A GREEK IN THE TEMPLE; Some Common-places delivered in Trinity College Chapel in Cambridge, upon ACTS xvii, part of the 28. verse.  
By JOHN SHERMAN Bachelor in Divinity, and Fellow of the same College.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. BASIL. in Homilia, Ad Juvenes quomodo è Graecis utilitatem caperent. 
Alma Mater  HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA  printer's or publisher's device 
Printed by Roger Daniel Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1641.   

To the Right Honourable, Right Reverend, Right Worshipful, the Governors of the Free-School in the CHARTER HOUSE.  
MUch is spoken which should not be thought, and written which should not be spoken, and printed which should not be written. Such may this discourse be, or such accounted: I am contented. Yet I go on with an ingenuous boldness, in this small bundle of Common-places, (as we call our morning Exercises) to represent, next unto God, unto you my thankfulness, for my education in that House, whereof you are the Worthy Governors. If I thus discharge this debt, the adventure of my credit will be less dangerous, the loss more easy; since we are not bound so to a perfection of learning as we are bound to a perfection of Duty. The Stork is said to leave one of her young ones where she hatcheth, as it were out of some instinct of gratitude: and I, to return an acknowledgement of my breeding, present you with this little offspring of my mind, penned indeed rather than plumed.  
They are next unto the first Common-places which I ever made. Since, much time, and years have run, wherein I might have added much, varied somewhat, polished all: but I desire to serve them up in their first and natural dress, and not to deceive you with my first Common-places last made.  
The Poet calleth his books his children; This of mine is but a daughter; slight, slender, impertinent, unprofitable. Yet the rarity of the subject comforteth the Author, that what cannot satisfy, because not so useful, may please because so unusual. Few such texts there are; this, to my knowledge, not touched before.  
In the way of the discourse Hagar waiteth diligently upon Sarah, Humane learning carrieth the candle to Divinity: now the candle may be set down, and the servant may go out.  
Be pleased to signify the height of your Greatness in a condescent of acceptance. The Press hath delivered it into this legible fashion in respect to your Quality: But I mean not that the world shall see it, either because I would save my modesty, or serve you more peculiarly. Do it the justice of favour, to think of it better than it deserveth; and me the honour, to vouchsafe me to be  
Your most obliged and humble servant, JOHN SHERMAN.   


Ad virum optimum & integerrimum, Mr JOHANNEM SHERMANNUM, de eruditissimo hoc suo pientissimóque tractatu, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  


* Psal. 89.35, 36.  IN coelo testes sunt Sol & Luna fideles,  
Major émque probant lumina magna Deum.  
Quando igitur verus fuerit de numine Testis,  

* Ovid.  Cum Sole & Luna semper Aratus erit.  
Tu quoque, qui Cilicis narr asti verba poetae,  
Et tua cum coelo famaperennis erit.  
Nè temne augurium; nam nos quoque numen habemus;  
Crede mihi, vates enthea turbasumus.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—    

Ad Lectorem in laudem Operis & Autoris.  

LEctor, in hoc certant Pietas, Doctrina libello:  
Nescio num primas illa vel illa ferat.  
Hoc scio, quod punctum, qui tam bene sacra profanis,  
Ethnica divinis miscuit, omne tulit.  
Scintillam veri dum Sanctus Apostolus ist●  
Ex 
* Allusio ad patriam & urbem & nomen poetae cujus hemistichium enarrat autor.  Cilice excudit, porrigit ille facem.  
Sacrum Gentili de stercore colligit aurum,  
Dum vertit Graeci jugera multa 
* Allusio ad patriam & urbem & nomen poetae cujus hemistichium enarrat autor.  Soli;  
Eruit & gemmas, veterum dum ruspat in agris  
Paucis ingenii tam bene 
* Allusio ad patriam & urbem & nomen poetae cujus hemistichium enarrat autor.  Aratus ager.    

In Poetam à S. Paulo citatum.  

CRetes & Cilices inter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Sunt duo; quos testes paginasacra vocat:  
Nec puduit Paulum Graecos 
citare.  laudare poetas,  
Hic vel Cretensis sit licèt, ille Cilix.  
Sic Deus è tenebris educit lumen; amaris  
Sic vos ex herbis mellificatis, apes.  
Inscriptis hominum sit quodvis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Ast in divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Scilicet hîc nulli narrant mendacia Cretes,  
Neve Soloecismos ipse Solensis habet.    
JACO. DUPORT, S.T.B. Coll. Trin. Cantab. Socius, Graecae Lingua Professor.   
ACTS XVII. 28. As certain also of your own Poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 
IT is a principle, Contra negantem principia non est disputandum, Against him that denieth principles we must not dispute: But the sense and importment of it is not to be taken otherwise then by way of specification, That upon those principles which are denied we cannot make a convenient discourse. Argue with the Jews, who believe not in Christ, out of the Old Testament, as our Saviour did, and S. Paul in the second verse of this chapter. The Cerdonians deny the Old Testament; dispute with them out of the New: with orthodox Christians out of both: with Heathens out of neither. Reason is the natural and common ground of argumentation: And those that either never read a verse in sacred page, or deride what they have read, unless they will in a peevish humour do that which for religion they will not do, namely deny themselves, must be ruled by reason. Nature's light is a subcelestial star in the orb of the microcosm, God's voice, man's usher in the school of the world. As truths supernatural are not contradicted by reason; so neither surely is that contradicted by Scripture what is dictated by right reason. The Doctor of the Gentiles therefore in his encounter with the Epicureans and Stoics, as in the eighteenth verse of this chapter, leaving those principles of Scripture, the object whereof, Christ, was so strange unto them, yea and the point of Resurrection also, which natural knowledge hath some glimpse of, disputeth with them out of their own principles of rational light: which being the fountain of natural Divinity, and this natural Divinity consisting partly in artificial discourse, partly in inartificial authority, the Apostle useth both; the first in the next verse, the second in this. Here he produceth a testimony; in the next verse he maketh an inference out of it. Thus he confuteth the Heathens with an Heathen, the Philosophers with the Poet Aratus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The words are little else then an indefinite Quotation and a rational Aphorism. An indefinite Quotation; As certain also of your own Poets have said. A rational Aphorism; We are also his offspring. In the quotation we may observe, 1. the Quoter, S. Paul; 2. the Quoted, certain of your own Poets; 3. the Form of quotation, as they have said. In the Quoted we have again, 1. the Manner of speech touching them, certain; 2. the Profession of them, Poets; 3. the Appropriation of them, your own Poets: As certain also of your own Poets. Certain; there is the manner of speech concerning the quoted: And in this we have subincluded three considerations. First it soundeth plurality: certain; not one only. Secondly, it importeth restriction: certain; not all: certain, not many. Thirdly, it representeth a kind of disrespectivenesse, an overly speaking, not so much as honouring them with their naming: certain of your own Poets. This is the division of the first part of the text, the indefinite Quotation.  
Concerning the second part, the rational Aphorism, we shall first propound an Exposition, and then raise three Propositions. An exposition first, of the HIS in the text, who this HE is whose offspring we are: secondly, of the particles FOR and ALSO, which seem to be of no use, since the sense of the Aphorism is entire without them. The propositions do issue out of the several respects, wherein we may be said to be his offspring; his, that is Gods, as we shall hereafter declare. The three respects make the three propositions: We are God's offspring in respect of our bodies; We are God's offspring in respect of our souls; We are God's offspring in respect of both together.  
First now of the first particular of the first part of the text, the Quoter, S. Paul. I have formerly spoken of him upon another text: but he deserveth second and third thoughts. Surely never can be said enough of so devout, so seraphical, so industrious, so eloquent, so learned an Apostle. Learned, I say, and eloquent: these qualities are considerable in our present purpose. As Moses, the promulger of the Law unto the Jews, was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians; so S. Paul, the Preacher of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, was learned in all the learning of the Heathens. Neither could he well otherwise confute them. As one saith somewhat quaintly of Logic, that we cannot prove it to be unnecessary, but by it; semblably, neither could the Gentiles be refuted in their idolatry, but by the knowledge of them, and the use of their knowledge. It is very remarkable, what is said of Apollo's in the next chapter and the 24 verse, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an eloquent man, and potent in the Scriptures, as we read it. And an effect and success proportionable to this his ability, we have in the last verse; he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. How did he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mightily confute them, but by his potency in the Scriptures? how was he potent in the Scriptures, but in that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the notion of the term may import two things, skill in the words, that he could expound well; and faculty of speech, that he could express well his exposition. Matter and Form do all in nature; matter and form do all in art: our Apostle was furnished with them both, and abundantly; so that he who was to teach the Gentiles Christ, might have taught them humane knowledge, might have taught them also Rhetoric. Scholarship we see is not out of date, neither in the times of the Law; for Moses had it: nor in the times of the Gospel; for S. Paul expresseth it here. Though in respect of the glorious and fun-like light of the holy Scriptures it be but as straminea candela, as one saith, a rush-candle, a mean light, a small light, and soon out; yet some light it giveth. S. Paul useth the mention of the Poets. And thus briefly we pass from the Quoter to the Quoted.  
And in the quoted we have first the manner of speech concerning them, certain: And in the manner we observed three branches of discourse. First, as it soundeth plurality: certain, not one only. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Bernardus non videt omnia. Two are better than one, saith the Preacher. Multitude of witnesses maketh an evidence more probable. Alas, Master, what shall we do, saith Elisha's servant, when the host of the Syrians environed the city. Elisha soon resolveth the question; Fear not: for those that be with us are more than those that be with them, 2. Kings vi. 15, 16. Exemplatrahunt, Many draw much. It was a very strange speech of him that said, Malo errare cum Origene quàm cum aliis vera sentire: Extraordinary partiality, to hold with one against many, with one erring against many having truth on their side. Plato speaketh well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So truth is truth, say it you or say it you not, be we more or be we fewer that affirm it: And the reason is, Bëcause truth is fundamentally in the thing, not in the words. Nevertheless an assertion confirmed by many voices sooner taketh off suspension of consent, sooner persuadeth the belief of it. Multiplication of testimonies doth not increase the truth, yet it increaseth assent. The Church of Rome understandeth the virtue of this plurality too well. It is none of the least of her flourishes, wherein she so bravingly vaunteth, that she hath ever had a world of authority for her religion, multitudes of Professors; and that little petty England thrust up into a corner of the world, enterteineth a religion which now hath not so great a number of followers, one century ago and a little more had scarce enough to conserve the species: Seculis omnino quindecim non oppidum, non villam, non domum ullam reperiunt suâ doctrinâ imbutam. But we shall have a restriction for Campian by and by. Before we leave this point of plurality, it is not unworthy of some disquisition, why our Doctor intimating more suffragants than one, yet produceth the testimony only of Aratus: There is none here that bringeth glory to God but this Aratus. I can scarce imagine, I dare not pronounce, but that our Apostle knew there were more of the Poets of the same mind. He could have produced a long list of those authors, all agreeing in the same position and sentence: as Homer's,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and Hesiods authority, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Another also calleth God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the best Artist, either in general, in respect of the frame of the world; or specially, of man's body. So 
* Hymno, cui titulus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Orpheus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as if he would make confession of his faith, O glorious and immortal Jupiter, this testimony and expiatory supplication we present unto thee. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  O King, by thy wisdom were all things easily produced; the Earth the sacred mother, and the high-topped mountains; the sea, and whatsoever is comprehended under heaven. Callimachus,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who shall declare the works of Jupiter? But I will add no more, lest I should seem to offend against S. Paul's example, who balked a number of authors whom he could have cited. Sanctius, an expositor upon my text, is of opinion that he had collected a syllabus, a roll, a pandect as it were of all the sentences which the Heathens had spoke concerning the immensity and power and works of God. Why therefore doth he use but one of their authorities? If we may make a conjectural descant where we cannot find a certain demonstration, happily, first he concealed the testimonies of the rest out of humble modesty. The Teacher of the Gentiles had learning enough to boast of, and reading to glory in, and eloquence to triumph in: and he confesseth of himself, I have tongues more than ye all, 1. Corinth. xiv. 18. and yet he seemeth to keep the same posture of humility which our Saviour struck him into when he was in the heat and ruff of persecution. Many strains of Rhetoric he hath in his Epistles, and in the Acts, but all subordinate as it were unto the strain of modesty; I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, 2. Cor. xii. 2. When he was to speak of his rapture, how the Apostle denieth himself, and pronounceth it in a fashion upon another man, in tertia persona, as if so transcendent an elevation did not well become him who in his own esteem deserved rather to be thrown down below the earth! O excellent grace of Modesty, ever in season but when thyself art to be commended! Modesty with ignorance is due and proper: Pride with ignorance is heinous and insufferable: learnedness, worth, excellency with modesty, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing so amiable, so comely, like the coupling of a Muse and a Grace; 
— aut, ubi flavo  
Argentum Pariús ve lapis cùm cingitur auro.  As in the clothing of thy real matter, thy body, so in the dressing of thy notional matter, thy discourse, it is very ingenuous to be civil and modest, in a kind of negligent handsomeness, or handsome negligence, lest to avoid nakedness in the one and in the other, thou runnest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into another shame, as an Ecclesiastic writer speaketh of flaunting apparel. A fastuous, affected, swelling exercise doth at once undo thy commendation, if it be cared for, and the end, which should be. S. Paul knew more, spoke less, as was said of an Heathen. He acted his own precept, Rom. xii. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be wise unto sobriety.  
