mediately of our bodies we may raise some inference to the good of our soul but in a word or two A little Philosophie from heaven for our practice and we passe to the second point Lord didst thou make our bodies and yet do we use them as if we had made them our selves or sinne or Satan or as if they had been made by thee for them How many organs hast thou framed for the multiplicity of our operations and yet how few how little do we use those few if we use any for thy service Let us not dishonour this temple of the holy Ghost by uncleannesse by fornication by adultery or any such turpitude Other sinnes as S. Paul 1. Cor. vi 18. are without the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 objectivé they passe no speciall actuall pollution upon the body but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body It was for this that Democritus pulled out his eyes lest he should lust upon sight as Tertullian in his Apologetick not that he might the better addict himself to contemplate in Philosophy And Pythagoras his precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a precept against uncleannesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying somewhat else besides beans wherein he himself delighted as Gellius saith by the testimony of Aristoxenus in his fourth book and 11 chapter Again the body is an accurate structure admire the Artist the Builder And what wilt thou admire what part what member wilt thou commend the breast all thy Rhetorick is not enough for the belly Wilt thou commend the belly thou hast not praises enough for the Head What the Eare O glorious Eye I should admire the Arteries that come from the Heart but the Nerves draw me back which come from the Brain I should praise the Nerves but I am astonished at the Veins which flow from the Liver What shall I
say of the Legs the pillars of the house or rather of the Hands the agents What not of the Mouth the doore into which mortall things enter out of which immortull things proceed as Philo the Jew But the Teeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he calleth them barracadoe the Tongue lest it should wander too much and be too talkative O admirable creature in that we see of thee the Body though more admirable in that we see not the Soul Keep this piece this brave piece handsome and clean let it not be sordid untrim It is the temple of the holy Ghost bestow on it a decent ornament not gaudy It is the servant to the soul give it food sufficient and so tune the instrument the organ Make not thy body as it were a trough by drunkennesse that thy soul should be as salt as he said to keep thy body from rotting Make not thy belly thy God nor thy head thy Idole They are Gods creatures God doth not use to make Gods Pride not thy self in the ampleness◠or majestie or proport of thy body God could have made thy body a great deal bigger God hath given thee the lesse body that thou shouldest be the lesse proud So Theodoret in the exposition of that place in Genesis There were then giants upon the earth giveth the reason why God doth not make our bodies of that vastnesse as he could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if in those small bulks they swelled in pride not onely against one another but also against God himself what would they not have done if they had had more tall and mighty bodies But because thy body is not so great happily therefore more neat and thou hast vires ingenuas as the Poet expresseth it and so thou wilt glory in the feature of it Nay rather give glory to God in expressing the humilitie and subjection of thy spirit unto God by bodily worship The service of the body who will deny God unlesse those who will deny God to be the authour of it Nay the Manichees who denied God to be the authour of the body did not for they fasted on Sundayes as it is storied of them and in fasting they exercised an humiliation of the body This shall be left for Schwenckfeildians onely who as Zanchy of them took away all externall service As Christs Divinity was manifested in the flesh so should our spiritualnesse be manifested by the body Man consisteth of body and soul the service of man therefore is the service of both Both are to be glorified both are to glorifie Both are from God both are for God Some give God the soul not the body these are few such Schwenckfeeldians Some give God the body not the soul and many do so such are hypocrits Some give God neither Atheists Some give God both men Christians As Tertullian therefore of the old Christians so we Illuc suspicientes manibus expansis quia innocuis capite nudo quia non erubescimus oramus Looking up thither unto heaven with our hands stretched out because innocent with our head bare because we are not ashamed we pray And this service of the body is indeed a small and easie matter to perform as lying in the power of freedome of will and yet this is very requisite And we may erre in the service of the outward man yet hereby is not taken away the duenesse and right of a rectified outward worship S. Paul discoursing of the Christians complete armature Ephes 6. biddeth us to have our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace We may tread this Gospel awry and we may tread it too much outward and the sect before mentioned treadeth it too much inward Remember that good counsel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that of the Satyrist Persius pone in pectore dextram Passe we now to our second proposition We are the off-spring of God in respect of our Souls That God is the Authour of our bodies mediately by our parents and that he was the Authour of the bodies of Adam and Eve immediately in regard of the Efficient we have determined And is he the Authour of our materiated bodies not of our immateriall souls The efficiency of these we are come now by order to discourse of which deserveth indeed rather a volume then some circumscribed treatise and hasty disquisition The knowledge and science of it is very noble as Aristotle beginneth in his book of it and none more difficult as it may seem by Dicearchus who doubted whether there were such a thing in rerum natura as Tully of him in his Tusculane Questions Yet if he would have examined his doubting he might have found by it an evidence of its being He could not have doubted of it without it But the beginning and originall of it hath ever been matter of dispute in a threefold respect 1. of the Efficient from whom it proceedeth 2. of the Matter out of which it should be made whether out of nothing terminativè or out of some preexistent subject 3. of the Time when produced whether from eternall or in time and if in time whether before the body be composed or whether in the very instant of the finishing of it Learned Zanchy who stateth these heads of controversie concerning the soul lib. 2. part 13. cap. 5. doth there reduce all the varieties of opinions concerning the soul unto these eight I. The first opinion is of those who held that the soul is of God but that it is made by God of the soul of the world namely the substance of the heavens that it is like the starres therefore incorruptible immortall that there is a certain number of them without increase or diminution and that their mansion is in heaven from whence they descend into particular bodies as they are framed This was the tenet of Pythagoras and Plato and of the Academicks as Zanchy saith and also this was not much different from the opinion of the Egyptian Doctour This opinion was the ground of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transanimation Which some of the Jews may be thought to have inclined unto some of them saying that Christ was Elias some that he was John Baptist as if either of their souls had lived in Christs body although others are of another mind that they deemed that one of them were raised from the dead as Barradius noteth This was Herods phansie of Christ Matth. xiv 2. This is John the Baptist he is risen from the dead and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him II. Others with Origen held that the souls were made in time of nothing by God but all at once and they held those to be kept in thesaure Dei to be sent afterwards into their particular bodies III. Some held not onely that they were made at once but also of the substance of God So the Stoicks after them the Manichees In this opinion the souls are ex Deo and de
