AN EXCELLENT Oration of that late famously learned john Rainolds, D. D. and Lecturer of the Greek tongue in Oxford.  
Very useful for all such as affect the studies of Logic and Philosophy, and admire profane Learning.  
Translated out of Latin into English by I. L. Schoolmaster.  Thy wisdoms and thy knowledge have caused thee to rebel. Isa. 47. 10. 
LONDON, Printed by Tho. Harper for Thomas Slater and William Aderton, and are to be sold at their shops in Duck-lane, 1638.   

To the well affected Christian Reader.  
ANatomists do write, that in the brain of man, there is a Rete mirabile, an admirable Net, that is, an heap and conjugation of Arteries, that for the many windings, turnings, and intricate foldings cannot be anatomised; and so indeed, as if that of the body were to signify that of the mind; in the wit and wisdom of man there is a Rete mirabile, an admirable net, a heap and a conjugation of manifold enfolded Subtleties, which for the Maeandrian windings and turnings, and intricate devices cannot be be anatomised; with this admirable net the pernicious perverters of Learning▪ do catch the poor fish and foul they deal withal. But if ever this net was discovered; and that monstrous Sphynx of corrupted knowledge exploded to the World, this our English Oedipus that Atlas of Learning (as 
* Sir 〈…〉  one styles him) Reveren● Rainolds hath (as I think) in this most exquisite and pathetical Oration sufficiently and perspicuously effected, insomuch that (in my opinion) that 
* In Technomatrian A●es●.  Eulogy may very well suit to this Oration, 
Huc usque turpi nubilo pressum caput,  
Inter que cunas artium pect us rude vincti tenemus.  
Nunc illa rerum monstra ridemus, Chaos Cacumque pondus, sole perfusi novo.   
Englished thus.  
Till now an ugly cloud our heads and hearts  
Oppressed, and in the Cradles of the Arts Were tied fast.  
But with a new Sun beam● our eyes made open,  
Now see that Chaos, which we late did grope,  
And laugh at it at last.  
But notable is that testimony of a grave and learned Divine, 
H●n. I●ckson in his Epistle prefixed to this Oration.  which may very well excite thee (Courteous Reader) to the reading, as it did partly induce me to the version of this Oration. Vt enim Academicis & nobis, qui egregia ipsius sanctitatis & pietatis certamina admirati sumus difficile fuit judicare, an vir melior, vel doctior ille fuerit; ita illi qui Orationes hasces●ri● legerint, haerebunt, (opinor) aliquandiù, an ipsi ex earum lectione doctiores vel meliores evaserint. For as it was an hard matter both for the University and us, who have admired the Conflicts of his rare holiness and piety to determine, whether he excelled in learning or in goodness; so they who shall seriously read these Orations will be in some doubt awhile (I think) whether they are become better men, or better Scholars by reading them.  
Then pity it were surely, that the Cabinet of the Latin tongue should lock up so rich a Treasure, or that the shell of one Language should exclude many (though not expert in the Latin tongue, yet judicious to apprehend) from participating of this delectable kernel of sound Learning & pious affection. I have therefore according to my poor skill turned this one into English, hoping that I shall be found fidus Interpres, in rendering the genuine sense & true meaning thereof, though my style be not equivalent either to the weight of the argument, or to the Ciceronian sweetness, and elegancy of the Original As for the usual Cavils against Translations of profitable things, let that most learned Andraeas Hyperius answer for me, 
* In his Book 〈…〉 contion.  An exact Translation makes things so perspicuous, that it deserveth to be esteemed instead of a Commentary.  
But howsoever I expect not to escape the stings of Censure especially of the common adversaries of the Truth (the vindicating whereof is the very Centre of this Oration) yet this is my Comfort, that I have in this point kept within the Circle of my calling, and employed my small Talon for the public good. So farewell.  
Thine in the common faith, john Leycester. April 30. 1638.   

THE ORATION.  
IF any here present in this Assembly, (honoured Auditors) seeing he hath not heard what I have formerly expounded in Aristotle's Rhetori●ques, may perhaps marvel what moved me, who have taken upon me the Lectureship of the Greek tongue▪ to discourse of Aristotle's Summum Bonum, when the same party hears the Blessedness spoken of by Aristotle to be now explained by me, and that it ought of necessity be taught, that ye may both know how to persuade aright, & what the proper end of good things is, let him not dislike the reason that moved me, but let him attend to the matter now in handling. After he perceives, that it is the drift of my discourse to show Aristotle's erroneous opinion concerning Summum Bonum, he will (I fear me) in his thoughts condemn my drift and purpose, that I, but a young man, should so transgress against the fashion of the University, as to cry down Aristotle's credit. But when he shall understand, that I am enjoined, as I am a public Teacher, to deliver sound and true opinions, not errors in the expounding of Authors, I hope he will not censure me too hardly. Will he demand what reasons induced me to be of a contrary opinion to most of Aristotle's Interpreters now a days? Truly, if I have any judgement at all, the vulgar and trivial Expositors of Aristotle do always, as much as they can, and sometimes more than they ought, adhere unto him in their expositions. And even as the Romans did highly extol all Nero's actions, yea his Villainies, as sacred; in like manner they, as it were approving all Aristotle's sayings, though never so false, do greatly applaud him. I being therefore very inquisitive after the truth, when I had perused such writers as were not so much inclined to Aristotle, I was upon sundry good grounds induced to believe, that Aristotle was greatly deceived. For I did not only rest upon the opinions of Ludovicus Vives, and Peter Martyr (as some malicious persons do object) whose authority notwithstanding, I do, (as I ought) much esteem of; but omitting others, who have handled this point before Vives and Martyr, both Talaus & Fox have of set purpose lately confuted this Blessedness of Aristotle's. And those ancient, and excellent men have long ago so condemned it, that Gregory Nazi●nze● calls it contemptible and base▪ Eusebius unreasonable & false▪ Ambrose, Augustine, Origen, Lactantius, Gregory Nyssen call it very fooli●● in part, and all of them do flatly affirm it to be contrary to tru●h and piette. Whose authority when it is confirmed by Christ himself, who alone, without any other▪ aught to be embraced 〈◊〉 all authorities in the World let no man think it strange, that I had rather concuire in opinion with such and so great Clerks, then to hold an error with Aristotle. I heartily wish, that this opinion were well settled in your minds, ●s both reason and Religion do require; that so, I might have less trouble in speaking, and you less irksomeness in heating those things, which should be as well pleasing, as they are wont to be distasteful unto you. But because this conceit is so deeply rooted in you, namely, that Aristotle's opinion, which hath been approved and defended with the great labour and pains of so many learned Interpreters cannot be shaken; I wish you not suddenly to lay aside this conceit of yours, although you see it so strongly opposed by so many, and so great authorities; only I crave, that you would not obstinately prejudicated those things which I shall speak against it. I suppose, that such, as are not obstinately bend in defending Aristotle, will grant, that so great authorities have some weight, but yet they will deny, that Aristotle's opinion can be confuted with any Arguments drawn from his own Principles. I will not complain, that I am hardly dealt withal by them, who will have the question decided by those Principles, which being falsely framed have caused this false opinion, which I so dislike, especially when Aristotle himself useth first of all to shake the opinions of those Philosophers he contradicts in the fundamental points, before he confutes them; as we may observe in Plato's Idea. But yet I will accept of this condition, to prove Aristotle to be in a manifest error by his own Principles. But because there are some other things, which for the present do more concern us▪ I entreat your patience, that the handling of this point may be deferred till another time; for as the husbandman, when he intends to till his ground, that is overrun with briats and thorns, doth first rid the ground of them, that he may the more conveniently proceed in his tillage, & sow his seed; even so, before your minds can be settled in the true opinion of Summum Bonum, some distinctions, which, (like thorns and briers) have encumbered them, must be removed; that so the see● of truth may take deeper root, and spring up more fruitfully.  