But secondly, I conceive art in this sobriety, that by the meek concealment of the other authors sentences he might the more win upon his Auditors, taking off from himself the envy of much reading, and in a couchednesse granting that they themselves were very well read in such books, as questionless they were, and were not a little (I suppose) proud of it: the scope and end whereof might be, that in his modesty of himself, and respective commendation of them, though privately intimated, he might make his person more gracious, and consequently his discourse more acceptable. For as God doth to man; so man to man. God first accepteth Abel's person, than his offering: so man first accepteth man's person, then liketh his exhortation. Therefore when a bad man in Rome propounded a good law for the people, the Senate knowing that the naughtiness of the person would countermand and be prejudicial unto the virtue of the law, put it into an honest man's mouth to be promulged. Rhetoric is an artificial goodness of the speaker; goodness in the speaker is inartificial Rhetoric. And the approbation, as it might appear unto the Philosophers, of their knowingnesse in this point, might especially work upon them. It is none of the least things which belong unto the faculty of eloquence, respectively to take notice of the auditors understandingnesse in the present matter of treatise. Our S. Paul, I think, one of the best Rhetoricians that ever spoke, was not seldom in this insinuation: Acts xxiv. 10, 11. unto Felix; and Acts xxvi. 27. unto Agrippa the King, For the King knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him: for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets? I know that thou believest. as if he would persuade him into a persuasion concerning the Prophets. And the power of this manner of speaking the king himself expressed: for he saith to Paul in the next verse, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.  
Thirdly, as there was Modesty in the use of but one saying of the Heathens, and Art in that modesty, so was there also (I conceive) Discretion in that art. It was a mixed audience, as we may suppose in such a solemn place, and as we may gather by the last verse of this chapter, wherein there is mention made of Damaris and many others, besides Dionysius the Areopagite, who were converted by that dispute. Now a large enumeration of a beadroll of Poets and of their sentences had been out of question lost unto the meaner of the assembly, which like little fishes usually by't more than the greater. Rational souls are all equal; (and the reason is, because they are not ex traduce, but from God) as God saith himself, Ezek. xviii. 4. Behold all souls are mine: As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. And as God here signifieth a general care of souls, without any different respect; so that he will not punish the son for the father's fault, but the soul that sinneth it shall die: so the Apostle would not have the meaner sort to be punished with hearing so much which they understood not, because the Philosophers were better read. The punishment of the ignorant, Plato saith, is to learn of the wise: but than it must not be the untowardness of the Teacher not to condescend unto the capacity of the illiterate. Mixed assemblies require at least mixed discourses; that the plainer form may win the plainer sort, the learneder the learneder.  
But neither doth our Doctor say all the Poets, as he might unto the Philosophers, though he had produced the testimony but of one. Here we have a restriction; certain, not all, not many. And this is the second considerable in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. With a fairer ingenuity doth our Disputant proceed in his discourse then some Athenians in theirs, who having found the suffrage of one or two Fathers, or Schoolmen, or Expositors, or of any other order, take their writing and set down all: much like the fellow who having read an obscure Author, and being asked his judgement of him, replied, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That which I understood is good; and so is that which I understood not, as I suppose: So, those which they have read say so; and so do the rest, they suppose. With very good confidence might S. Paul have spoke in a catholic form, in a full universality, the thesis being at first imprinted in them, as men; and therefore the matter was necessary: yet he speaketh in a mortal number, in a paucity; certain. Now certain are sufficient to make an evidence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle in the second book of his Rhetorics: even one good witness is considerable. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established, Deut. nineteen. 15. May Rome then be a little more moderate in her brags of multitude of Professors, of swarms of her Catholics. The Species may be conserved in one Individuum: A few are enough to make a being of religion; though not a flourishing visibility, which is no way essential unto to the truth of a Church. And very good authority may be brought for the proving that in every century since Christ we have had some or other, more or fewer, who have maintained the greatest parts of the Protestants most important and fundamental opinions, whatsoever Campian prattleth. And let them enjoy their multitude. Surely it is not like to be good friendship which is amongst very many: and the reason is very good, as he in his Ethics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For there are very few truly good: So the religion may be suspected whereof so many are studious, because there are so few truly religious. Moreover, Number belonging unto Quantity, which issueth from the womb of Matter, by sequel of a proportionable effect, must be as dull, as uneffectuall as its mother, and skilleth as little to any importance, being in itself indifferent, or rather of the two supposing weakness. Multitude is of little use in nature, but where there is deficiency: and therefore some would have every angel to be a distinct species, because plurality of Individuums under a species is only by reason of their mortality; which is not compatible to angels. Certainly a strange canvas it would be, wherein truth should go by voices, and be judged by the poll as it were of freeholders'. Non tam autoritatis in disputando, quàm rationis momenta quaerenda sunt, as Tully in his first De natura Deorum. Disputations are to have more reason in them then authority. But if Rome will yet glory in number, let her glory in the septenary number of her hills, spoken of in the description of Antichrist, Rev. xvii. 9 let her glory in the critical number of the Beast DCLXVI, which the numeral letters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that signifieth their nation) do amount unto; let her glory in the title of universal Bishop, which Gregory predecessor to Boniface (who first usurped the appellation) affirmed to be an antecedent sign of Antichrist: As for us, we are not ashamed of our paucity in the times of their persecutions: The gleaning of Ephraim is better than the vintage of Abiezer. Verity hath its existence, though there were never a man in the world to own it: and Falsity will be nothing, though all the men in the world maintain it. Humane testimonies are but probable arguments. Many are better for the multitude: fewer are sufficient for the wiser sort. So the Apostle, certain; not one only: certain; not all, not many.  
Thirdly, we have in this manner of speech a certain disrespectivenesse, without so much as naming the Quoted: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confusedly: neither Who nor What: neither welt nor guard; plain Certain. Not — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Did he not so much as call them by their names? No surely our Apostle mentioned them rather for his own use then for their credit; to shame the Philosopher's practice, rather than to honour the Poets say. There is not (as ye know) the name of a great learned Heathen man in all the holy book of God, neither Poet, nor Philosopher, nor Historian, nor Orator. Where is Homer, either in Greek, for whom several nations contended to honour themselves with such a countryman? or where is Homer in Latin (as he is called) Virgil, the stately Poet? Where is Alexander's Tutor, Aristotle, though the Patriarch of Philosophy, as one termeth him? Where is Seneca, the divine Moralist, whatever Salmeron feigneth of letters which he wrote to S. Paul, and S. Paul again to him, the matter whereof, he saith, is not much unlike that of S. John to the Elect Lady, and to Gaius, or that of S. Paul to Philemon? Where is Plato, whom Zanchy supposeth to have read the books of Moses? In tully's Hortensius S. Augustine could find nothing of Christ: In the Christians book there is none of Tully. We have mention of Philippi, but of no Philippick; not the divine one, as Juvenal calleth it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where do we find the grave orator of Greece, Demosthenes? yet would not the Doctor of the Gentiles, who said that he magnified his office, vouchsafe so fare as to name those Authors whose sayings he is pleased to insert into sacred Scripture, and by his consecration of them to make them more divine than any of Plato's works; neither Aratus, nor Menander, nor Epimendies, nor any other, if there be any other, whose sentences he borroweth? Was it the wisdom and policy of this Teacher of the Gentiles to leave their names out on purpose, that so he might engage us to the reading over of the Greek Poets, as if we should find in them some great matter worthy of our pains? Or did he well remember the speeches, but forgot the Authors names? or had he not his books and parchments about him? or could he not in that ex-tempore dispute look in them? One would have thought he might have named Aratus, though none else, if it were but for his beginning, the piety of his beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let us begin from God, as S. Paul expoundeth him; or for the continuation of his devotion, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  Let us never cease to extol him. Every street, every assembly aboundeth with him.; or again, for the divineness of his subject, the heavens, more sublime and pure matter than useth to be in the wanton and obscene pages of some other Poets. We have indeed in the last verse of this chapter mention of Dionysius; and lest the honour should miscarry upon another of the same name, for distinction, the Areopagite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But first happily this Dionysius was not very great learned man. As for that saying which is received as his, at the passion of our Saviour, Either the God of nature suffereth, or the world will be dissolved, me thinketh it was no argument of any extraordinary knowledge, it being easy for them to know that the eclipse than was supernatural, it being not then conjunction-time of sun and moon, and also in regard of the continuance of the eclipse, as Thomas Aquinas observeth. Upon this saying also is conjectured that he caused the consecration of an altar to the Unknown God, which S. Paul speaketh of. But whether he was the author of this is very doubtful, if not improbable: For they had more anciently an altar inscribed UNTO THE UNKNOWN GOD'S, which Pausanias maketh mention of in his fifth book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And concerning the books which the Pontificians father upon his name, De caelesti hierarchia, Deecclesiastica hierarchia, De Divinis nominibus, it were not very difficult to determine them not to be his. For Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastic writers maketh no mention of them. Valla and Erasmus have proved by many arguments that they are none of his, as Chemnitius relateth. And in his Ecclesiastic Hierarchy he speaketh of Temples, of Altars, of Monks, whereof in Dionysius the Areopagites time, whom S. Paul converted, certainly there was no being. In his fifth chapter De ecclesiastica hierarchia we have them in a manner all in one line; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Priest standing before the Altar chanteth out some monastical invocation. Where the Altar is and the Priest the Temple may be supposed. Now settled temples in Dionysius his time, almost certain it is, there were none: Questionless no Monks, the order whereof was instituted first by Paul the Hermit some two hundred and seven years after the conversion of Dionysius, as the Chronologer hath it. Dionysius then who is named in Scripture was not very learned scholar, for aught we know. But secondly, if so; surely he was a Christian before he had the honour to be mentioned in the book of God. God, I see, respecteth not excellency of learning where there is no measure of grace: but he respecteth the least degree of grace in whatsoever person: Damaris is named with Denys; a woman with an Areopagite. O Christianity, that either findest us or makest us honourable, yea oftener makest us then findest us so, yea ever makest us, yea never findest us of any real worth, only in a show and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! Until we come to be Christians we are not worthy the naming. Silly were the Heathen, who knew not this religion: impious they were for hating it; unjust, for hating they knew not what: as Tertullian in his Apologeticus, Vacant meriti notitiâ unde odii justitia defenditur? Though it was sometimes a stranger on earth, and none would own it, yet it had genus, spem, gratiam & dignitatem in caelis, as the same Father. Very respectively doth Scripture speak of religious Christians. The Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in the seventh verse of this chapter; more noble, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were of better descent, which is, as we may speak, the very blood of Nobility. But how more noble? Non per civilem dignitatem sed spiritualem dignationem: It is subjoined, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched (not the records of their antiquity, but) the Scripture daily whether those things were so. And whereas in the next verse the Scripture mentioneth honourable women; happily they are said to be honourable in way of a Prolepsis, as being to be believers. Nevertheless also, if I seem not somewhat too critical, we may observe that those in the former verse have the better term in the notion of the original: These are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, women of good fashion; the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more noble. Not as if the honour of every one's place were forfeited by the badness of the person in an humane society: but thus it is with God. Plato commendeth the Attic country, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and Thucydides more plainly in the beginning, speaking of the same country, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The same men ever inhabited it: not as if they were immortal, but the same of nation: it was the mother and nurse to them all in his opinion. By the way, that is false, as may be demonstrated out of the twenty sixth verse of this chapter, where God is said to have made of one blood (that is, of one man, Adam) all men to dwell upon all the face of the earth. From one Adam were derived all mankind, which after the confusion of Babel severally dispersed themselves throughout the earth: so that those who first inhabited the Attic country were not born there, as Plato supposeth; nor did the same men ever inhabit it, as may be supposed, men of other languages very likely mingling themselves after that dispersion. Yet if so, as Plato and Thucydides would have it, it would be no commendation to that which followeth in Plato, as himself confesseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The first and greatest is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either actively or passively, either loving of God, or beloved of God: They go both together. Meats commend us not to God, as S. Paul: so neither nation, nor whatsoever other secular respect and quality. Nor doth he like what he is himself Author of in a subject which is not such as it should be. Wit and Eloquence, and Erudition are God's creatures; yet doth he not vouchsafe them a power to move his delight, unless they be exercised to his glory. Melior est humilis rusticus qui Deo servit, quàm superbus Philosophus qui neglecto seipso coeli motum contemplatur, as a devout Dominicane. The Greeks express learning and goodness in one word: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for both; as if they were not learned who are not good. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually understood by S. chrysostom for Action: and the Scripture calleth a wicked man generally a fool.  