to God that gave it This Scripture was very potent with Augustine as he confesseth in his tenth book De Genesi ad literam and the ninth chapter But after some doubting he inclineth to the exposition of it touching the foul of Adam although the preacher seemeth to speak it in commani And if you say that God gave the Spirit by our parents so he did the body why then doth he speak particularly and onely of the Spirit that he gave that The last authority which we will use out of Scripture is Heb. xii 9. Furthermore we have had Fathers of our flesh which corrected us and we gave them reverence shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of Spirits and live Here is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contradistinction betwixt Fathers of our flesh and Father of our Spirits Fathers of our flesh subefficiently unto God Father of our Spirits absolutely immediately And Father of our Spirits must be understood in respect of production not regeneration that the opposition may be strictly ad idem If as before ye say that he is Father of our Spirits by our Parents so he is also of our flesh as before Memorabilis locus ad quaestionem as Paraeus breaketh out upon this place This is a pertinent text for the deciding of the question betwixt Augustine and Hierome concerning the beginning and efficiencie of the soul Hierome could not produce a more pregnant testimonie for the determining of Augustine unto his tenet Now to these divine testimonies we might adde an argument or two drawn out of sacred writ Zanchie argueth from the manner of the creation of Adams soul of Christs the like in all others But we will passe unto the second head of our confirmation That the creation of souls is more consonant unto Ecclesiastick writers Fathers The consent of these hath alwayes been accounted a moving argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he in his Rhetoricks It is not ingenuous to determine any thing contrary to the Gods to a Father to a Master Doctours Fathers then must have in them some perswasive virtue towards assent unto their judgements Zanchie therefore citeth Hierome Gregorie Nyssen Theodoret Leo. And Hieromesaith as before that it was the generall opinion of the Church in his time that God is the Authour of souls by creation Indeed we want herein the suffrages of Tertullian and Augustine Tertullian saith plainly that the soul is corporeall we have it in his book De resurrectione carnis IN TERMINIS TERMINANT IBUS Nos autem animam corporalem hîc profitemur in suo volumine probamus And he giveth us his reason because of the souls suffering of torments making account that the soul unlesse it be corporeal cannot suffer Angustine in his tenth De genesi ad literam goeth about at first to excuse this expression of the Father in saying that the reason of this speech was because he could not otherwise concieve it to be then in a corporeall notion neither could be otherwise conceive of God as Rhenanus in favour of him Timuit nè Deus nihil esset si non esset corpus He was afraid lest God should not be or should be nothing if not a body Yet Augustine soon after his excuse of the Father understandeth him otherwise in his term of CORPUS even by his own words because he saith Omnecorporale est passibile as if he meant by CORPORALE not onely a reall substance but a substance materiall Debuit ergò mutare sententiam saith the Father because hereby he maketh God passible So that Augustine holdeth not with Tertullian that the soul is corporeall yet he doubteth whether it be created And his reason is Because if it be created by God he cannot see how originall sinne should be conveyed unto it which he knew so well and defended so stoutly against Pelagius To conclude therefore If we could determine three conclusions in reference unto these two Fathers we might obtein their voices also First in reference unto Tertullian That the soul although not corporeall yet is passible and sensible of grief So Christ saith of his own soul my soul is heavy unto death And that Christs soul was immateriall who can deny especially since he was not born in the common way Secondly in reference unto S. Augustine That although the soul be created yet there is a way conceiveable for the intromission of originall sinne without any danger of making God any way the Authour of sinne This Zanchie maketh good Thirdly in reference unto them both That a probable truth is not to be discarded for some particular inconveniences which in our apprehension may seem to arise out of the position of it And de facto that Saint Hierome wonne S. Augustine unto his side in this point Paraeus and Zanchie are my Authours nay Lombard and Biel do cite Augustine in the three and twentieth chapter of the Questions ex Veteri Testamento for the creation of the soul Inhonestum puto si animae dicantur cum corporibus generari ut anima nascatur de anima And Biel to this purpose citeth Augustine De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Non seminantur animae cum corporibus But to deal ingenuously with my audience The former book of the Questions ex veteri Testamento is none of S. Augustines as Bellarmine and Erasmus and others do hold And again the Treatise De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus is supposed to have been made by Gennadius That the former is not the Fathers own is more then likely beside the judgement of those before named because in it he citeth Augustine whosoever is the authour of it Neverthelesse deducting the suffrages of these two Fathers the greater part as Zanchie accounteth are of opinion that the soul is created Our Thesis then appeareth to be more consonant unto the Fathers to more of them and to the rest also happily it is more agreeable then the contrary assertion and also those two Fathers do shew more dislike unto this tenet in respect of the consequents then in respect of the simple consideration of it in it self The third triall of the truth of our Thesis is by the consonance unto reason And the first Argument may be thus Either the soul is created by God or propagated by our parents Not propagated by our parents For if so then by some seed or by nothing If of nothing then it is not of our parents but it is created If it be of some seed then either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either corporall or spirituall If corporall the soul is materiall so corruptible so mortall If the seed be spirituall then either that seed is corruptible and mortall or incorruptible and immortall If corruptible and mortall so is the soul the effect bearing proportion and similitude unto the cause If incorruptible and immortall then either the soul is not generated and therefore why seed and indeed how seed of the soul whether corruptible or