For there is risen up in this last age of the world, a sort of men unknown to the Ancients, & hated of the Learned, who, not out of any desire to si●t out the truth, but to confirm their own perverse opinions, would be thought of ignorant people, in their ruffling disputes, to defend gross absurdities with their no less absurd, and foolish distinctions; in very deed they do expose them to the judgement of all wise men to be laughed at. There was one calico (as Eustathius reports) none of the wisest, when he went to sleep, used to lay a brass pot under his head for a pillow; an hard ●olster sure, but very fit for his doltish pate; at the last awaking, and not very well pleased with his hard pillow, he filled the pot with straw, to make it softer; the pot certainly was not softer, but it was enough for calico, all the while the fool persuaded himself that it was softer. After the same manner, when we seek for case and rest to our perplexed minds; certain pa●try Philosophers do put under them this leaden Blessedness of Aristotle's, & when they complain it is very hard, t●●y fill it with the Chaff ●f Distinctions, & perhaps they persuade themselves, that it is suffer, when nevertheless, it is a leaden lumpish Blessedness still. Whose blockisnesse is so much the more worthy blame, because that out of an obstinate wilfulness of upholding Aristotle, they do so labour to reconcile the opinions of other Philosophers dissenting in the very judgement of Aristotle himself, that even as Proteus, sometime a stone, by and by a stock, anon fire, then again water.  Omnia transformant seize in m●racula rerum. 
They change themselves to wonderments of things. So these men are sometimes Stoics, by and by Epicureans, anon Platonics, then again Aristippians, and yet wholly Peripatetics, and so it seemeth they would be all things and nothing. Cicero laughs at L. Gellius, who, when he came Proconsul into Greece, called together all the Philosophers in Athens, and exhorted them earnestly to leave off all wranglings, and to spend no more time in contentions, which if they would promise to do, he promised likewise to hold with them in opinion. But are not Distinguishers like unto this Gellius? They see well enough, that Philosophers do descent in opinion? and what then? they, like pitiful men, go about to reduce them to an unity on equal conditions. But, because an unskilful person does undertake the business, it is the more ridiculous; And must the business be quite done & finished, because they make Aristotle the judge? Whereas, if those ancient Philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Tully did but hear a●ter what manner their own repugnant opinions, are accorded now adays, it is to be doubted whether they would laugh or chafe at it. But if you please let us produce some one of these Distinguishers, which can defend the matter to their faces. Whom will ye have then, Buridanus, or Bricottus? I know ye cannot understand them, if they spoke. Whom therefore will ye have? whom? Donatus Acci●iolus the Florentine, both more eloquent, than the rest, and better acquainted with you; who, if he should appear in place, and behold these Philosophers standing here with Cicero, he would perhaps thus accost them. Why are ye thus in an uproar, and perplexity, O ye Philosophers? why are ye thus distracted with several opinions about Summum Bonum? What, do ye not know, how that all your jar●ing, and differing opinions may easily be reconciled by distinguishing? Have any of you wrote any thing concerning felicity or Summum Bonum, which (although it be clean contrary to all other opinions) yet may not be accounted true in his kind? I less indeed wonder, that thou O Cicero, dost not understand the Philosophers, for thou hadst no distinctions; Be not ostended with me, I say thou wantest distinctions. Otherwise why dost thou teach in thy Books de Finibus, is in thy first Book, that Epicurus placed Summum Bonum in v●luptuousnes, in the third Book; that Zeno assigned it to moral honesty; & in thy fifth Book, that Aristotle placed Summum Bonum in the comprehension & composition of all good things internal, and external; Why else didst thou refute the first opinion in the second Book, and the second opinion in thy fourth Book? Dost thou not understand Distinctions, how, and in what manner all these opinions may be true in their kind? For whereas Epicurus resolves Voluptuousness to be Summum Bonum, he means carnal Felicity; Zeno Virtue; he means Felicity simply; And whereas Aristotle ascribes Summum Bonum to united, and compacted good things, he means added, or associated Felicity. Why didst thou Cicero waste so much labour about confuting Zeno's, and Epicurus their opinions, when with one only distinction, they may easily be accorded? But (O Aristotle!) (whom I admire as the Philosopher's God) what reason hadst thou ●o to calumniate Plato's Idea, and to wrest his meaning, that even thy most favourable Interpreters do leave thee there? Thou wilt perhaps acknowledge this one fault of thine. But where is thy sharp judgement become? Thinkest thou, that thine opinion cannot be true, unless Plato be con●ute●? Thou 〈◊〉 wide all the World over For I in my life time taught, & thy Zuing●rus after my death wrote, that thou & Plato were both in 〈◊〉 truth; for his Blessedness was divine, and thine humane, his was after this life, and thine in this life. What, it by distinguishing I do so reconcile their opinions, that differ from thine, and thine, whic● s●ems to contradict it sell that there shall appear no d●fference at al●? Eusebius teacheth, that Christians do 〈…〉 then Blessedness in the knowledge & worship of God; If we should deny this, we should be accounted impious; Therefore in thy behalf I thus distinguish. That is an heavenly blessedness, and thine a civil Blessedness, that is true in Divinity, a●d thine is true in Philosophy. He●●l●us the Philosopher pla●ed his Summum Bonum in knowledge; this felicity of man consists in the mind only; thy feli●city, so far forth, as it consists of body and mind. The Stoics assigned felicity to virtue, and honesty; this also is an active felicity; but thine is both active and civil. Now forsooth thou mayst perceive, that external good things are sometimes the necessary parts, sometimes not the parts, but the appurtenances of felicity. Here we make a medicine of simple felicity, & compacted felicity; Priamus is not happy with an associated happiness; again Priamus is happy in misery with a single happiness. One rub is yet behind; whereas in the first Book of thine Ethics, thou ascribest an happy li●e to men in action; and again in thy tenth Book, thou ascribest it to men in contemplation; We will decide the controversy, we love not contentions; We allow those active blessedness, and these contemplative blessedness. And thus, Aristotle, thou seest the sundry opinions of other Philosophers, & thine own to be all true in their kind. If Donatus should speak thus, what answer do you think those Ancients would make him? If Horace, Zeno, Epicurus and Plato were present, they and all things else would rejoice over him, & give Donatus hearty thanks in the like Verses almost, as he gave Damasippus. Horat lib. 2. satire. 3.  
— Dii te Donate Deaque  
Rectum ob judictum doment tonsore;  
Sed undè tàm benè distinguis?  
For thy right judgement Donatus,  
The sexes both divine  
Give thee a Barber's blessing but  
Where hadst thou such fine distinctions?  
Philosopher's would much wonder, that a foolish fellow understands not, that these distinctions are frivolous by the very definition of Summum Bonum; which is termed of all Philosophers the upshot of all things, as that, whereon all other good things depend, but Blessedness itself is no where subsisting only in GOD. Cicero would exclaim against the words and manners of these doltish monsters, and tell them, that they had disgraced all Philosophy with their baseness. Thus would Cicero speak. Truly I do not (Donatus) account thee unlearned, as I have often done, nor brutish, as I have always done; but a witless mad man by thy distinctions. For certain it is (although the Dunscotists do repine at it) that long ago I wrote upon the like subject, and I do here again recite it; that it may very well be, that not one of so many several opinions of Philosophers is true; for how is it possible that so many opinions, so much differing, & disagreeing be all true? Fire and water may sooner be reconciled together, than those opinions, which thou so strivest to compose. But o the times we live in! O the manners of men now adays!  O fortunatam natam me Consul Romam! 
O daughter Rome most fortunate, when I was Consul there!  