Now in this mean esteem of humane knowledge without divine goodness we are the more fit to pass over briefly the Poets without envying them. And this is the next particular according to our division, the Profession of the Quoted, Poets. What shall I call them? real men of an imaginary world, or imaginative men of a real world? who, as if nature were not fruitful enough to bring forth real entities, must multiply to the world a new brood of things which live only in a fancy. Plutarch calleth Poetry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a part of the Muses, or a piece of learning; Simonides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a speaking picture; Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation. Plato is said to have banished them out of his Commonwealth; Proclus upon Plato giveth us the reasons; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Since Poetry is an imitation, according to Plato, and the subjects whose lives and actions they imitate, being the gods, and the Heroes their sons, the Poets not knowing certainly what they did, but supposing they lived in pleasure, fancied unto them such pleasure as men then or themselves delighted in: just as Eusebius saith of Cerinthus, that he held that our Saviour's kingdom after the resurrection should be voluptuary, because he himself delighted so much in carnal pleasure. So that the Poets did not only attribute unto them such things as were merely humane, as Eating, Sleeping, and the like, but such also as are against reason, as Intemperance, Adultery, and the like. Whence cyril of Jerusalem 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 engagement 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 God's praise, and of conference with good men, should be soiled and polluted with such speeches. Nevertheless he doth not absolutely condemn them: For in the beginning of the eighth of his Laws he prescribeth what kind of poems are to be used in a solemnity, & the qualification of the Poets; and himself now and then useth their say. Our Apostle S. Paul, Tit. i. 12. where he quoteth Epimenides his saying, calleth the Poet's Prophets; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whereby he seemeth to express the nature of the profession in a way of resemblance; and that may be two ways, 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 ways: either 1. in regard of dictation of their poems; 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 spoke in a high style and strain, hyperbolically, obscurely, as Ezekiel; (and therefore the Jews forbade Ezekiel to be read before the thirtieth year; whence that is called annus sacerdotalis, the Priest's year, 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 sin, and exhorters unto godliness: (although, ut sic, the proper denomination is from Prediction, foretelling:) This also was the peculiar office and scope of the Satirists 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. Paul's 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 read them? Shall Plato banish them, Christians use them? I would Christians did not use some things which Heathens forbidden. Aristotle in the fourth of his Ethics 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 Poetry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And surely plum aloes quàm 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 read 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 general discourse of humane authors, as the fellow that was asked whether light was pleasant, said, It was a blind man's question; so if it should be asked, Whether humane knowledge were useful, it might be answered, It is an illiterate question. Certainly there is some good to be gotten in the study of Greek authors, or else Julian the Apostate would never have interdicted to the Christian youth the use of them. Nicephorus in his tenth book of Ecclesiastical history bringeth in julian's reason why he forbade the use of Greek authors, 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 error to bring this into question in an University. 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 christian's not to disembrace goodness in any, nor truth in any. Plato's rule is good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let us not consider so much who saith, as what is said; who doth, as what is done. Let not the authority of the teacher tempt thee to err; as Vincentius Lirinensis saith, the errors of the Fathers were temptations to the Church: nor let the badness or meanness of the preacher spoil thy attention. Learn not badness of the best; but learn goodness of the worst.  
Lastly, me thinketh from hence we may raise a meditation upon an emblem of the strangeness of the happiness of the Gentiles being received into grace. As unlikely as Poet's sayings were to be made canonical, 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 OWN Poets: As certain also of YOUR OWN 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 OWN Poets. They bring their gift unto the altar, and then go their way. One or two read it vestratium, in reference unto their country. But that is very disputable in two respects; of the thing, and of the phrase. For the first, though we know not what countrymen they were whom S. Paul includeth in the CERTAIN, and therefore cannot judge whether they were conterraneous unto the Epicureans and Stoics, yet we know what Aratus was, whom he useth in the place; even S. Paul's own countryman, as may be gathered out of Pausanias in the place forementioned: where speaking of those Poets which were familiar unto kings, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There lived with Antigonus king of the Macedonians, Antagoras of Rhodes, and Aratus of Soli a city in Cilicia. S. Paul was of Tarsus a city of Cilicia, as himself witnesseth Acts xxi. 39 Now that those Epicureans and Stoics were all Cilicians, is very improbable. Secondly, neither is that exposition likely in respect of the notion of the phrase; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being very seldom, perhaps never read in that sense without some other connotation of locality. We may therefore (salve meliori judicio) interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here as it is used Coloss. iii. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to, or in similitude of, the image of him that created; or as it is used Acts xxvi. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it importeth a correspondence in discipline: so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Poets concluded under the same sect of Heathenism; and that is a general habitude and likeness of the Poets unto the Epicureans and Stoics, as Heathens: or secondly, YOUR OWN Poets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a particular reference and distinct agreement in your several sects, as questioning Providence upon every seeming disorder and ataxy of secular events, that those that are virtuous are oppressed with wrong, those that are lewd are full of all prosperity, that offenders have not presently their condign punishment: Thus the Poets were Epicureans. And again, some of them held that all things did proceed according to a necessary connexion of causes and effects, which, being once set, the Gods themselves could not alter: so Homer and Horace amongst others, as might be shown: And these were in likeness of opinion Stoics. Heathens then however the Poets were; so theirs, the Philosophers. Poets; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Prophets; yet yours. As being rational, so S. Paul's: as learned, so S. Paul's: as Poets, so happily S. Paul's, in regard at least of his use of them: Aratus a Cilician, so S. Paul's. Rational, but no more; no faith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Learned, not good: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Poets, Prophets, but Heathens: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Aratus, his countryman, but not from above; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His saying is taken; he left. We have two lessons from hence.  
1. Good speeches make us not good. Word and Work are two things. It is an easy matter for our saying to be betterthen our doing. Sermocination in the most exact compliment and perfection of it, by Congruity, by Truth, by Ornament, which Bonaventure requireth unto a speech perfect in itself; or let there be added in regard of the end (as the same Bonaventure) good Expression, good Information, Moving; yet it neither persuadeth in the hearer of itself, nor proveth in the speaker a real virtue. Understanding and affection are remote of themselves: grace is in both. Some live ill, speak well; some do neither; some do both. We are in a mighty error and in a deep ignorance, if we think (as the Gnostics) to be saved for our knowing or speaking only the truth. If we would be Christ's disciples, we must do what he commandeth us. Aratus said well here: yet he is none of Christ's disciples; S. Paul rejecteth him: YOUR OWN Poets.  
2. Learn we than secondly, to give every one his due, and not to believe vain words, empty words. The profession of the truth only maketh not a true and solid professor. S. Paul in the main casteth off these Poets, and sorteth them with their own, Poets with Epicureans, and Poets with Stoics. Epicureans and Stoics, they differed amongst themselves, they agreed in idolatrous Heathenism. As there is a civil justice in giving every man his due in a temporal and secular estate, so is there also an ecclesiastical justice in giving every man his due in a spiritual estate: and to a delinquency in this also God denounceth a woe Esay v. 20. woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. Take we heed that we make neither Censures whip nor Charity's cloak too long: we may offend in both. Surely through want of charity in being, and through too much in thinking, God hath not his own. If the Teacher of the Gentiles had flattered those Athenians, and had accounted them a great deal better men than the Poets, had he reckoned them amongst true worshippers, had he made them of the Church and not strangers from God in respect of the right way of serving him, Dionysius likely, who was one of them, out of a good opinion of himself had continued in his Paganism, and had not been converted unto Christianity. These Philosophers then and Poets are not acknowledged here to be of the Church visible: and whether they or any of them be members of the Church invisible, of the Church triumphant, now, God knoweth. I am not here engaged to speak definitively of their eternal condition: But if I were, I should first in equity do that which yet they would not do in the primitive times to Christians, namely, hear what they could say for themselves in the next part of my text, the Form of quoting, AS certain also of your own Poets have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, AS they said.  
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth a similitude of their saying unto Divine truth. And it is not amiss to see what the twilight of humane reason can see of God, and towards God, and what analogy there is betwixt some of their speeches and some of Scripture. And by this discourse, we finding in it no mention of the formal object of Christianity, may perceive how little knowledge they had of it: yet they have spoken very fairly. I know not how it cometh to pass, but too many Christians have too much of Heathen talk: And so also in a reciprocation, some Heathen have very much of that which seemeth correspondent unto sacred Scripture. To omit many fictions of the Poets, which are little else then fabulous histories, allusions unto real things before the flood, as if in a manner they would redeem the loss of the history of the old world; as also to omit how the names of their Heathen gods may seem to relate unto true men in those times: Were it Moses, or were it David (one saith Moses, another David) who said that the days of our age are threescore years and ten, Psal. xc. 10. Solon jumpeth upon the very same number, as Diogenes Laertius speaketh of him in his Life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Solon saith that the term of a man's life is seventy years. Plutarch saith in the Life of Numa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God is not a lover of horses: Psal. cxlvii. 10. He delighteth not in the strength of an horse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Hesiod in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jacob to Pharaoh interpreteth the verse (as we may speak) Few and evil have been the days of my pilgrimage. Matth. seven. 14. Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Hesiod saith the like of Virtue, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and a little before, to Vice it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little way to it; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It dwelleth hard by. Our Saviour, John nineteen. 27. to his beloved disciple S. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Behold thy mother: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I give thee this woman for thy mother, was the speech of the Samians, when to the richer of the citizens the mothers of those who died in the wars were given to be maintained by them. And did not our Saviour die for S. John? 1. Tim. v. 6. S. Paul speaking of a widow which liveth in pleasure, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. Talis vita nunquid vita erat, Domine? but that is S. Augustine's, speaking of a licentious life; Lord, what a life was that? But Terence in Hecyra cometh nearer; 
Sanè hercle homo voluptati obsequens  
Fuit dum vixit.  Pamphilus speaketh it there of a woman too. S. Paul's Greek cannot well be rendered but by Terence's Latin, and Terence's Latin cannot be put well into other Greek, Aristotle, Rhet. two. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Th●se that looked not well to other men's horses, by Th●●dectes his law were not to have their own given them: Like unto this may that of our Saviour seem, Luke xuj. 12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? AEsop being asked by Chilo, one of the seven wisemen of Greece, what God was doing, answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Psalm cxlvii. 6. The Lord setteth up the meek, and bringeth the ungodly down to the ground, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as if one place had been taken from the other. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Chilo to his brother, who took it ill that he was not chosen to be one of the Judges: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Paul, I know how to be abased. One of Chilo's precepts (as appeareth in the Life of Chilo by Diogenes Laertius) was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To rule ones own house well: S. Paul 1. Tim. v. 4. hath the same precept in effect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but more patly chap. three vers. 12. where he speaketh of the qualification of Deacons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ruling their children, and their own houses well. Moses, Exod. iii. when he was to be sent to the children of Israel by God, desired to know God's name, that he might tell them who sent him; and God expressed himself by I AM: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you, vers. 14. So Plato calleth God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is indeed; as if nothing had any real existence but God. Plato in his dialogue Of Death calleth man's body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a tabernacle; so doth S. Paul 2. Cor. v. 1. Plato in the eighth of his Laws, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The communion of the soul with the body is not better than the dissolution, as I would say if I were to speak in earnest: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Paul, Phil. i. 23. For I am in a straight betwixt two, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having a desire to departed, and to be with Christ: which is fare better. To be with Christ, fare better being, fare better saying. We hear no more of the Heathens when we speak of Christ. As the Oracles are said to have ceased at Christ's nativity, so the Heathens are silent concerning Christ. Yet there is a sort of writers behind which go thus fare, namely the Sibylls and Trismegist, and if there be any more such. Nothing spoken of Christ with more dilucidation then by the Sibylls. By one of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour; the initial and beginning letters of which prophecy being put in order together, make up the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a Fish: whence Tertullian calleth our Saviour Piscem. And one of these Sibylls Virgil in one of his Eclogues is supposed, with good probability, to have imitated, namely in the fourth eclogue, 
