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
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
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