I searched out the true Art of reasoning, and did apply it to the practice of Eloquence; but ye obtrude upon young Scholars, I know not what, monstrous Distinctions, and Demonstrations in stead of true Logic, I searched out Philosophy by the light of Nature, living creatures, plants, & the probable conjectures of God; ye for the most part search after nothing but certain trifling conceits, of motion, time, infinite, empty matter, and privation; which you apply to no practice, but pull in pieces (as it were) with your disputations. I have declared the several opinions of Philosophers concerning Summum Bonum; I have confuted them that were false; I approved the most probable; but you have so transformed their Opinions with your Medusaean ●orceries of distinctions, that if you had pleaded with me at the bar, you might have maintained by your distinctions, that Clodius was at one and the same hour both at Rome, and ●erano. But what do I mean? Let us set aside Cicero and other Philosophers; for what do they here? If they should come into our Schools, they would be so troubled with distinctions, that they would suppose themselves to be in Epicurus middle Worlds, and not in the Schools of the ancient Arts. Do but observe these distinctions, they will serve the turn very well in the Schools in Lent. Blessedness, divine, humane, civil, heavenly, simple, associated, active, contemplative, carnal spiritual, in this life, after this life, according to man consisting of soul and body, and according to man subsisting of soul only; (of soul only? who is that? what? do ye ask? The Scholar must believe his Master.) So far forth as man is of a simple substance, and a compound substance, in ● Philosophical truth, and ●n a Theological truth, & in his kind; fifteen distinctions a very complete number of even, and odd; mark them well: But first of all let in his kind be well noted; for when all fails, in suo genere, will never fail. Varro reports, that a man may collect 288 several opinions, concerning Summum Bonum. It is very strange, if they be not all true in their kind. Rhetoricians contend, whether Rhetoric's proper end be to persuade sound, or to speak elegantly and neatly; what need they trouble themselves? each end is good in his kind. Why do we make any difference between Arts and Sciences in their conclusions, for, to speak finely, to pronounce well, or to speak rudely, to persuade and not to persuade, are all Rhetorical ends in their kind. For, what is it to be in action, or contemplation, virtue, or voluptuousness, the narrow path, or the broad path, do they not all tend to life in their kind? The Canonists are hardly censured, because they called the Romish Bishop God, as the Romans of yore called the Emperor Domitian so. If they had had any brains, they might have distinguished him to be a God in his kind: A murdering God as Mars, or God of the Romans, as Romulus, or God of this World, as ●athan is. Do ye not think, that the Physician does comfort his sick Patient well enough, if he tell him, that he is a sound man in his kind? Surely these fellows are sharpwitted Logicians in their kind, but simply they are wrangling prattling Sophisters, who like A●tolycus, Candida de nigris, & de candentibus atra.  The black to white, and white to black they turn. 
They make miserable men of happy, and happy men of miserable. I would they had been appointed judges betwixt us, and the Council of Trent; I suppose they would have affirmed each Religion to be true in his kind, that to a carnal man, and ours to a spiritual man. But lest some jesting companion may sya, that I am foully fallen out with distinctions, I must therefore distinguish distinctions, that I may resolve what distinctions are true, and learned, and what are false & foolish. I embrace learned and true distinctions, which are used in disputes; but I scorn, and reject those distinctions as false, and absurd, which are propounded either simply, or in his kind. But here I would not have the authority of Distinguishers objected unto me. For there are some, who, if you deny this unhappy Blessedness to be true in his kind, do presently betake themselves to this threadbare Maxim, ●he Scholar must be ●●ve the Master. Truly I do not conceive to what purpose they produce th●s, unless perhaps they will thus argue; therefore these felicities are true in their kind. O wondrous witty! You have hit the nail on the head▪ Is this a demonstration, because it is? Ar●●totle himself could not more strongly demonstrate.  
— Si Pergamon dextra,  
Defendi possent ●na hac defensa fuissent.  
If Fates to Troy had granted a defence,  
This hand of mine had beat the Greeks from thence.  
If demonstrations make such thunderclaps, I have done.  Hostis habet mu●os, ruit alto à culmine Troia. The Enemy hath won the walls, and Troy comes tumbling down. 
But certainly the Scholar must believe the Master, for so says Aristotle; And surely, he that teacheth must not lie, for so says Aristotle also. If you will observe Aristotle's law in teaching, unless I keep the same also in learning, I shall transgress. But if you teach false doctrines, which I ought not to believe; it is an absurd part in you to compel me to believe them. If you would have men believe what you teach, you must teach those things, which you ought to teach; if you will not discharge your duty in teaching, I will not discharge mine in the hearing; for oftentimes the Teacher's authority is very prejudicial to the Scholars profit. Thus said Cicero, I like not that Pythagorean ipse dixit in men's resolutions. But they that are bound must obey; what must, if thy commands be unjust? A Scholar must be credulous; if you teach false doctrine? He that hath twice suffered shipwreck is but a fool to trust Neptune. Wherefore if they will be ruled by me; let them leave these poor shifts, and stick fast to their surest refuge, as men use to do in dangerous cases; namely, that they, which speak against Aristotle, do not understand Aristotle's meaning. They think, perhaps, that Aristotle was a juggler, which casts a mist ●●ore his Readers eyes. Do not we understand Aristotle's meaning? O poor shift! So Cicero reports of Torquatus, who, when Epicurus opinions were called in question, said, that Philosophers did not understand Epicurus meaning. Certain Pythagoreans said, that when the Heavens are turned about, they make an admirable harmony, but men cannot hear it. In like manner Democritus said, that his subtle moats were dispersed through the frame of the whole universe, but all men did not perceive them. What were Aristotle's slaves able to understand him, and shall not we be able? Dio reports, that there is a certain cave at Hierap●lis in Asia, whose vapours no living creatures, saving only gelded men, are able to endure. Is not Aristotle's style like unto this Cave, whose savo●r, none but Eunne●es, that is, such as want the masculine liberty of judgement, and are Aristotle's slaves can abide? it is even so. But perhaps they are like to that frantic fellow Horatia●us, who, the day after the public plays were ended, would clap his hands in the Theatre, & when his friends came running, and demanded the reason of his acclamations, seeing that no body acted; he answered, that he saw Actors, though they could not. These men surely see some strange things in Aristotle's Theatre, and do applaud them, which we cannot discern. But what if I can show, that they themselves do not understand him but being blinded with a self-conceit of Aristotle's worth, as men distempered with some malady, do with that frantic fellow imagine, that they see that, which they do not. And what if I prove unto you that Cicero, Diogenes, Laertius, and Alexander Aphrodisaeus himself do interpret Aristotle, as I do? What if I show those notable Champions and Lights of the Christian Church both the Greek and Latin Doctors, do not only so expound, but also confute Aristotle? What refuge have they then? I know not what answer they will make to Cicero, Laertius, and Alexander; unless perhaps they will say that credit is not to be given to examples; at least wise, that the places cited, are but probable, not true. And me thinks I smell what they will say of Christian Writers. They will not (except I be much mistaken) deny, that those things, which so worthy men have wrote against Aristotle are true, and yet they will deny that Aristotle cried. How then can it be possible, that in this very point they write truly that Aristotle erred, & yet (say they) Aristotle erred not? You shall hear: there is a twofold Truth; a Philosophical Truth, and a Theological Truth. Aristotle was in an error according to a Theological Truth, and in that sense he is blame worthy; but Aristotle erred not in a Philosophical Truth, for in that sense he could not be mistaken without doubt, for he is a miracle of Nature. What is this I hear? A Philosophical Truth? and a Theological Truth? This is pulling in pieces, not distinguishing. Now indeed, I nothing marvel at those men, who use to scoff and deride the simple Truth, when 〈…〉 can hatch two Truths for one; as drunken men use to see two Lanterns for one; and Plautinus found two Masters for one Messeinus, and mad Pentheus beheld two Suns