Te Deuce, si qua manent sceleris vestigia nostri,  
Irrita perpetua solvent formidine terras;  meaning by Te Deuce Christ, according to the Sibyl: And Christ is called Heb. two. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Captain of our salvation. Many other passages also there are in the same eclogue to the same purpose. And as for Trismegist, who is quoted so much by great Authors only for rational knowledge, as if he had no other light to direct him in his writings besides the light of nature; in the second page of his Poemander he speaketh of the Trinity as if he had been in heaven: & therefore for his opinion of the Trinity he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thrice-great, or Greatest, as Suidas saith. In that second page of the Treatise we have his authority against the Arian heresy: And the very term which Arius would not subscribe unto we have there, namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he saith that he is COESSENTIAL with the Father. And concerning the creation he speaketh as if he had read Genesis; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as if he should say, that God presently after the creation spoke to man, Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth, as it is Gen.i. Our Saviour saith there is none good but God: Trismegist; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God is the only Good: and how? as if he commented on Scripture before it was written, not good only as by an honorary term, but the Good by essence. And in the thirteenth chapter of his Poemander, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Author of regeneration is the Son of God, a man by the will of God. But it is objected or may be, that these passages out of Trismegist and the Sibylls are not to our purpose, seeing (as the opinion is of some) these Treatises were made by Ecclesiastic writers, and then ascribed unto Gentiles, to make by an holy kind of deceit, the doctrine of the Gospel more passable amongst the Heathen. For answer; Cicero may refute this tenet, who in his De natura Deorum maketh mention of the Sibylls, and produceth somewhat of theirs. And as for Trismegist, he was an Egyptian Doctor, as Reuchlinus and Suidas, and lived before Pharaoh, as Suidas saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That then there were such Heathens, and they authors of these say which we spoke of, is more than probable. But whether their divine speeches proceeded merely out of the principles of nature, or whether they sprang from some other light, either of Divine revelation or Diabolical (as Augustine thinketh De Civit. Dei, viij. 13. concerning Trismegist) I know not how to determine; I leave it in medio. Concerning the other kind of Gentile writers which we named before, it may also be said that some of them had read the five books of Moses, as likely S. Paul had read some or many of them. But whether so or not; whether some of them had borrowed their expressions from Scripture, and whether again S. Paul borrowed some of his other expressions from some of them, without mentioning any way such Authors (as he maketh use of Menander's sentence, 1. Cor. xv. 33. without any notice from whence he had it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Evil words corrupt good manners) I refer to better judgements. Only this I may say, that Zanchy indeed thinketh that Pythagoras and Trismegist and Plato had read some part of Scripture, and peradventure had learned some notions from the Jews: but he nameth none else in that place: And one of the passages we mentioned out of Plato beareth a similitude unto such another in the Epistle of S. Paul to the Philippians: Now that could not be taken from S. Paul. And as for Trismegist, he speaketh more clearly concerning the mystery of the Trinity than any place of the Old Testament. But suppose we now that all these places quoted out of them were absolutely theirs, and not deduced from any higher doctrine, and not revealed by a supernatural way; and suppose we a great many more of such divine passages in them: what then? Happily it is expected now that from this little survey of their knowledge some conclusion should arise towards the eternal state and condition of those Heathens; and a conclusion also very favourable and charitable: as if by the small posy we have gathered and made up of the best flowers in Nature's garden, we might collect that their knowledge and goodness and virtues and education were means likely able to put them not only into a saveable estate, but also into a hopeful condition. For this I answer, I am not engaged any way by the text to speak at all, much less definitively, touching the final end of the Gentiles. But he that thinketh too well of them, understandeth not sufficiently the privilege of the Gospel: And God who is best able to judge, accounted the times of Paganism before Christ, for all their knowledge, even times of ignorance; and accordingly he respected them, as our Apostle in the second verse unto our text, And the times of this ignorance God winked at; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the original: which we may expound of a neglect; as if God looked over or beyond those times, and had respect only unto the times of Christianity. And they have left Christians to do in the rights what they have said. And if we should take a note of what they have not said, we should rather pity their blindness then admire their knowledge. God Creator they might know per species Creaturarum (as they speak) either in way of Negation, or causality, or Eminence: but God Redeemer is not so perceivable by light of nature. For nature is not able to see the need of a Saviour, it being ignorant of the lapse of mankind, of which there appeareth not a word, not a syllable, in a direct expression, not in any of their massy volumes. And where find we any mention of Faith in a Christian notion? Insomuch that what we even now demurred of, from whence Trismegists & the Sibylls speaking of Christ should flow, we may here resolve negatively, That they spoke not so of Christ by the virtue only of rational knowledge. For first they could not by the light of humane reason see the use of any Saviour. Secondly, they could not moreover foresee a Saviour by light of nature, if we account them to have been Prophets. And if some of them were as Christians amongst Heathens, yet Heathens they are amongst Christians. We might use somewhat of their science, they needed some of our Scripture. For in a particle of the Poets saying there lieth a grand error of idolatry. There is a Jupiter in the HIS, in the ΤΟ: through whom yet S. Paul discerneth the true God; better understood then spoken. So we may pass here from the Form of quoting to the Sentence quoted; For we are also his generation.  
But because of dependence with our former discourse, we will consider the words in way of exposition, according to the order in the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the little particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we said, is couched a little God, one Jupiter: and yet Saint Paul interpreteth the Poet as speaking of the true God. That the Poet seemed to speak it of Jupiter, appeareth by his beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Let us begin from Jupiter, or with Jupiter: And that Saint Paul interpreteth him of the true God, appeareth by the context. For having in the twenty fourth verse of this chapter described the only true God by his effects of Creation and Sovereignty of governance, in the twenty fifth verse by his All-sufficiency in himself, in the two next verses by the manner of creation of man and end of that creation, and in the former part of this verse (whereof our text is a part) epitomizing all by three expressions wherein we are referred unto God, In him we live, we move, we have our being, he superaddeth to refute their false tenets against the one true God, by the testimony of their Aratus, although the intention of the Poet at the first sight appeareth to be otherwise directed. So that what these Philosophers said to our Apostle preaching Jesus and the resurrection, He seemeth to be a setter-forth of strange Gods, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may very well be retorted on their Poet; He seemeth to be a setter-forth of a strange God, telling us of one Jupiter. What shall we say then? The Heathen speaketh of the Heathen God: the Apostle understandeth him of the true. What? doth our Apostle mingle seeds? Is there any fellowship betwixt God and Belial? Can the Ark and Dagon stand together? Shall that son of Saturn, Jupiter, be as the Son of God, Christ, God-man? God forbidden. But as our Saviour answered the Jews thoughts oftentimes, not the outward tenor and drift of their words (whereby he manifested his Divinity) so S. Paul by a Divine Spirit searcheth the Poets intimate or ultimate intendment, and giveth not the sense according to the strict importance of the terms. The reason and ground of this exposition we are now briefly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to discourse of.  
The Scholiast upon the Poet saith it may be interpreted of the Air; S. Paul otherwise. The ground and lawfulness of S. Paul's exposition dependeth upon the discussion of this question, Whether the Gentiles did absolutely and ultimately determine their adorations and worships in those false, those made Gods; or whether they did not through them aim at a true Deity. Towards the determining of this Problem I may premise a proposition or two: first, That Jupiter & his brethren and his kindred were not Deities. This proposition is supposed, not to be proved. Secondly, That some of the more ignorant sort of the Gentiles might take them to be Gods, not knowing their original, and mistaking their Prophets when they spoke of them; as also because their understandings were not fitted by contemplation to extract out of the species of the creatures a conceit of the nature of a pure Divine essence. For neither is this so great a stupidity as that of the vulgar and base sort of the Papists, who terminate their worship in the images themselves, by Parisiensis his own confession, cap. 23. De legibus, Sicut & multi simplices homines hodie sunt qui inter imagines sanctorum & ipsos sanctos in suis or ationibus non distinguunt, They have not the trick, when they pray before an image of a Saint, in every act of their worship to frame an elevation of their minds from the representation unto the Saint. Very likely than it is that the worst of the Gentiles might think those false Gods very Gods; and also might (as the Papists before) place their worship in the images of their Gods, because the devil now and then did speak his oracles through them. But thirdly, Though the fillier of the Heathen might think them to be the only Gods, yet the more learned and intelligent of them did not firmly believe their absolute Divinities. Tertullian therefore in his Apologetic speaketh plainly to the Heathen, and appealeth unto their consciences, Appellamus & provocamus à vobis ad conscientiam vestram: illa nos judicet, illa nos damnet, si poter it negare omnes illos Deos vestros homines fuisse. And this may appear out of their practice to wards them; which was so gross that the same Father telleth them, Nescio plúsne de vobis dii vestri quàm de Christianis querantur, I know not whether your Gods have more reason to complain of you or of Christians. Witness their fowl uncleannesses in their temples even by their Priests, witness their personating their Gods by that tetrum genus pantomimorum, and their whipping of their Diana on the stage. And he telleth them also how coursely they used their domestic Gods; Domesticos Deos domesticâ potestate tractatis, oppignerando, venditando, demutando aliquando in trullam de Minerva. And Varro, he saith, brought into public view no less than thirty Jupiter's without heads. Diogenes (as the same Father) but rather Diagoras, being in an inn, and having nothing to seethe his supper with, took Hercules his image and made a fire with it, with this insultation, Now, Hercules, to thy thirteenth labour: seethe me my pottage. And S. Augustine, De civet. Dei, two. 12. besides many other places, taxeth them that they forbade the Poets to speak any ill of any citizen of Rome under a great penalty; but let them speak what they would of the Gods; as if they had majorem curam Romae unius quàm totius coeli. I might also tell you what handling they had in Homer: Venus wounded, and comforted by a Goddess, by telling her it was their fortune: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We suffer in heaven many things from men on earth. Mars was imprisoned 13. months, Juno wounded by Hercules, Pluto hurt with a dart. Surely blind Homer jeered them. Socrates in contempt of their Deities swore by an Oak and a Goat, as Tertullian again: And one God would suffice him; for which he died as an Heathen martyr. Excellent is that of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato maketh a difference betwixt his serious epistles and not serious by this sign; His serious ones he beginneth with one God, the other with Gods. And Tertullian saith, Multi Dii habuerunt Caesare miratum: and we do not use to be angry with our superiors, as Aristotle saith in his Rhetorics. And that the better and learneder of the Heathens could not hearty believe that they were very Gods, may be collected out of the lives of the Gods, their conversation, such as did not become men, much less Gods. Nay, Tertullian speaking to them of the behaviour of their gods, asketh them, Quot tamen potiores viros? Although they were somewhat good, how many better men have ye left below? as Aristides, and Socrates. And Augustine saith merrily, Neque enim erant suo Pontifice meliores, The Gods were no better than their Priests. And Cyrill of Jerusalem flouteth Jupiter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as before, If Jupiter be an adulterer, for shame let him not be called a God. What reverend esteem could those have of their God in the night, who worshipped the Sun? and in the day, who worshipped the Moon? They were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Atheists in the night, which worshipped the Sun; and Atheists in the day, which worshipped the Moon, as cyril wittily. But as the same Author upon this subject breaketh out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so I, We rake a dunghill in this discourse of dunghil-gods. We will therefore roll up this proposition in a better, which is the principal one for the exposition of the text; That the learneder sort of the Gentiles, some more clearly, some more indistinctly, according to the measure of common illumination from God, and light of their own reason, did ultimately aim at a true Divinity, even amongst their false ones.  
Here might I enlarge myself by treating of the cognoscibility of God by humane understanding without any supernatural doctrine, which Lombard handleth in the third Distinction of his first book, and which the Schoolmen dispute of: and I might speak of the ways how we may come to the knowledge of God: and I might tell you that a rational faculty without an infinite second depravation, and some thicker mist of Satan, doth not, nay cannot frame to itself a conceit of an absolute Deity of such a nature as is either inferior to itself or not transcendently above it: here also might I again enter upon that large theme, How fare the Heathens have gone in their expressions of God: But to confirm this conclusion, I will only produce one or two testimonies out of the Fathers, and one out of sacred Scripture, and so pass this natural Divinity. Arnobius in his first book adversùs Gentes bringeth in the Gentiles endeavouring to clear themselves of a supposed imputation and slander, that they acknowledged not the true God; and they speak as if they were angry that Christians should think so of them; Sed frustrà nos falso & calumnioso incessitis crimine, tanquam eamus inficias esse Deum majorem, cùm à nobis Jupiter nominetur, & Optimus habeatur & Maximus. And the same Ecclesiastic writer telleth them that they mingled the true God with the false, Dissimilia copulare atque in unam speciem cogere inductâ confusione conamini. And to confirm this opinion of the Father we may make use of a place in Macrobius in the first book of his Saturnalia, where he undertaketh to reduce all the Heathen Gods unto the Sun, which very likely was the first object of Idolatry? Now amongst the attributes of the Sun he findeth in Orpheus the name JAH put into a Greek termination, which otherwise is one of the names whereby God is expressed in Scripture; Psal. lxviii. 4. Praise him in his name, in the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his name JAH. And Hallelujah in Scripture is no other than Praise the Jah, or the Lord. Whereby it is manifest that they shuffled in the true God amongst the false ones. For certainly a full ignorance of a more superlative Deity than the other false Gods were of, is scarce conceivable amongst the wiser of the Gentiles. Arnobius therefore in the beginning of his second book bringeth in the Heathens again speaking for themselves, or rather in behalf of their Gods, Sed non idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt, etc. Our Gods are not therefore your enemies, O ye Christians, because ye worship an omnipotent God, but because ye maintain a man, born, and also crucified (which only is for base persons) to be a God, and believe him yet to be alive, and do also worship him in your daily invocations. If we would analyse this place, we might make out of it a full demonstration to our purpose. Here is a confession of an omnipotent God: Here is an implicit assertion that this God is to be worshipped: Here is a denying of Divine worship to man; therefore (they say) Christ is not to be worshipped, because man. Can they then determine their adorations upon their Gods, whom some of them knew to be men? nay, some of the Heathen were ancienter than their Gods. Varro therefore propounded to himself this method in writing; First to write of things humane, then of things divine: A strange order one would think; but his reason is good and witty, Quia civitates Diis quos ipsae instituerant, ut pictor tabellâ, priores sunt, Because as the painter is before the picture, so the cities are before the Gods whom the cities created. Amongst the sorts of Gods also which they made, namely three, Poetical, Civil, Philosophical; the Philosophical Gods (which one would imagine to be the best) were not accounted by the Philosophers to be true Gods: only the common people might not know so much, as an Author hath it. But come we now to an authority out of Scripture for the establishment of our point. No place so pregnant as where Saint Paul discusseth the knowledge of the Gentiles, in the first chapter to the Romans, from the eighteenth to the twenty fourth verse. Especially to our purpose he speaketh in the twenty first and twenty second verses. In the twenty first verse, Because that when they knew God; They, the Gentiles: they knew God two ways: by the book of the Creature in the twentith verse; by natural light, in the nineteenth verse, That which may be known of God is manifest in them. Or if you please, natural knowledge was able to collect a Divinity out of the book of the Creature: So God manifested what may be known of him to them, as in the nineteenth; God expressed himself to them in the vast & ample volume of the world. To return unto our twenty first verse; Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Glorify him then they did, but not in the right manner, not in the right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not immediately, not distinctly, not only, not so well as they knew him, but, as in the three and twentieth verse, they changed the glory: that is, relatively, and quoad nos (for absolutely and in itself God's glory cannot suffer any alteration) they changed the glory of the incorruptible God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into the similitude, or by the similitude, of the image of corruptible man; that is, as Calvine expoundeth it, They made man to represent God: Whence it is evident then, that they did worship ultimately the true God through those true men, false Gods. As for the adoring of the Images of their Gods, that the learneder of them disclaimed, as the Reverend Primate of Ireland quoteth them speaking in the sixth of Arnobius, Deos per simulacra veneramur; and through or by those false Gods they aimed at the true. The knowledge of a God was so evident, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it was so firmly grounded, it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in them, in respect of the principles they had of God, and in respect of an ability of understanding to infer a Divinity out of the creation, that unless they would deny what they saw, they could not disacknowledge a God: and if so, than it would follow to them that he is to be worshipped. That there is a God, is principled in nature: and from hence resulteth naturally by a most strict and necessary connexion, That this God is to be served & honoured & worshipped. For the apprehension of a Divine nature cannot but conceive in it a right unto this homage by a double relation of it unto the creature, of sovereign Power, and of Goodness. The former requireth a reverend fear, the other an affectionate love, which will exercise themselves in outward worship. And let us now suppose this for a principium secundo-primum (as they term it) namely, That God is to be worshipped: from hence also by consequent will ensue, That an Idol is not to be worshipped; for an Idol is not God. That rational light that seethe a God, is able to see one God only: that light that seethe one God only, must reject an Idol. Now since in a Divine essence there is considered so much majesty and glory that they might think it an impudent presumption to make an immediate address unto this great God, therefore they might think they should do God service in showing their honour of him by the doing honour unto his glorious creatures, the Sun, the Moon, and the like, and in making great men after death as mediators betwixt him and them (as the Papists upon the like plea make Angels and Saints their intercessors) which in process of time by men's ignorance and the devil's deceit came to be esteemed of the common sort as complete Gods: not so of the more intelligent of them, as we have showed; these did not terminate their adorations in the Heathen Gods, but looked further at God the Ancient of days, whom Thales one of the Seven of Greece called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most ancient of all things, as Laertius saith of him in his Life. So that the difference of the worship of these from the worship of true Christiaus, is this; True Christians worship God through Christ God-man; they worshipped God by men supposed Gods. So Aratus through Jupiter meaneth GOD: So Saint Paul understandeth him. Nevertheless this worshipping of God by mediation and image, whether of man or beast, God accounteth a false worship: So he esteemed the Israelites worshipping him by a calf. Man doth indeed, but God doth not make such a distinction; therefore God saith, Exod. xxxii. 8. to Moses concerning the people of Israel, They have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it: IT; God would not own that worship and service exhibited under the representation of that calf. Deut. iv. 15. God biddeth the people of Israel take notice that when he spoke unto them out of the midst of the fire they saw no similitude of him, Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves: for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire. No manner of similitude; as if he should have told them that he on purpose did not appear unto them under any visible form or similitude, lest they should represent him by that form, and under it worship him; which he so much warneth them of in that place. For that of Varro upon this point is very true; the worshipping of the Gods by images increased the error, took away the fear of the Gods: Qui primi Deorum simulacra induxerunt, errorem auxerunt, metum demserunt, as Calvine citeth his words. Thus we have in some sort given you the reason and ground of our Apostles interpretation of the Poet.  
Now by this, though hasty and short discourse of the Gentile worship occasioned by S. Paul's expression, we may in some manner calculate and decipher the difference betwixt the false worship of Rome Pagane and Rome Christian, of Gentiles and of Papists, which difference in a Pontifician eye is so wide and mighty. All the distinction must either be in the object worshipped, or the manner of worshipping. Christian Rome worshippeth God: So did Rome Pagane, as we have heard. Christian Rome by Images; so Rome Pagane. pagan Rome worshipped by men, though not only by men: Christian Rome by the form of an old man worship God the Father. And Christian Rome worshippeth God by men-saints (besides by Angels) and some of those Saints happily as bad for Christians as the other were for Heathens; nay such some of them were who had only Christian names but Heathen lives. The sillier of the Heathen might worship the men for true Gods: the best of Rome Christian give a kind of Divine worship to Saints. The sillier of the Heathen might worship the Images of their feigned Gods: the sillier of the Papists distinguish not betwixt the Image of the Saint and the Saint, as Parisiensis confesseth. But the Heathens worshipped by other creatures: but Aquinas giveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proper Divine worship, to the Wood, to the Cross, and to the Bread. But the Heathen worshipped by a multitude of Gods: but the Papists by more Saints and Angels. The Heathen had for every occasion a several Tutelar Mediator: the Papists likewise have a several Saint, beside their particular Angel. But Tertullian saith, Multi Dii habuerunt Caesaremiratum: what is this to our purpose? and yet we can answer them; Multi Caesares habuerunt Papam iratum, and more than angry too; they have felt his anger and his fury, and his state, and his cruelty. But the Roman Senate (as Eusebius saith) made Gods of men; just as the Pontifician Senate maketh Gods of Saints. But the Papists sinne not yet in worshipping by Images. For sin being a transgression of the Law, and where no law is there is no transgression, Rom. iv. 15. they have taken an order to take away the law by which they are forbidden to worship by Images, namely the second Commandment; for they leave out this in their Catechism. Is this thy piety, O Rome Christian? Is this the difference of thy Religion from Paganism? Plutarch saith it is sacrilege to worship by Images, who was an Heathen; and thou blottest out the Law of God whereby it is forbidden, that thou mayest do it more freely. Thus to thy doing what God and Nature hath forbidden, thou addest a transcendent offence in proscribing in a manner what God hath written with his own hand. This unfaithful and sacrilegious dealing with sacred Scripture hinteth me to the next particle in our text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a testimony of a faithful quotation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
The Philosopher told his friends, when they came into his little and mean cottage, for their comfort, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Gods are even here with me: So there is Divinity and a sacred use even in this little slender particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deus magnus in minimis: and there is much importance in this little word. It may be taken (as other words) either formally or materially: formally, and so it is significative; materially, so not. It may be taken in this place significatively in reference unto the former words of the verse, In him we live, we move, and have our being. In him we live, and move, and have our being: FOR; because we are his offspring. This sense is good, as Hushai said to Absalon of Achitophel's counsel; it is good, but not at this time. Several senses in Scripture may be true in the thesis, but not proper in the hypothesis, in the particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and connexion of the words; so neither this: Because 1. the former words, in him we live and move and have our being, do render the cause of the precedent verses, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth there, & therefore have more immediate and necessary respect unto them. 2. Because our Apostle here intendeth to produce only the authority of some Heathen to be symbolical to what he had said before, out of which testimony he would deduce his inference against Idolatry, as he doth make use of this saying to that purpose in the next verse unto my text. 3. Because it is very likely that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text: Now we cannot well conceive any use of the significativenesse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, semblably, is not significative. It is significative and connexive in the Poet, not in the Apostle. To what end serveth it then, it may be demanded. Are there any redundances in Scripture? Is S. Paul to please the Philosophers become Homerical in his expletives? There is a painted heaven, and a printed heaven, an heaven painted with stars, an heaven printed, the sacred Scripture: And as God a most intellectual Agent (intellectual above our understanding) wrought neither magnitude nor multitude without some end and reason; so neither such a number of stars in the heaven above was made without good purpose, so neither such a number of words in the heaven below. The Jews (as it is said of them) numbered the verses, the words, the letters in the Old Testament: and is it not written in the New, Not an Iῶta shall perish, as not an Iῶta put in? (If so, Arius might have urged the place) Whatsoever is written is written for our instruction. The very unsignificativenesse of the particle is significative: for it is testimonium fidelis citationis, as Sanctius a good expositor observeth upon the place. Our Apostle, happily, thought it to have the weight of a moral argument towards the persuading of the Heathens unto the truth of religion, to exhibit to them a sign of the truth of his quotation. He is so fare from concealing any thing which should make against him, that he taketh in the small words also of the hemistich, although they be of no use in the sentence. We have hence first an occasion of an observation; secondly, we have hence the use of a divine example.  
First, we have an occasion of an observation, That our Apostle differeth in the quoting of the Heathens from his quoting of Scripture, the Old Testament. The Heathens he quoteth punctually without any alteration, ad verbum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He quoteth places of Scripture not so; but sometimes with amplification, sometimes with omission, sometimes with alteration: And so do the other Penmen of the New Testament. Now the reason why S. Paul and the rest did not cite strictly the words and terms of the Old, but rendered the sense of the places with some variation, was, because they being appointed to be Teachers of the Gospel, were inspired with infallible knowledge, and enabled with full authority, not only to quote and produce but also to expound, and not only to expound but also to apply the Testimonies of the Old Instrument or Covenant for the manifestation and use of the New, according to their purpose, as is observed. 1. Cor. two. 9 our Apostle quoteth a place in Isaiah, But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. The place is written Isaiah lxiu 4. For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. S. Paul in this one place omitteth somewhat which was written in the Prophet, and varieth somewhat; and addeth, neither hath it entered into the heart of man: and this addition is for greater amplification and emphasis of the matter. Isaiah lii. 7. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings? S. Paul Rom. x. 15. maketh use of this Scripture, As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace? He leaveth out, upon the mountains, which Isaiah hath; and also the Prophet Nahum speaking of the same thing, chap. i vers. 15. And S. Paul leaveth out that, because the Prophets (as is observed) were to preach only unto the Jews, in a mountainous country; the Apostles were to go to preach the Gospel to all the world. Likewise S. Paul differeth from the text in alteration: as Eph. iv. 8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men: This is said Psal. lxviii. 18. Thou art gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive, and received gifts for men. The Psalmist saith, Thou hast received, S. Paul saith, He gave. Now that he gave gifts to men explaineth the end of his receiving gifts: He received that he might give. With which if we compare that of S. John, in the first of his Gospel at the sixteenth verse, Of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace, we may make an other manner of exposition of it then those who interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, grace upon grace, against the propriety of the Greek; or then those who can here find any Merit on our part, as if God gave us more grace for the merit of what we have; or then he who expoundeth by the former grace the Old Testament, by the latter the New, as if Christ's fullness of grace should not rather infer our receiving of grace from him by the merit of his grace, then that we should receive the New Testament for the Old, since under ALL WE have received are included also those faithful that lived before Christ, who indeed had received grace, though not the Gospel, rem Evangelii, though not Evangelium, not in exhibition actual; they had received it in a promise, and in types, and by prophecy. Thus our Apostle in his quotations of Scripture addeth for illustration and amplification, omitteth for pertinence, altereth for explanation: but he doth not in the Poet here; he reciteth the very words in their order; he taketh the testimony whole, that the Philosophers should have nothing to except against the quotation.  