for one. They have so well profited in the Art of wrangling, that they have quite forgotten how to dispute. For what is Truth? The Learned in the Greek Tongue do call Verum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i● esse to be, because it is the same, which it is said to be. Therefore as Philosophers teach, that Contraries cannot stand together at one, and the same time in the same subject; so the same Philosophers teach, that contradictories cannot both be true of one and the same thing. Is it not then a shame for our Logicians to disable, and enervate the very first Principles of Logic? For whereas Aristotle doth teach, that to affirm and deny the same thing not only in the general, but also in the particular must needs be contradictorious; these men do in very deed deny this truth; albeit they oppose a frivolous distinction (like a Cloud against the Sun, to obscure the truth. Aristotle's felicity is not true felicity, this they grant to be true in Divinity; again Aristotle's felicity is true felicity; this they will have to be true in Philosophy. O silly Epiphanius, who didst reck on the errors of Philosophers amongst Heresies! O simple justin Martyr, to confute Aristotle's opinions in so great a Volume! D●d not they (silly men) know how to argue ma●ers in a philosophical truth, when they embrace a divine truth? But o thou Apostle, Paul I am sorry for thee! why dost thou dispute with the Stoics & Epicureans at Athens, of the resurrection of the dead, and the life to come? It needs no controversy at all. For although all Philosophers do flatly deny the resurrection of the body, yet it is in a philosophical truth; but thou Paul dost affirm it in a Theological truth, as thou hadst learned of Christ. But why dost thou descent from all Philosophers to no purpose? Why dost thou not permit the Athenians to believe Philosophers? Dost thou think they will the more hardly become Christians for that? It is not reasonable to allow Eusebius the benefit of this distinction; For he was in an error. He knew not this twofold truth. He says Aristotle doth impugn, and gainsay the Scriptures, in that he did ascribe felicity to the external welfare of the body in that he said that God's Providence extended not to every sublunary thing; in that he said the World was eternal, not created, and that the soul of man was not eternal but mortal. Eusebius affirms, that in all these points Aristotle's opinions are flat against the Scriptures. Thou art mistaken Eusebius! Aristotle doth not thwart the Scriptures. Thou must learn to distinguish between a Philosophical Truth, and a Theological Truth. Come hither Ambrose, come Augustine, come all the rest of Doctors, and learn of our Philosophers, that there is one Truth in Divinity, & another Truth in Philosophy. They do Philosophers much wrong. Plutarch reports, how that one bid a Painter's boy who had painted a Cock ●l-favouredly to chase away all right Cocks from his picture. Those men that do alienate divine Truth, do the very same thing. Yet if these men had been Painters, I doubt not, but they would have distinguished, that they had painted well according to the truth of the Picture, though not according to the truth of the Cock's nature. But as Tiridates King of Armenia called that wicked Wretch Nero his God; So Aristotle's Patrons, do ascribe the name of Truth to the vain Opinion of Philosophy. Which if it be once granted, what can be so absurd, but it may be defended, or what so false, but it may be proved, either with an Epicurean, Platonical, Stoical, or Turkish Truth; or with a Papistical, or Heretical Truth; to conclude, which way not? And in this manner, as Democritus not satisfied with the opinion of one World, dreamt of infinite Worlds; so we not contented with one truth, shall conceive innumerable truths of our own brain. But this will be the issue of all at last in despite of Philosophers, that as Varro reckons up 30000 Gods amongst the Gentiles, when indeed there was but one only; even so, when they have forged 30000 Truths, they shall find but one only, and that is the simple Truth, which they so deride. Here before I proceed any further, lest these things perhaps examined, which I have alleged (and I very gladly desire they may be) are not to be found in Eusebius, which I have cited out of Eusebius; ye shall understand, that they are not to be found in the Latin Eusebius. Trapezuntius, who was Aristotle's great friend, translated Eusebius his Books de Euangelica praeparatione into the Latin tongue. Fourteen of his Books, which contain a consutation of Heathens and Philosophers, Trapezuntius translated into Latin, but as for his fifteenth Book, which Eusebius wrote almost altogether against Aristotle's errors, as concerning man's Felicity, the World's Fternity, the Providence of God, and the Souls Mortality, Trapezuntius never meddled with that. Therefore lest any man, being deceived with the Table of the Book, do traduce me, ye shall know that Latin Eusebius de Evangelica praeparatione wants the fifteenth Book, in which are contained the things by me alleged If any will look for it, he may find it in the Greek Copy. Study therefore the Greek tongue, that ye may be able to discern the craftiness of Interpreters, which is too frequent in profane writings, but chiefly in the Scriptures. What Eusebius thought fit to write for the advantage of the Christian faith, Trapezuntius thought not fit to be expounded, because it weakened Aristotle's credit. How much worse than he, are our men in these days, who, fearing lest they should savour too much of Christianity, desire to hear young Striplings speak finely, and to defend by arguments, points repugnant to godliness; but are loath to hear those things, which are consonant to godliness. And yet they love Piety, they love Religion, So, I think, as the Ape loves her puppies, or as juno loved Hercules; They love exceedingly; they kill with loving; They love, as Thais loved Phaedria.  Misera prae amore exclusit hunc foràs, She poor soul for very love hath shut him out of doors. 
Let us speak like Philosophers (say they) when we dispute, when we declaim. I had thought ye had rather have spoken like Christians. Are you to be saved, redeemed and judged of a Philosopher? were yo● initiated in the Mysteries of Philosophers? But what does this concern us say they? We may speak as Philosophers, we are not Divines yet. Divines? It is a woman's privilege to say what she list; for without doubt they will never be Divines, unless perhaps they be Popes, as (some say) joan was of yore; and albeit they may be such, they may not be Divines for all that. But why do they separate the bounds of Divinity and Philosophy, like the Borders of England and Scotland? I think this was the Deputies doing. But yet we may speak as Philosophers. What? as Diagoras, when he denied there was a God? as Protagoras, when he doubted whether there was a God or no? as Aristotle, when he takes away▪ Providence from God? These are the words of Atheists. What then? as Plato, when he sets up a Purgatory? or Porphyrius, who says that Angels are to be worshipped? or as Aristotle, when he teacheth freewill? Let Papists pick out such stuff for themselves. What then? shall we say with Epicurus that the soul is mortal? with Aristippus, that Pleasure is Summum Bonum? or with Plato that a mutual Participation of Wives is to be tolerated? No, we allow none of these? But we would have Declamations, not Sermons. What is a Declamation? Is it to deny that to be a Poem, which wants fabulous matter? or shall not that be called a Declamation, which is not stuffed with impiety? If such are no better, than base Strumpets, which esteem nothing wittily spoken, but that which is obscene; what kind of Philosophers are they which account nothing spoken Oratorlike, but that which is profane? But we would hear Philosophical points. If they be true and good they descent not from holy things. If they be naught and untrue, what are they to be esteemed? The Persians' thought it a great fault in a child, either to lie, or speak corruptly; Do ye make our Christian Youth worse than the Heathen? would you not have us speak as Philosophers? I would have you speak like wisemen, not like the ignorant and unlearned. I call them wise men, who propound true matters, ●nd them ignorant, who teach untruths▪ For Philosophy is the study of Wisdom; Wisdom comprehends the knowledge of Divine and Human things; moreover knowledge is of true things; & thereupon those things only, which are said to be true, deserve the name of Philosophy. For Philosophers are not Philosophers, when they digress from the truth. But because the name of Philosophy is commonly ascribed to the opinions of Philosophers, whether true or false, and not to true wisdom; ye ought to remember what the Apostle warns you to take heed of, Lest any m●n spoil you through Philosophy. Coloss. 2. 8. For there are some amongst us now adays, who maintaining most pernicious errors contrary both to reason and religion, call it Philosophy.  
Nesci● furtivo: Dido meditatur am●res.  
C●njug●um vocat h●c prae texit nomi●e culpam.  
On amorous th●●●s runs Dido's b●●nded mind▪  
To hide her fault she Wedlock's c●oak doth find.  