Secondly therefore, we have from hence a divine rule and example, or a rule divine by example, concerning an honest and faithful and ingenuous citing of anthours. S. Paul produceth the very words, the very particles, which yet were of no moment towards his drift of inference. Whereby I believe our Apostle read the author himself. And to this end, that I may cite an author truly and certainly, let me read the author and the original; let me read them myself. The quotations of others which they make of authors may be false, and therefore will deceive. The connexion, the interpunction, the accent, the sense of the term in the writer's time, may turn the sense of the place; and so what I read of an author at the second hand may seem to be the authors, but peradventure it is the quoters: therefore let me read the author, or at least quote the quoter. Let me read the original: Translations may vary. They may be either false or slender, inexpressive, obscure, obscurer sometimes than the Text. As one answered, being asked whether he should read such a comment upon Aristotle, answered, Yes, said he, when Aristotle is understood then read the comment: So interpretations may be as perplexed as the text.  
And by S. Paul's particular usage of an author here in the text, I might take a rise unto a general treating, in way of reprehension, of the Abuse of authors, contrary to our Apostles practice: And then I might note who, and how, and wherein, and who most, and how fare they have proceeded in this most disingenuous injury unto writers deceased or living. But this would be a theme for some grave Aristarchus and learned Critic, not for a man of yesterday. Besides, I might be afraid of that of Solomon, He that reproveth the wicked getteth to himself a blot. Surely Solomon was herein a Prophet's son in an extraordinary sense, in the Scripture-phrase, that is, a young Prophet; as if he had prophesied of a generation which make it as true as they are false, who, if one hath but chanced to raze in his writing the utmost skin, and to wipe but as it were the superficies of their doctrine or manners, though never so deservedly, have given him a blot in their Indices Expurgatorii, DELEATUR, DELEATUR. The Pontifician falsifications Chamier reduceth unto two heads; a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a false Interpretation of Authors, and a false Printing: The former they are not a little guilty in; as Bellarmine, and Grodecius, and others: but it falling not so directly under our censure from the example of our Apostle, I will omit it. Their falsification in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, false Printing, is in three respects or ways; by Addition, by Detraction or Takingaway, by Alteration. 1. by addition they abuse authors, commanding in their Indices, that whereas any Author speaketh against them, in the next edition of those authors they should be branded with this marginal addition, Author est damnatus; and sometimes, Author est damnatus, sed jam permissus post expurgationem; and sometimes; Hîc cautè legatur .2. they abuse by detraction. No less than 800. writers are purged in one of their Indices, that of Spain, by the Archbishop of Toledo the general Inquisitor. Deleatur hear such a passage, here such a sentence; in this author this, in that author that; here an whole Epistle of Hulderick; there an Epistle in the first Tome of Athanasius, as ye may see in the 37 page of the forenamed Index. Here such a sentence of such a Father is to be left out in the next edition, as appeareth in the front of that Index. All kinds of authors are purged thus by them; ours, theirs; sacred, profane; all Humanity without any humanity. Thirdly, they abuse by variation, by alteration: so in Vatablus his scholia upon the cvii Psalm, the 7. verse they command in the next Editions to be read for Imagines, Idola. The marginal note there is, confusio iis qui adorant imagines: they say, Read it IDOLA, in the lxxx. page of the Index. Besides they abuse authors in the Indices of the authors, commanding the references unto any place where they are touched any whit boldly, or in their grand articles and points, to be put out. But they will say, no Author hath been actually falsified thus. Nevertheless they have showed their good will, or rather their ill will, their malice, their villainy, in commanding that they should be corrupted: and God hath showed his providence and approbation of the truth of the Protestant religion, in that he prevented the effect by discovery of the Indices, whereby Protestant Divines were warned and admonished to keep fast their old editions, of the Fathers especially, which otherwise (as near as they could) they would have called in. And yet God hath in his wisdom permitted some to be indeed falsified, that we might have instances de facto for the confirmation of our belief that they had such treacherous minds unto the truth, and that they repent not of that transcendent design, to silence all the world that had or should speak against them. For besides the Indices expurgatorii, whereof we have some with us, which are sufficient witnesses of their intention, Ferus, one of their own, yet in many points of our religion ours, (as appeareth by their dealing towards him) in his comment upon the first epistle of S. John, in fifty leaves is falsified thrice fifty times, as is exactly observed. In thrice fifty places doth the Roman Edition of him, which came out 1577. differ in the former ways, either adding or taking away or altering from the Antwerp-edition, which came out 1556. And not only Ferus, but Fulbert also Bishop of Chartres, who lived in the eleventh century, is falsified by addition. He speaking upon the Eucharist hath these words, NISI MANDUCAVERITIS, inquit, CARNEM FILII HOMINIS, ET SANGUINEM BIBERITIS, NON HABEEITIS VITAM IN VOBIS. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere: figura ergò est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum tantùm, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata est. in the 168. leaf: Now in the year 1608. there was set out an Edition of him in Paris, where we have interserted after Figura ergo est, DICET HAERETICUS, thus; Unless (saith Christ) ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He seemeth to command an impiety and great wickedness: it is therefore a figure, WILL THE HERETIC SAY. These words will the heretic say, are put in by him that set out Fulbert, to make what Fulbert spoke assertiuè from Augustine, to speak recitatiuè of the heretic, as if the Heretic should say, This is a figure, etc. For if Christ's words be to be understood in a figure, by a trope, as Fulbert from Augustine, than the bread and the wine in the Eucharist are not transubstantiated. This testimony therefore being peremptory against them, they thought to take an order with, and to make to speak for them. The Pope maketh Bishop Fulbert recant five hundred and more years after his death. But by the bargain in their own opinion we have S. Augustine an heretic, and therefore he is ours, whom yet by all means they would have to be a very absolute Papist: For the words which Fulbert produceth there for the expounding of our Saviour (although he approveth them in the reciting) are indeed no other man's then Saint Augustine's in his second book De doctrina Christiana, the sixteenth chapter. And the publisher of Fulbert being told hereof, that the words were Augustine's which he had branded with heresy, he put afterwards his DICET HAERETICUS amongst his Errata, as ye may read in the learned Primate of Ireland's Answer unto the Jesuits Challenge, in the fiftenth page. O sea Apostolical, how fare art thou from imitation of our Apostle S. Paul here, who dealeth truly with his Author, and reciteth strictly the words! O thou sacred virgin Truth, how art thou deflowered by those who account it a sin for them to marry! Shall not now Adulteration of authors be one sign of the Whore? Shall not falsification of writers be a sign of the false Prophet? Is this the way to prove the truth of their Religion, and of their Church? It seemeth where Peter's keys cannot open the difficulty, his sword must cut the knot. This abuse of authors is one of the scandals they give the Jews, who live amongst them, which is so offensive to them amongst other things that they are never like to be converted to Christianity in Rome, as Sandys observeth. Tell me if ever the Christian world conceived such a monster of injury and inhumanity (to say no worse) which reached not only to the living but to the dead, to the dead Saints, and made those reverend Authors and Professors of divine truth speak so flatly against their consciences in their graves. We cannot leave these men better than abruptly, in an indignation: And so we may pass from a kind of Satan's brood unto God's offspring; For we are also his offspring.  
Having now expounded the HIS in the text to be Gods, and the particles FOR and ALSO to be only testimonies of an ingenuous quotation, and so not essential to the sense of the proposition, the strict and clear substance of the words will be this, We are God's offspring. The question now is concerning the supposition of the subject of the proposition, WE, how much it importeth.  
If we consider the words without any reference unto Saint Paul's consequence out of them in the next verse, this WE may signify in a double acception, reduplicatiuè, specificatiué. First reduplicatively, most universally, comprehending all Entities, all creatures, whether of Being only, or Life besides Being, or Sense besides both, or Reason besides all, or pure Reason without Sense, as Angels; all of him and from him, from the highest Angel in heaven to the lowest in hell. Bad ones, as of men, so of Angels: as one's, his, Gods; as bad, their own. It is a rational creatures weakness to be able to sin: It is God's omnipotence to create; from the king to the beggar, from Dan to Beersheba, from the greatest mountain to the slenderest atom, all of all; all proceed from him who proceedeth from none. But this all is too much for S. Paul's drift, and for the common expression WE. This sense is fit for the proposition, but too wide and redundant for the inference. Secondly than WE specificatiuè, or indeed specially, We men. So the Apostle meaneth it in the next verse, Since than we are the offspring of God, we are not to think that the Godhead is like to gold or silver or stone graven by art or man's devise; as if man should be the image by which God should be worshipped, if he would be worshipped by any. In man is the image of God though defaced by that original sin. And no better Emblem for representing the God of the whole or of all, as Ignatius in his Epistles, and Theodoret in his Questions calleth him, than Man, who is the Epitome of the whole, of all, the Docquet of the book of the creature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a whole world in a world, a little one in a great one, so that Democritus in his opinion of more worlds was out but in quantity, for there be many little worlds.  
And we are God's offspring in a threefold respect; in respect of our bodies, in respect of our souls, in respect of both together. These several considerations for our more distinct proceeding may serve, if you please, in lieu of a division.  
First of the first; we are God's offspring in respect of our body. Now God is the Author of our bodies (to speak in an universality) two ways; immediately, or mediately: immediately, of our first Parents, though in some difference of manner; mediately, of the rest. The immediate production is also twofold; Ex parte Materiae, ex parte Efficientis. Immediate production in respect of matter maketh a simple creation, when somewhat is made out of no preaexistent subject at all: So Adam was not made in respect of his body, it being form of the dust of the earth, Gen. two. 7. And God form man of the dust of the ground. The second immediate production is in respect of efficient: So Adam was created immediately by God, no other Agent coming betwixt and helping the Divine omnipotence in raising so glorious a fabric out of so unlikely a subject. And therefore this is also called a Creation secundùm quid; not created virtue being able out of such an indisposed matter to make such a work. And as Adam was thus immediately produced by God in respect of his body, so was his wife Eve: They had a different matter, but the same efficient of their being: God made the woman off the rib of man. Indeed Constantinus Manasses saith that Adam was to Eve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  But the Author spoke here as a Poet, as the Fathers sometimes like Rhetoricians. Adam concurred not in any way of Agency towards the production of his Wife: he was not married to his daughter. God took the rib from him when he was in a deep sleep, and off it framed the body of Eve. Matter in the beginning of time was taken from man to make a woman: and matter in the fullness of time was taken from a woman to make a man, even the man Christ Jesus. So God was the Author without any other of the bodies of Adam and Eve. God by this immediate production had a son and a daughter, as we may speak. And this son and daughter immediate causes of our ordinary generation are the causes why to us God is not the immediate. God almighty who shown what he could do in that extraordinary production of our first parents, is now pleased to bring men into the world in way of a successive traduction by them. Parents we have: and God will have us account them so; for he giveth us a law to honour them, by reverence, by obedience, by gratitude, as it is expounded: Yet not so are they the authors of our being according to the flesh, not so fathers of our flesh, (as they are called, Hebr. xii. 9) as if God were excluded from being our Father also according to a common manner of expression. God by a proper generation, a generation natural, hath but one Son, the second person in the Trinity: yet God in Scripture is commonly called a Father without any reference unto the second Person. God saith, Mal. 1. If I be a Father, where is my honour? And he is a Father as Creator, expressly, Mal. two. 10. Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? What more usual in the Greek then to express Author by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? there is scarce any other word for it. So Martial for the Latin calleth his books his children. So God is said to be the Father of Spirits, Heb. xii. so the devil the father of a lie, in S. John. And thus we have expounded how God is said to be our Father, and how in the text we are called God's offspring; not in strict proper speech, but according to the common use of expressing the producer of any thing by the Father or Parent of it. So Tertullian to our purpose in his book De Anima, Omne quod quoquo modo accipit esse, generatur. But more directly in the following words, Nam & factor ipse parens facti dici potest, sic & Plato utitur. Now that God is the Author of our bodies by our Parents, that he hath a finger, nay a hand, nay hands in framing our bodies, we have the express testimony of the Prophet David, Psal. cxix. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. And again, Psal. cxxxix. 12. For my reins are thine: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks unto thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mirificatus sum mirabilibus operibus tuis, as Montanus rendereth it; I am fearfully and wonderfully made. I am moulded, I am made as it were and composed altogether in wonders, beyond all understanding and expression, so strangely, so subtly, so beyond the power of man. The words import more than we can say. The Prophet may well go on; Marvellous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well. It knoweth only 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 womb is God's door, 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 supernatural direction and superefficiencie elaborate, and frame, and square, and polish in the obscure womb, in no long time, such a structure of flesh, so fashionable, so serviceable, so strong and trim, so ordered and connexed, that an Heathen hereupon called God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the best Artist; and another called man's 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 curdled me as cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Nature, that particular power which God hath put in every creature to do actions convenient to its species, is itself God's 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, itself and the form of it being Gods: How much more shall God be the Author 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 than the child the Father, and the Mother that knoweth the child better than the Father, (and therefore the Father loveth the child better than the child the Father, and the Mother loveth the child better than the Father, as he speaketh in his Ethics) know not yet how the child is wrought and made in the womb. They know the effect, they know not the manner of the effecting. Eccles xi. 5. the secrecy of God's way in making all things is expressed by the privateness and obscurity how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child. This is one of the ways whereby he describeth there symbolically the abstruseness of God's works: As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb 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 physical but omnipotent virtuality, the particulars of heaven and earth. And the same power that could, and goodness that would, and wisdom 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 model of the universe. The Egyptian Doctor Trismegist shall conclude the truth of this point, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Understand, O Son, the framing of man in the womb, 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 ears? 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 enlarged 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 Author of us, and we are his offspring in respect of our body.  