She called it marriage, but she comm tread adultery; They call it Philosophy, but they do defend impiety. You must not imitate Caracalla Caesar, who was so in love with the very name of Alexander, that he was much offended, that a base Ruffian (whose name was Alexander) was arraigned before him. Dost thou accuse Alexander (said he) hold thy peace, or else woe be to thee. Take ye heed, lest by loving the name of Philosophy, ye entertain Philosophers errors. He accused Alexander, but yet a Ruffian; I reject Philosophy, yet that which is erroneous. But some (like Caracalla) will say to me; What dost thou condemn Philosophy? ho●d thy tongue of Philosophy, or e●●e thou shalt hear ill news. I care not for bad dealing from b●● men: I accou●t not 〈…〉 to be Summ●m 〈◊〉. I do admonish you again, and aga●ne▪ to t●ke 〈◊〉 of Philosoph●. What admonitions the Apostle, and ancient Fathers have given, what the learned of la●●● times have continually admonished you of, both by precepts and examples, that do I likewise. Thus doth Lactantsus often press, and repeat, that Philosophy is false, and frivolous; The Philosophers could speak well like learned men, but they could not speak truly, because they were not instructed by him who was Puissant in Truth. So said Eusebius, that Philosophers erred from the truth, that Philosophy was stuffed full of vain conjectures, diverse errors, and trifling toys. Thus Tertullian said, that Heresies were suborned and supported by the Philosophy of Plato, the Stoics, Epicurus, Heracl●tus, Zeno, and Aristotle; & that Heresies did spring, and spread from Secular Learning. What shall I recite justine Martyr, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and the rest, who do frequently, and vehemently urge the same opinion? What shall I say of later Writers, as Ludovicus Vives, Picus Mirandula, Hieronymus Savanorol●? which three most learned men do tell us with one consent, that they must be very warily perused; who are they? I say not Philosophers, but Aristotle and Plato the Princes of Philosophers. Why so? because Aristotle makes men ungodly, and Plato superstitious. Do ye desire examples? Pomponatius became a wretched man by listening too much to Aristotle; and Ficinus became superstitious from the Platonical dreams of Spirits. Many pestilent errors, first entered into the Churches of Christians, & continued there a long fime, (yea, and at this day do spoil them) from the errors of Plato's and Aristotle's Philosophy. And is the world bewitched still, with the delusions of Satan, that Christians will defend Philosophers errors in public Assemblies with idle and rotten distinctions? They little think, that by this abominable custom, it is come to pass, that the Christian Faith hath not residence in the hearts, but in the Temples of Christians, and not there sometimes. O what a difference is betwixt even the Heathens, and us Christians? Aristotle forsook his Master Plato to uphold his own errors, and we will not forsake Aristotle, that we may defend God's Truth. Virgil gathered gold out of the dunghill of E●●ius; and shall we scrape together stinking filth out of the Philosopher's Storehouse? Isocrates calleth speech the image of the mind; Democritus calls it the shadow of workmanship; shall we imagine that our thoughts and actions are agreeable to Christianity, if we speak as Heathens? Wickedly and falsely spoke those filthy Poets.  
Vita verecunda est; Mus● jocosa mea est;  
Lasciva est nobis pagina, vita proba.  
Demure my life, though merry be my Muse,  
An honest life lascivious lines may use.  
C●stum esse decet pium P●ctam ipsum,  
Versu●●os nihil necesse est.  
A Poet himself devout and chaste must be,  
That his Verse be so, there's no necessity.  
Well said Socrates; such as the mind is, such is thy speech. Speech is the badge of the mind. Is thy speech corrupt? thy thoughts are impure. A profane tongue, and a true Christian will never agree. What pains Christians bestow in the Church, Philosophers destroy in the Hall. Beat down the affections as much as you can, and lop off the sprouts, yet they will spring again, quench the firebrands, yet they will kindle again. Ye should enure yourselves from tender age to the best things; Children ought to be instructed in sound, and true opinions even from their infancy. There is no time, place, or occasion allotted for naughtiness. There is no doubt, but julian the Apostate, (who had his education from the Emperor Constantine) heard many Sermons in the CHURCH, but those private Conferences at home with ●hat declaiming Li●an●us instilled into his mind more naughtiness, than all the Sermons he heard could expel. Nero heard many notable precepts of his Master Seneca; but those flattering words, All things are lawful for a Prince, marred all those Precepts. Deceive not yourselves, One spark of fire is able to kindle more Gunpowder, than all the Ocean can quench. Concupiscence is so deeply rooted in us, that as it is easily kindled like Gunpowder, so it more contagiously rageth. Take heed of the flame, yea, the sparks of this fire. What do our Philosopher's answer to this? Surely they laugh at my simplicity, who require Godliness, and Christianity in their Studies. What have we to do (say they) with this overbusy godliness and Holiness? We leave that to Divines, let them preach CHRIST devoutly, What have we Philosophers to do with Divinity? It is not our profession. Let us speak like Aristotle, like Philosophers. For whereas the Apostle commands the COLOSSIANS to beware, lest they be deceived through Philosophy, that (say they) belongs not to all Christians, but only to Divines. It is written indeed unto the COLOSSIANS, and Geographers say, that COLOSSUS was a City, but COLOSSAE (without doubt) was a Divinity School; or at leastwise because it is written unto Christians, it is an advice, not a precept; of which sort there are some things in the Gospel, which are not prescribed to all, but to complete Christians; as the Expositors of Aristotle's Morals do teach. shall we leave off the old want of defending Aristotle, whom the most learned of the Universities have so long time highly esteemed? nay, we will rather with the Augustinians maintain all Aristotle's sayings even against the superstitious Stoics, according to a Philosophical truth, not according to a Divine Truth, not by the light of Faith, but of Reason, so far forth as we are Philosophers, not as we are Christians. Thus do these men in their cups brag, and brave it out, though not perhaps in these very same words, yet in the same sense. But I wo●ld advise these men to consider, that since they will live like Philosophers, let them take heed, that they die not Pagans. A certain plain Country fellow seeing a noble man of Germany cla● in armour in the morning, like a General of the field, and with his Mitre like a Prelate in the Church at evening, asked one of his servants, why his Lord and Master did sometimes wear an Helmet, & sometimes a Mitre; he answered, because he was both a Prince, and Bishop of a City. A Prince, and a Bishop said the Country man? I pray you (Sir) tell me, if the Prince go to Hell, whither shall the BISHOP go? If I had so much authority as the Countryman, I would ask these Philosophers, and these Centaur Christians, both men & monsters, these Hermaphrodites both men and women, or rather neither, who speak impiously as Philosophers in the Schools, and holily in the Church like Christians, what think you will become of the Christian, if the Philosopher be thrust down to Hell? Let no body wrest my words otherwise, than I mean; I know not how it may fall out, that I may hereafter lay the fault upon your tongues, seeing that those things, which I have spoken true, through your misreporting them, may be accounted false. I have at the last bid farewell to obscene Poets, such as (for th● most part) are not to be taught to children. I have fetched this out of Saint Augustine in his Confessions who averreth Terence expressly not worthy to be read, and blame such Grammarians as expound him. If this seems absurd to them, why do they find fault with me? let them find fault with S●int Augustine. But let no man so mistake my meaning, as though I condemned the reading of all Poets; as though I should say, because children must be fed with milk, not with flesh, some Butcher, or other should infer, that I spoke against eating of flesh absolutely. Now if it be reported again to Butchers that my demand was, what will become of the Christian, when the Philosopher is thrust down to Hell; My answer is this to Butchers, that I speak of Philosophers in the same sense, that Tertullian did; What likeness is there between a Philosopher and a Christian? What hath Athens to do with jerusalem? an University with the Church? or what have Heretics to do with Christians? He calls Philosopher's Heretics. He was never acquainted with this absurd distinction of a Philosophical truth, and a divine truth; but he calls Philosophers Heretics. He complains, that Philosophy hath been many sundry ways distributed into Heresies, by the industry and labour of Philosophising Fellows, which have corrupted the truth in the Church. What hath Athens to do with jerusalem? an University with the Church, or Heretics with Christians? And yet shall any man marvel, why I am of opinion, that it is dangerous to speak like Philosophers? Men speaking as Philosophers have long ago infected the Greek Church, and almost all Europe with diverse errors. Men speaking as Philosophers have in our days polluted all Italy (would to God it were but Italy only) with most noisome opinions. Those two most vild and graceless men (if they may be called men) Cornelius Agrippa, and Nicholas Machiavelli speak as Philosophers, of whom, the one in his natural, the other in his Moral Philosophy have disgorged such Lessons.  
Qualia cred●●●●le est rictu rudeness 〈◊〉.  
●●●be●on, & Stygii m●n stratremenda lacus.  
As if the Stygian Lake, or three chopped Cerberus,  
Had spewed their monstrous ugly fil●h on us.  
Pomponatius, and Cardanus spoke as Philosophers, whereof the one wrote that cursed Treatise of the Souls mortality, the other broached many impious errors in his subtleties. I deny not, but they are both confuted, Pomponatius slightly by Contarenus, & Cardane sound and thoroughly by Scaliger. But how many in the mean time have they spoiled with their philosophical sentences? Poison hurteth more, than the Medicine helpeth; neither are all cured, that are poisoned. And is any man so foolish to seek to be wounded, that he may be cured? What then will some say, do you forbid the reading of profane matters, l●st men be corrupted thereby? Shall we not read Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, De●●osthenes? shall we not attain to the knowledge of History, Philosophy, Eloquence? And hereupon Philosopher's w●ll amplify, that a thing is not to be rejected for the abuse of it. F●e●ds are drowned with waters; Houses are consumed with fire, the earth is scorched with the Sun, men are spoiled by buildings, and yet for all this water, fire, the Sun, houses and buildings are necessary. I would not have the thing itself, but the abuse thereof abolished, and the proper use thereof restored again. I do not say, that he offendeth that reads profane Authors, so that he do but lightly pass them over; but this I take to be sinful, when profane things are believed; for then art thou foiled, when thou givest credit to them. And in that case. I hold it dangerous to defend them; for thereby perhaps thou hurtest others, or else art hurt thyself. Thou must also take heed not only what thou defendest, but also what, and in what manner thou readest; For although thou dost but touch those things, that thou readest, yet be not so careless; for many things, but touched do hurt, and sometimes kill. Saint Augustine makes mention of a little Fly called a Cynips, which is of so small a substance, that, unless you be very sharp-sighted, you cannot discern her, yet when she fastens on you, she will sting sound, so that she, that you could not perceive coming to sting, you shall too late repent her stinging. But if your judgements be not so sharp-sighted, to discern those, which I call the stings of philosophy, yet know, that Philosophy is ● Cynips, which uses to sting heedless men; feel it not after it is too late. The veriest fool that is learns wit after a shrewd turn. The biting of an Asp procureth a most sweet sleep, insomuch that one cannot be sensible of death approaching, but it is a deadly sleep at last. Enjoy thy sweet sleep Cleopatra, I envy thee not, for thine Asps biting: I will propose to you jeromes' opinion set down in his Epistle to D●m●sus concerning the Prodigals son; it is indeed rejected of the pertinacious, but embraced of the wiser sort, and is very necess●●r●●or all sorts of men. jeromes' words are these, Even as it was lawful for the jews, if they had gotten a beautiful woman captive, to take her to wife upon this condition, that first her head should be shaved, her nails pared, & her captive garments cast away; In like manner, it may be lawful for Christians to use Philosophers, and ●ooks of Secular Learning, but with this condition, that whatsoever they find in them, that is profitable and useful, they convert it to Christian doctrine, and do, as it were, shave off, and pair away all superfluous stuff concerning Idols, love and carnal cares of the world. And lest any should cavil and say, that those things, which we ought to believe, appertain to faith, and yet men are not for all that forbidden to talk as Heathens; Jerome proceeds, (His meaning is not of such as speak profanely, but of such ●s read profane matters.) Neither let us flatter ourselves (saith he) although we do not believe those things which are written, when others consciences are wounded; and we may be thought to approve those things we read, when we do not reprove them. If any will further object, that these things are written to the Bishop, or else they are to be understood of deeds, and actions; let him know that Jerome speaks also of words; yea, of all Christians in general. For he annexeth, far be it from ● Christians mouth to utter omnipotent love, so help Hercules, so help me Castor, and such like rather bugbears, than divine powers. Therefore whosoever shall at any time utter such idle ●ords, he is not to be allowed in that. Mark ●hat Jerome says, far 〈◊〉 it from a Christians ●●uth to utter Omnipotent jove, so help me Hercules, or Castor, and such ●ike rather bugbears, than leities. What shall we not ●ame the immortal gods, not jupiter? What, not in verse? not in our talk? not when we declaim, or dispute? Why do ye ask me? Augustine reproves it, Jerome abhors it. Far be it from a Christian to speak thus. And if the most excellent men have been so strict about trifling words, let our wit less youngsters at length leave off their railing in every place where they come, that there are some upstarts of a new opinion, who would neither have others to defend Aristotle in all points, nor yet will defend him themselves. O heinous fact! My neighbour Q. ●uber● doth advertise thee C. Caesar of a crime never heard of before, Q. Ligarius is gone into Africa. That which all the Ancients both sacred and profane, Greeks, Latins, Christians, and Heathens have freely done, that which the most learned amongst later Writers of Logic, Rhetoric, and Philosophy both natural and moral, have not only done themselves, but taught others to do so, (because men by nature, Philosophers by truth, discreet men by reason, wise men by piety, and Christians by religion are not persuaded, but commanded; not entreated, but compelled) some factious fellows, who accuse Aristotle of many gross errors (although he alone of all men the the Pope excepted could not err) have appeached us of a new crime never before heard of till now. What shall we do therefore? Whither shall we turn ourselves? shall we ●all to reasoning? But it cannot be possibly that ever Aristotle should be refu●ed by arguments; no, although he should speak Contradictories Shall we fly to authority? You object modern Writers, Vives, Ramus, Talaeus, Martyr; these are either unlearned, or proud. If you press us with ancient Fathers, as Eusebius, Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, they do not condemn us, but the Heathens. If you allege the Schools of Germany, and Switzerland (who have reform the manner of teaching Philosophy with Religion,) they will be thought of some to have dealt superstitiously in this point; although I doubt not, that learned judgements are nothing at all moved with these petty cavils, yet to give all men satisfaction, if I can) not insisting upon these arguments, which they are wont to jest at) I will produce certain witnesses, so fresh in memory, that have observed this manner of teaching, men so well practised in Letters, that doubtless they have been well versed in it. They are by place, and authority Bishops at least, for number almost two hundred; namely the whole general Council of Lateran held at Rome within less, than these sixty years. Mark I pray you diligently what I allege, for it is a place most worthy your observation, and it is extant in the third Volume of Counsels in the Lateran Council under Leo the tenth, the eighth Session; if any be desirous, he may see this more at large, which I do but point at. About that time, when the Professors of Aristotle in the Universities had prevailed thus far, that they defended by Aristotle the soul to be mortal, at least wise in a philosophical sense (otherwise perhups, than Aristotle himself meant) because that Commentator Averro thought, that Aristotle meant so; it was declared by the Lateran Council, That certain pernicious errors, always abhorred of the faithful, were sowed in the Lord's field by that contagious Contriver of all mischief, and amongst the rest, that the soul of man is mortal; which whosoever shall affirm, to be true, are taxed by that Council for rash and unadvised Philosophers. And no more but so? yea, they are all condemned, that do affirm, or once question it. True may some say according to Divinity; nay, but they are condemned, whosoever do ●ouch it to be true even in Philosophy; I say Philosophy; for it is expressly named in the Decree. Hear the general Decree annexed. Forasmuch as truth can in 〈◊〉 wise be opposite to truth, we do resolve, that every assertion contrary to the Christian faith is altogether false; and we do straightly forbid all others to conclude otherwise. And we do decree, that all persons, who do pertinaciously maintain this error, are to be taken heed of, and punished as breeders and dispensers of damnable heresies, and to be hated and abhorred in all points, as Heretics and Infidels, who go about to extinguish the Catholic faith. You hear, that our rash●heady Philosophers are pronounced by a general Council to be hated and