Now from this discourse of Gods being the Author 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 Philosophy from heaven for our practice, and we pass to the second point. Lord, didst thou make our bodies; and yet do we use them as if we had made them ourselves, or sin, 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 uncleanness, by fornication, by adultery, or any such turpitude. Other sins, as S. Paul 1. Cor. vi. 18. are without the body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, objectiué; they pass no special actual 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 Apologetic, not that he might the better addict himself to contemplate in Philosophy. And Pythagoras his precept, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was a precept against uncleanness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Rhetoric is not enough for the belly. Wilt thou commend the belly? thou hast not praises enough for the Head. What, the Ear? O glorious Eye! I should admire the Arteries that come from the Heart; but the Nerves draw me back which come from the Brain; I should praise the Nerves, but I am astonished at the Veins which flow from the Liver. What shall I say of the Legs the pillars of the house? or rather of the Hands, the agents? What not of the Mouth, the door, into which mortal things enter, out of which immortull things proceed, as Philo the Jew? But the Teeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he calleth them, barracadoe the Tongue, lest it should wander too much and be too talkative. O admirable creature in that we see of thee, the Body, though more admirable in that we see not, the Soul! Keep this piece, this brave piece, handsome and clean: let it not be sordid, untrim. It is the temple of the holy Ghost: bestow on it a decent ornament, not gaudy. It is the servant to the soul; give it food sufficient, and so tune the instrument the organ. Make not thy body as it were a trough by drunkenness; that thy soul should be as salt, as he said, to keep thy body from rotting. Make not thy belly thy God, nor thy head thy Idol: They are Gods creatures: God doth not use to make Gods. Pride not thyself in the ampleness or majesty or proport of thy body; God could have made thy body a great deal bigger. God hath given thee the less body that thou shouldest be the less proud. So Theodoret in the exposition of that place in Genesis, There were then giants upon the earth, giveth the reason why God doth not make our bodies of that vastness as he could, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For if in those small bulks they swollen in pride, not only against one another but also against God himself, what would they not have done if they had had more tall and mighty bodies? But because thy body is not so great, happily therefore more neat; and thou hast vires ingenuas, as the Poet expresseth it: and so thou wilt glory in the feature of it: Nay, rather give glory to God in expressing the humility and subjection of thy spirit unto God by bodily worship. The service of the body who will deny God, unless those who will deny God to be the author of it? Nay, the Manichees, who denied God to be the author of the body, did not: for they fasted on Sundays, as it is storied of them; and in fasting they exercised an humiliation of the body. This shall be left for Schwenckfeildians only, who (as Zanchy of them) took away all external service. As Christ's Divinity was manifested in the flesh; so should our spiritualness be manifested by the body. Man consisteth of body and soul; the service of man therefore is the service of both: Both are to be glorified; both are to glorify: Both are from God; both are for God. Some give God the soul, not the body; these are few: such Schwenckfeeldians: Some give God the body, not the soul; and many do so: such are hypocrites: Some give God neither; Atheists: Some give God both; men Christians. As Tertullian therefore of the old Christians, so we; Illuc suspicientes manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo, quia non erubescimus, oramus; Looking up thither, unto heaven, with our hands stretched out, because innocent, with our head bare, because we are not ashamed, we pray. And this service of the body is indeed a small and easy matter to perform, as lying in the power of freedom of will: and yet this is very requisite. And we may err in the service of the outward man: yet hereby is not taken away the dueness and right of a rectified outward worship. S. Paul discoursing of the Christians complete armature, Ephes. 6. biddeth us to have our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace. We may tread this Gospel awry: and we may tread it too much outward: and the sect before mentioned treadeth it too much inward. Remember that good counsel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or that of the Satirist Persius, — pone in pectore dextram. Pass we now to our second proposition, We are the offspring of God in respect of our Souls.  
That God is the Author of our bodies mediately by our parents, and that he was the Author of the bodies of Adam and Eve immediately in regard of the Efficient, we have determined: And is he the Author of our materiated bodies, not of our immaterial souls? The efficiency of these we are come now by order to discourse of; which deserveth indeed rather a volume then some circumscribed treatise and hasty disquisition. The knowledge and science of it is very noble as Aristotle beginneth in his book of it; and none more difficult, as it may seem by Dicearchus, who doubted whether there were such a thing in rerum natura, as Tully of him in his Tusculane Questions. Yet if he would have examined his doubting, he might have found by it an evidence of its being; He could not have doubted of it without it. But the beginning and original of it hath ever been matter of dispute in a threefold respect. 1. of the Efficient, from whom it proceedeth: 2. of the Matter, out of which it should be made, whether out of nothing terminatiuè, or out of some preexistent subject: 3. of the Time, when produced; whether from eternal or in time: and if in time, whether before the body be composed, or whether in the very instant of the finishing of it. Learned Zanchy, who stateth these heads of controversy concerning the soul, lib. 2. part. 13. cap. 5. doth there reduce all the varieties of opinions concerning the soul unto these eight.  
I. The first opinion is of those who held that the soul is of God, but that it is made by God of the soul of the world, namely, the substance of the heavens; & that it is like the stars; therefore incorruptible, immortal & that there is a certain number of them, without increase or diminution and that their mansion is in heaven, from whence they descend into particular bodies as they are framed. This was the tenet of Pythagoras and Plato, and of the Academics, as Zanchy saith: and also this was not much different from the opinion of the Egyptian Doctor. This opinion was the ground of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transanimation: Which some of the Jews may be thought to have inclined unto, some of them saying that Christ was Elias, some that he was John Baptist, as if either of their souls had lived in Christ's body: although others are of another mind, that they deemed that one of them were raised from the dead, as Barradius noteth. This was Herod's fancy of Christ, Matth. xiv. 2. This is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead: and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him. II. Others with Origen held that the souls were made in time, of nothing; by God; but all at once: and they held those to be kept in thesaure Dei, to be sent afterwards into their particular bodies. III. Some held not only that they were made at once, but also of the substance of God; So the Stoics; after them the Manichees. In this opinion the souls are ex Deo and de Deo; in the two former, ex Deo, not the Deo. IU. Another sort would have the souls to be made by the Angels, ex igne & spiritu: neither de Deo nor ex Deo: So Seleucus, Hermeas, and the Carpocratians, who held that all the world was made by the Angels. These four opinions the Author saith are antiquated with those who profess assent unto sacred Scripture. V The first of the other quaternion maintained the first soul indeed to be created by God of nothing, and breathed into Adam, but the rest to be propagated successively with the propagation of the body, yet to be immortal. These also were divided in their conceits: Some thought the soul to be corporeal, and corporeally generated: Some thought it to be a Spirit, and spiritually produced, somewhat like as one candle is lighted by another: Thus Apollinaris and others in the western Churches, as Zanchie faith. VI Others denied the production of it per traducem, affirming that new souls are created simply by God, and each put into their proper bodies: This Jerome saith was the general tenet and doctrine of the Church in his time. VII. Augustine neither condemned those who say that it cometh per traducem, nor those that say that souls are created de novo by God: yet he saith, he could not see how this opinion of the absolute creation of the soul could be confirmed by Scripture; therefore he desired Jerome to help him in this point with his advice. VIII. Lastly, some thought that the souls are daily created by God: But some of these again imagined that the souls are created without the body, extra corpus, afterwards put in; others, that they are created in the infusion, and infused in the creation. But amidst and maugre all the rest, this is Zanchie's and may be our determination, That rational souls are created immediately by God of nothing after the organizing of the body, or, when the body is entirely organised, in the body. Not to meddle with the anascevasticall or refutative part of the contrary assertions, (For rectum est index sui & obliqui) this thesis may seem more consonant to Scripture, to Ecclesiastic writers, to reason, to Heathen Authors: by all which we shall in order, but very briefly, try it. Only we must premise here, That the time of the creation of the soul beareth an intimate respect unto the latter proposition, and that we need not make a distinct proving that it is created of nothing, since thus we have Zanchie for our praecedent: and 2. because those who contend for a matter out of which the soul should be made by God, are more exotic authors; and 3. their matter is altogether inconvenient; and 4. Creation in a proper sense, which is an absolute and simple creation, excludeth whatsoever matter; and 5. because by this creation, abstracting the consideration ex quo from whence it is created, namely, out of nothing, we shall conclude against the way of production per traducem, which is the principal opposite opinion. So that now to the second proposition, as at first we named it, That God is the Author of our souls, we shall add in our discourse a differencing of his efficiency of the body and the soul. Of our body he is the Author by our Parents; of our soul absolutely, by himself, by creation.  
This we endeavour to prove first by Scripture. And the first place in Scripture should be Exod. xxi. 22. wherein God giveth them a law concerning the striking of a woman with child: But then we must read the Scripture in the Septuagints translation; and then two things are to be granted: first, that we have the right and true translation of the Septuagint; and secondly, that this translation is true, which indeed great Ecclesiastic writers have followed. The words in their version are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If two men strive together and strike a woman with child, and the child abortively cometh forth not shaped, he shall be mulcted: but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if the child shall be fully shaped, than thou shalt pay life for life. Whereupon is inferred by this Greek version, that during the time of the embryo there is no soul in it, and therefore if it perish by the stroke, & the woman escape, the punishment must be but pecuniary; because no murder, because of no man, because the soul is not in it: but if the child proveth abortive, and cometh out fully shaped, both must die; because then the body is animated, and therefore it is murder. So that the soul is not propagated with the seed: for then the soul should successively grow to perfection with the body; and then there could be thus no abortive without murder. This reading the Greek Fathers, and others who generally do follow the Septuagint, do follow. Yet since the original (which our English translation followeth) maketh not at all for our purpose, we will pass over this place without any urging of it, and without any observation how the Interpreters, and in how many respects, were here mistaken. Only by the way we may take notice, that we have here the judgement of the Septuagint delivered in favour of our cause, and also the judgement of the Greek Fathers, and others who use their interpretation of Scripture, and also the determination of Canon law grounded (as one noteth) upon this place according to the Septuagint, That he is not a murderer who maketh an abortive before the infusion of the soul. The second authority in Scripture may be Zach. xii. 1. The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth and frameth the spirit of man within him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in interiori ejus, as Montanus rendereth it; in medio, as Pagnine. This place seemeth not only to conclude the peculiar production of the soul by God, but the time also, especially the manner, in the body, nay in the heart likely, which is (as they say) primum vivens, ultimum moriens. Isa. lvii. 16. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the Spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made. In this sacred testimony I conceive two objections excluded: That it may be understood of the souls of our first Parents; this may be the first: But than it is to be answered, Dicit pluraliter, he speaketh in general, SOULS; and he speaketh as de futuro, I WILL not contend FOR EVER, I WILL not be ALWAYS wroth. Secondly, It may be objected, That God may be said to be the Author of our souls, and to make our souls, although our parents do conduce, as God is said to be the Author of our bodies. It may be answereed, that God speaketh here of the making of the souls, signanter, in way of especial appropriation, which I have made; I have made them. Eccles xii. 7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return 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 only 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 efficiency of the soul. Hierome could not produce a more pregnant testimony for the determining of Augustine unto his tenet. Now to these divine testimonies we might add an argument or two drawn out of sacred writ. Zanchie argueth from the manner of the creation of Adam's soul & of Christ's, the like in all others.  