abhorred as Heretics and Infidels. But now (lest they might seem only to make a de●cree against the defence of Aristotle's errors) they enjoin further, that they be not only not defended, but also, that they be wrongly opposed, and rejected. Which, let them ●ell consider, who have ●he charge of Philosophical disputations; for thus 〈◊〉 follows in the Decree. We straightly charge and command all Professors of Philosophy in Universities and public Readers elsewhere, that when they read, or expound to their hearers the points of Philosophy, which are contrary to the true faith, as of the soul's mortality, the world's eternity or such like opinions, that to their uttermost power, they vindicate the truth of Christian Religion from such errors, and explain it to their hearers, and (as much as they can) both by doctrine and exhortation ●root out, and confute these arguments of Philosophers, seeing they may be easily confuted. Thus ye have the Decree, the curse is denounced against all t●e violaters thereof. And this Decree was not ratified by a few, but by the whole Council in general; saving only worshipful Master Thomas Superintendent of the Preachers Order did not approve it. He, as it seems, more favouring Aristotle, than Piety, said that the second part of the Decree did not please him, wherein it was enjoined that Philosophers should openly teach, and instruct their Auditories in the true Faith. Now then let it seem doubtful (if it be possible) whether the conceit of one only Master Thomas a younger Brother of the Preachers Order, or the Decree of the general L●teran Council ratified with an execration annexed, is to be preferred. Moreover, if the Lateran Council, if the R●mish Bishop, if the Cardinals themselves of the Romish Church (many chief points of whose Religion rather agrees with Aristotle, and the Philosophers, than with Christ, and his Apostles) do denounce a Curse against all such, as shall affirm Aristotle's opinions dissenting from Christ to be true, though in a philosophical sense, what will become of us think you, who have taken upon us the profession of pure Religion purged from Superstition, freed from the rotten devices of men, and cleansed from the dross and dregs of all errors? I omit the pressing of this point in the Nycene Assembly of Cardinals appointed for that purpose; They held it a great abuse, and a matter of dangerous consequence for Philosophers to broach impieties in public Schools, and not to discover how weak the light of nature is to discourse of God, the world, and such like arguments, and in all their disputations not to make piety their chiefest aim. I press no● the opinion of sworn Witnesses those Cardinals, Sadole●, Contare●●●, Poole; I stick to the Lateran Counsels Decree. Whosoever therefore affirmeth it to be true but in a philosophical sense, that the soul i● mortal, or that the world is eternal, if he fear God, let him know, that he grievously profanes God's Name, when the authority of his Word is disabled, either in jest, or in earnest. If he be a Papist, let him know, that he is pronounced an execrable Heretic, and Infidel, liable to a Curse, and delivered up to Satan, by the Romish Bishop, and the Lateran Council: if he be an Atheist, let him take his liberty of philosophising, defend his distinctions, and what he list; I forbid him not. To all others, whether they are godly, or seem to be so, what I say of the World's Eternity, or the Souls Mortality, I say the same of all other questions, which descent from Christian godliness (amongst which is Aristotle's opinion of Blessedness, condemned by the judgement of Eusebius, Lactantius, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, naz●anzene, and many other most learned men:) Let them look to it, which de●fend it. Let Philosophers distinguish the Sorbonists bark, Epicureans rage, Machiavili●ns scoff, the Truth is conqueror; They themselves totter, and shake, fall and rot, but the Truth will triumph Truth (like the Palmtree) the more it is kept down, the more it flourisheth, and by how much the more forcibly it is bended downwards, by so much the more vigoriously it reflecteth upwards. The Sun ofttimes is darkened, but that darkness is discussed. Proserpina's golden branches are broke off, but they spring again; Truth may be pressed, but it cannot be oppressed. But if any Novice in Philosophy be offended at these things, which are truly uttered (neither can it be expected but some will take offence at them) let him not like a Momu● backbite in a corner, or maliciously traduce this, or that thing, which I have spoken, but let him refute mine Oration. He shall not need to go to the Augustinian Monks, let him writewithin his own walls; Words are but wind, writings will stick by it, let the learned judge. I will most willingly give him a copy of mine Oration. And so I do heartily again, and again entreat the Aristotelians, if they have any confidence in their cause, if they bear any true affection either to Aristotle, or Philosophy, or the Truth, that they will confute mine opinions. If they cannot do it (for I doubt not of their good will to do it) let them leave their wont obstinacy, and yield to the truth. Let them not object, they are not suffered to speak their minds openly, they have place enough to write their minds, and that they may do more freely, and upon better deliberation. I acknowledge mine own weakness, no man more, but strong is the Truth. I do not so much distrust myself, as I trust to my Cause. A very child may maintain a good cause; but Cicero himself is not a sufficient Patron for a bad cause But I would wish them to provide new distinctions; for these, which I have handled, have been oftener boiled, than the Colewo●t in the Proverb, not twice, but a thousand times, which the stomach of Polyphemus himself is not able to digest, so that it is no marvel our Scholars are sick so often, when they are crammed with such distinctions. If any more sober minded hath either not understood, or not approved what according to mine ability I rather pointed at, than explained, by reason of the shortness of the time, I entreat him to come to me; he shall find me most ready to teach what I know, or to learn what I know not: We do not all know all things, I may err, I am willing to be instructed. This only I crave, that no man do rashly carp at what is done; I neither contemn nor condemn the study of Philosophy. But I see a deeper wound concealed. There are some in whose hearts impious profaneness is so fast rooted, that they make piety not only to seem harsh and unsavoury to others, but to be rejected and vilified by themselves. Truly as Saint Augustine wrote long ago (that the enemies of grace lay con●chedunder the name of nature) so it may be as truly said in our times, that the enemies of the Faith lie couched under the name of Philosophy. I know indeed there are many that err through lack of knowledge, but I mean the obstinate, and pertinacious Patrons of Philosophy; of whom would to God that were untruly spoken, which I here speak again with grief, The enemies of the faith lie couched under the name▪ of Philosophy. I shall be thought of some to be their enemy, now I have rubbed their sores: So mad Orestes in Euripides called his sister Electra a Fury of Hell, because she tied him fast in his bed, lest he should run mad; But her brother's outrageous words nothing daunted Electra, neither shall these men's prejudicated censures disquiet me, when they are whole, they will give me thanks. The Physician must bear with the frowardness of his patient; For I am not ignorant how many and how bitter grudge I shall meet with all, which did I know to be spent upon these trifles of mine, I should be very stupid, if I should not esteem them as matters of great importance, both for your benefit, true piety's sake, and God's glory, which (the Lord is my witness) I only aim at. These may seem light matters, but the trees vigour consists in the root. The Scriptures and profane writings are like Hypocrates twins, laughing together, weeping together, sick together, and sound together. In those Universities where the Gospel doth flourish, the fooleries of Duns Scotists are banished thence, witness Geneva, Leiden, Ba●ill, Germany is witness. In those places, where Aristotle bears sway, there all impiety rules and reigns; Witness Paris, Milan, Italy is witness. But yet let all impediments to Pretty do their worst, we may defend Philosophy even to death, we may study profane Arts, but so, as they be referred to pious things. This was the mind of that good old man Master Richard Fox, whose Image is every day before our eyes; This only was his chiefest care. And howsoever he fell into the error of the times, yet all his care was, that Religion, Piety, and godly Exercises should flourish and increase daily amongst us. Who, seeing he hath left behind the expression of this his good desire rather in the Statutes of the house, than in our behaviour (which is to be lamented) therefore he seems to speak to us all continually, as a father to his children in this manner.  
Whereas I did heartily desire you young men, my sons by adoption, and brethren in Christ, to be brought up in the knowledge of God, which is true blessedness; lest the thorny cares of the world should choke the springing seeds of godliness in you, I built an house for you, that so you being freed from carking cares, might wholly apply your studies. I provided nourishment for your bodies, and souls. I admonished you to be mindful, that your place assigned you on earth was not permanent, but transitory, and that you have here no abiding City, but must look after one in Heaven. I have ordained for you Professors of the tongues, and Arts, that so you attaining to the knowledge of them in your younger years, might be enabled to underrgoe weighty affairs hereafter. I besee●ched you in the bowels of jesus Christ, that you would devote all your studies to God's glory. I have declared to the World, that this College of mine was founded for Divinity sake. I have enjoined the other Lecturers to design all their labours, and studies to accommodate the Divine. I have earnestly exhorted, and enjoined you all to strive, and contend with all possible diligence for the knowledge of Divinity. I had good hope, that this College would have sent forth many both excellently learned men, and sound Christians, who being well seasoned themselves with heavenly wisdom, would make the unsavoury minds of others to relish piety, bring the light of the Gospel to them that sit in darkness, restore the sick to health, refresh the poor, strengthen the weak, direct them that go astray, and raise up the dead by the Gospel. But alas my hopes are frustrate; my labours are all in vain; yea, so short of arriving at the desired haven, that they are overwhelmed with a tempest in the very midway. That Origen, when he● taught profane learning to the Heathens at Alexandri●, had such good success in teaching of Rhetoric, by sometimes interlacing Examples and Sentences of Godliness, that many of them were converted to Christiani●ty. I trust, Christians are not made impious by your Expositions of Moral Philosophy in Oxford; but I am sure you corrupt weak Scholars with your Epicurean licentiousness of life. Thus the streams, which should refresh the dry souls of poor wretches, that the plants of piety might spring apace, are quite dried up in the very fountain; so the fruit is perished in the blossom, the Corn is crushed in the blade, before it can come to a true ripeness, and be fit for food. For what other thing, did that graceless Apostate julian practise, when he laboured to extirpate Christian Religion out of the World, th●n command, that such opinions as opposed Christian piety should be publicly taught, and defended in Schools, that so the younger sort might loathe and distaste Christianity quite. Impious likewise was the practice of that Heathenish Tyrant Maximinus, who caused such points, as were contrary to sincere godliness, to be expounded to the hearers, and to be learned without book, ye that profess the Name of Christ, do ye think, ye have done very well, when ye have by your Declamations opposed the blasphemous errors of the Gentiles, (which Basil ab●orreth once to mention) and yet you still uphold the base opinions (as Chrysostome calls them) of Aristotle.  O c●rva in terris animae, & coelestium inanes. 
You grovelling Souls on earth that take delight,  
Of heavenly matter void, & empty quite.  
What madness hath so infatuated your senses, that ye suck poison out of the Philosophers, convert helps into hindrances, embrace vanity for verity, take the dregs, when you may have the finer stuff? Do ye profess Christ in the Church in words, and Aristotle in the Schools in good earnest, and Epicurus your lives and actions? What a shame is it, that may be verified of you, which Ambrose said of the Arrians, They have forsaken an Apostle, and followed Aristotle. Why do ye waste good hours about trifles, divine wits about noxious things, and consume that precious time, which should be spent in History, Oratory, and Philosophy (but especially in sacred matters, whereby Truth and Godliness might be promoted) and lie ●aking in the filthy puddles of doting silly men? Do ye think I was ever so sottish, as to forbid ye the imitation of Lyranus, and Hugo (patterns for Divines) in interpreting the Scriptures, or did the same I ever propose such Scums, as Stannihursts Logic, Paulus Venetus his Analytics, Niphus his Topics or Donatus his Ethics to be once meddled withal of young Students? Does not my Picture put ye in mind to what end ye were chosen Scholars of this house, what ye ought to aim at, and to what purpose ye should design all your endeavours? Are ye not d●ily stirred and incited (like so many Be●●) to dispose all your honey extracted out of the flowers of Truth to God's glory? Are ye not convinced in the judgements of those holy men EUSEBIUS, Saint Augustine, Lactantius, justine Martyr, and the rest of the Fathers, who have with so great industry, and exquisite knowledge plucked up by the roots, and trodden under foot the false opinions of Philosophers, and Aristotle? Are ye not satisfied with the authority of the Lateran Council, of so many Bishops, so many learned men, and choice Cardinals, who, (to the end, that Christians might in their tender years be informed in true opinions) have most straightly charged, that the weakness of the light of Nature should be made known, laid open, and often pressed in Auditories? What is in you or any of you (young men) unlearned in comparison of so many aged men, and so many Fathers renowned both for Learning & Piety, that ye should account yourselves wiser than they, either in training up such as ye▪ instruct, or sharper-witted in understanding what ye read, and that those points, which they condemned in Aristotle concerning Nature and Manners, as false and foolish, ye should censure to be unjustly condemned, and approve them by your absurd Distinctions? Have I therefore erected Corpus Christ's College for Divines that Aristotle might have more followers, and my Saviour no pious servants? Have I therefore conferred so large benefits upon you▪ that ye should in your speeches prefer ungodly and unprofitable before good and wholesome matters, man's glory before God's glory, the infernal gods before the most mighty God? Have I therefore ordained that famous man Ludovicu● Vives to be your Lecturer, who taught you in his life time by admonitions, and after his death by his writings, how the corrupted Arts might be thoroughly purged and cleansed? And are ye now so silly (young men) as to leave Viands for Acorns, Trees for Chips, and with the Dog return to his vomit, and with the Swine to wallowing in the mire? It was my desire, and I enjoined you to observe it, that such as were sound should not be corrupted, but the bad should be directed, the ignorant should be instructed, and not the capable made fools, nor to regard what doting Philosophers dreamt of, but what true things were comprised in the Arts. Is not the flesh of itself raging enough, forward enough to defection, prone to naughtiness, and flexible to every kind of vice, unless ye ●oment, and feed it with ●uell ●etched from Philosophers, to inflame the sparks of impiety, and so add fire to fire? ye think yourselves not able enough to hear Aristotle, but ye are to hear Christ. Shake off this drowsiness, trample upon profane things, be wise in heavenly things, search out the truth, reverence godliness; and that not lazily, but earnestly, with all your industry, and with your whole heart, night and day, at home and abroad, privately, and publicly. The violent ●ay hold of the kingdom of Heaven. Not the slothful, but the runners get the Crown. He that knows not Christ knows nothing. True Religion is true Blessedness. Let no man deceive himself; learning without godliness is poison. Whom it posssesseth, it puffs up, whom it puffs up it kills. The most glorious God enlighten your minds with the brightness of his grace; that ye may always be mindful of that account ye are to give to the severe judge not only of wicked works, but of idle words; and let go the trifling curiosities of worthless men, the glittering subtleties of Philosophers, the apish toys of Sophisters, & fooleries of Dunsists; but lay hold on true and proficient Learning, wherewith ye being exquisitely furnished, and with Piety adorned may at length bring honour to God, salvation to yourselves, and be helpful to others. These things surely that pious old man (most respected young men) doth daily speak unto us, though not in words, yet to the same effect in his desires▪ Which if you carefully consider, I beseech you all in the presence of the Lord (before whose dreadful Majesty, their consciences that reject saving knowledge shall one day tremble and quake) that ye abuse not your own, and others excellent wits. Ye that teach, and ye that are taught, be diligent, the one in delivering, the other in receiving convenient, not impertinent; necessary, not frivolous; profitable, not trivial things. ●ime posteth away; the arts are difficult; life is short; error is dangerous; trifles are hurtful, truth is precious. Christ is the Mark. Let them, that know not true wisdom, inquire after it; and let them that know it, express it in their speeches; lest others contemn wisdom before they know it; and they themselves never attain to a true, but a false wisdom to no purpose.  
Dixi.  
FINIS.   

jan. 9 163●.  
Imprimatur  
Thomas Wykes.