But we will pass unto the second head of our confirmation, That the creation of souls is more consonant unto Ecclesiastic writers, Fathers. The consent of these hath always been accounted a moving argument. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he in his Rhetorics; It is not ingenuous to determine any thing contrary to the Gods, to a Father, to a Master. Doctors Fathers then must have in them some persuasive virtue towards assent unto their judgements. Zanchie therefore citeth Hierome, Gregory Nyssen, Theodoret, Leo. And Hieromesaith, as before, that it was the general opinion of the Church in his time, that God is the Author of souls by creation. Indeed we want herein the suffrages of Tertullian and Augustine. Tertullian saith plainly that the soul is corporeal: 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, unless 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 corporeal 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 only a real substance, but a substance material. Debuit ergò mutare sententiam, saith the Father, because hereby he maketh God passable. So that Augustine holdeth not with Tertullian, that the soul is corporeal; yet he doubteth whether it be created. And his reason is, Because, if it be created by God, he cannot see how original sin 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 obtain their voices also. First, in reference unto Tertullian, That the soul, although not corporeal, yet is passable and sensible of grief. So Christ saith of his own soul, my soul is heavy unto death. And that Christ's soul was immaterial 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 conceivable for the intromission of original sin without any danger of making God any way the Author of sin. 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 won S. Augustine unto his side in this point, Paraeus and Zanchie are my Authors; 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. Augustine's, 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 than likely (beside the judgement of those before named) because in it he citeth Augustine, whosoever is the author of it. Nevertheless, 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 than the contrary assertion: and also those two Fathers do show more dislike unto this tenet in respect of the consequents, then in respect of the simple consideration of it in itself.  
The third trial 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, than it is not of our parents, but it is created: If it be of some seed, then either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either corporal or spiritual. If corporal; the soul is material; so corruptible, so mortal: If the seed be spiritual, then either that seed is corruptible and mortal, or incorruptible and immortal. If corruptible and mortal; so is the soul, the effect bearing proportion and similitude unto the cause: If incorruptible and immortal; then either the soul is not generated, and therefore why seed? (and indeed how seed of the soul, whether corruptible or incorruptible? and therefore how generative?) Or if the soul be generated, than what is in its nature incorruptible must be corruptible by generation; for generation importeth corruption. This is in effect Zanchie's argument in the forecited place. Secondly, as we argue à priori, from the Immateriality of the soul unto the Immortality of it; so reciprocally we may argue à posteriori, from the Immortality of the soul to the immateriality of it. And we need not fear a circular demonstration in diverso genere demonstrationis. Now if we prove it immaterial, than it is not ex traduce, not by our parents; and if it be immortal, than it is not materiated. Now the immortality of the soul those Ecclesiastical writers could not deny, who yet would not grant that it is created, but thought it might be produced cum semine. Aquinas, part. I. quaest. 118. art. 2. concludeth that it is heretical to hold the traduction of the soul: Sure much more is it heretical to hold the Mortality of it. And indeed he giveth his reason why it is heretical to maintain the traduction of it, in regard of the consequent, because so it would be mortal: if mortal, where is our resurrection? if no resurrection, where is our Christianity? The immortality then of the soul we may take as confessed and granted; which was assevered even by the learned Heathen, Trifmegist, Plato, Thales, Plutarch, Pindar, Virgil, as we might see by their several testimonies; if it were necessary to recite them, they being so well known. As for Aristotle in this point, it is commonly said of him, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he were a Vertumnus, determined neither pro not con: Yet were he well inquired into, we should find him to be on our side. But thirdly, Bonaventure's Argument, as Biel citeth it, is worth the naming, though it be not fit for urging, as being drawn from convenience only: Since the soul is the image of God, & nata immediatè fieri in Deum, made to be happified in him by a clear vision of him, and by a fruition in loving him with all our soul, by which love our soul is spiritually united unto him, it becometh, it is fitting that the whole being of it should be immediately from God, with whom it is to be wholly united. And so much, or rather so little, in respect of what might be said for the third way of the trial of our Thesis.  
The fourth and last is, the inartificial argument of Ethnic authority. This assertion of the creation of the soul by God is not destitute of humane suffrages. Besides all their opinions who hold that the souls were created from eternal, we have other testimonies. I will give you one or two, which may be a sign of more. Learned Zanchy quoteth Pythagoras, Epictetus, Trismegist, Simplicius, Zoroaster, Aristotle. First, Pythagoras; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be of a valiant spirit, since Man's descent is Divine: which he supposeth Pythagoras understood in regard of the soul, as surely he did. As for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transanimation, if it concerned very much our purpose, it were not very difficult to vindicate him from it, and many other absurdities, which either ignorant or envious men attributed to him as Reuchline observeth in his second book. Epictetus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We are akin to God, from him we came: Suffer us to go from whence we came. Simplicius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The soub is said to proceed from God as a beam from the sun. Zoroaster very clearly; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou must make speed unto the light and the glories of thy father; from thence was thy soul sent down endued with much understanding. Trismegist; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the question now is, how we shall construe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it signifieth with Trismegist. Salvo meliori judicio, I cannot see what sense or notion may be framed of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our purpose. He seemeth not to understand hereby the Mind or Soul: For he often distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and immediately after the place which Zanchie quoteth he speaketh thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in men is a Divinity: and therefore some men are Gods. Me thinketh he intendeth hereby some intelligent power separated from the soul. To pass him therefore; Aristotle may be next: who bringeth in as clear an authority for our behalf as any: Nay none so clear as that in his second book De generat. animal. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the reason followeth; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It remaineth that the mind cometh from without, and is only divine; because no corporeal operation is mixed with its: by which place and another in his De Anima we may infer Aristotle's opinion concerning the immortality of the soul. He saith in his first book De Anima, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If there be any operation proper and peculiar to the soul, it may be separated: if separated, then immortal. Here he assumeth; The bodily operation is not mixed with the operation of the mind: therefore separable; therefore immortal. Parisiensis in his treatise De Legibus saith, Omnes enim animae creantur in corporibus suis, sicut declarat Aristoteles. He nameth not where Aristotle declareth himself thus; but surely there cannot be a clearer passage for that opinion than the forenamed in his second De generat. anim. If it be objected that Aristotle taketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Trismegist doth, it may be answered, 1. we may understand his meaning by the title of the book, according to the rule, Titulus libri saepe est legendus. 2. he discusseth in that chapter the production and the time of the production of souls. Tully is plain in the first of his Tusculane questions, Animorum nulla in terris origo inveniri potest. Pindar also, as I find him quoted, speaking of the soul, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This only cometh from heaven. Seneca in his cxx. epistle, Maximum inquam, mi Lucili, argumentum animi ab altiori venientis sede; A very great argument of the souls coming down from heaven it is, if it accounteth these things wherein it is here below conversant, base and low and too straight for it; if it fear not to go out: for knowing from whence it came, it knoweth whether it is going. To these testimonies more might be added, as Morney collecteth them in his fifteenth chapter, where he treateth de immortalitate anima. Zanchie believeth that this was Aratus his meaning, not only, That God was the first and universal cause of the soul, as he is of the body and all things else, but, That the substance of the soul is not made of the Elements or of any heavenly substance, but that it is a creature absolutely divine. Thus we have seen our Thesis agreeable to sacred Scripture, to Fathers, to reason, to Ethnic authority. We have touched a ticklish cause and a grave controversy. A young man, one Vincentius Victor (as Chemnitius relateth) when learned Augustine demurred and would not determine this point concerning the original of a rational soul, censured boldly the Father's unresolvedness, and vaunted that he would undertake to prove by demonstration that souls are created de novo, by God: For which peremptory rashness the Father returned the young man a sober reprehension. But I therefore, lest I should be obnoxious to the like reproof, have not so much determined the point evident, as argued it probable. However, it is res quaestionis, not res fidei. It standeth not upon our salvation to believe the one or the other; either that it is, or it is not created. As he than concludeth his Rhetorics, so I this little discussion of this great controversy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The third respect wherein we are God's offspring is the Union of body and soul together, which maketh our third proposition, as we formerly propounded it, We are God's offspring in respect of body and soul together. I will not here run into the nice dispute, whether A B be Ab; Whether the whole man really differeth from the parts taken together: and so whether God in the uniting of them be a cause of a new Entity. God almighty, who made bodies and souls (though in a different manner betwixt the first bodies; namely of our first Parents, and the rest, and in a different manner betwixt bodies and fouls) made one for the other, the body to receive the soul, the soul to enlive and inform the body. And here we are to consider the time of the creation of the soul, according as we apprehend it in probability to be created: And here we have the way how we are the offspring of God in respect of body and soul together, in that the form is framed in the matter prepared. As God made man when all things in the world were ready and dressed to show him entertainment, so likely he maketh the soul when the body, the house, is furnished with rooms for the abode and working of it. And that he maketh not the soul extra materiam, without the body, but in it, Biels argument may evince, beside whatsoever may be said out of the places in Scripture before named against the contrary. His argument is this, Quia tunc anima haberet aliquem actum volendi vel intelligendi priusquam infunderetur: If the soul were created out from the body, than it would exercise some act of understanding and willing before it were infused: For such a divine creature cannot be idle and unactive. If it should exercise any act before the union, it should merit before the union, as he saith: We deny his merit, but we cannot well imagine how the soul should exercise any act of understanding and will before it be in the body. And this S. Paul supposeth, as Biel noteth, Rom. ix. 11. For the children not being yet born, neither having done good or evil: Neither good nor evil is done before birth. Moreover, how that good act, if any, though not meritorious, yet should be rewarded to the soul peculiarly, besides the reward for those actions of it in the body, we cannot well conceive. For every man shall receive according to what he hath done in the body. The Person shall receive according to the actions of the person; the Soul is not a Person. A question here may arise, Why God should unite this soul to this body: Why should this glorious soul dwell in this corruptible body? this royal tenant in so low a cottage? this vast spirit in a circumscribed skin? as if not only Galba's wit but all our souls did malè habitare. For answer, 1. The highest cause is the best, God's pleasure, Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (his reason, as we may say) and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his will, the Egyptian Doctor taketh for the same. 2. Likely for the order of the Universe; that as there is a created rational spirit without a body, namely the Angel, so there should be a created rational Spirit (though not rational in that degree of perfection) in a body. 3. The Poet; 
— Et quod dominari in caetera possit  
Natus homo est.—  Lombard upon this question, in his first Distinction of the second book, giveth another, That by the conjunction of the soul with the body, so fare its inferior, man might learn and believe a possibility of the union of man with God in glory, notwithstanding the vast distance of nature and excellence, the infiniteness of both in God, the finiteness of both in man. But our soul in the moment of union with the body is defiled with original sin: But our nature sinned in Adam; and the order of the Universe and the glory of Christ's redemption are of greater moment, as Zanchie.  
Now out of the conjunction of soul with body we might have the resultance of deductions and inferences many and important ones. We might have raised an exhortation peculiar unto the soul, That it is the bravest substance under heaven, and therefore that we should fit it with the purest accident: We should adorn it with the best habit, of Faith, of Love, of Hope: That when we think, we should think of ourselves; when we think upon ourselves, we should think upon our soul; when we think upon our soul, we should think that it is from God absolutely, and that it is immortal, and that we should provide for it accordingly. Get this soul beautified with white and red, Christ's Blood, his Righteousness.  
And when thou thinkest of thyself composed of body and soul (for who in the body, even while he thinketh of the soul, will forget his body) 1. consider what is due from hence to him that made thee a man, not a beast; what piety, what devotion, what obedience, what rational service, what rational or reasonable sacrifice, as Trismegist speaketh. 2. from hence also consider what an engagement there is of love and friendship and justice unto our neighbour, since he who made him made us: We are all of the same make, all of the same nature. Job is moved hereby to do no wrong, no not to his very servant, Job xxxi. 15. Did not he that made me in the womb, make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? 3. from God's conjunction of both together we are bound to maintain the union. As in the conjunction of man and wife, so in the conjunction of body and soul, What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, no private man, no Magistrate unjustly; not ourselves, for no cause. Let both grow together (as we may speak) until the harvest, until thou be'st fairly cut down by that common sickle of Death, and laid in the granary of the grave. 4. We learn hence humility. Our best excellence is in our soul: Our soul is in an earthly tabernacle, easily resolved into its principles, undone with a fly, destroyed with a grapestone, cracked with a shell. All our learning is soon refuted with one black o, which understanding us not, snappeth us unrespectively without any distinction, and putteth at once a period to our reading and to our being. Look we upon our black feet; nay below our feet unto the dust: read we, and meditate, and learn meekness and humility in this original. 5. It is our duty, since God is thus our Father in regard of body and soul, to rely upon his care and providence for a living in the world, and infinitely more than upon the care of the fathers of our flesh. God is more principally our Father: They of the body, subordinately unto God; God of the soul, excluding them: They men, not God; therefore not able to see what is best for us: They men, not God; therefore not able to foresee all dangers: They men, not God; therefore not able always to help us: They men, not God; therefore changeable in their affection: They men, not God; therefore changeable in their being. What power the Father of our flesh hath, he hath from God; what goodness, from God: God sustaineth his nature, concurreth with his action, blesseth the effect. 6. Lastly, we have hence S. Paul's conclusion (in the next verse) which shall be mine, For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we are not to think that the Godhead is like unto silver or gold or stone, graven by art and man's devise: Whereby is intimated, that the Heathens did make memorials of God by creatures, which they represented in images of filver, of gold, of stone. This conclusion we have touched before: to prosecute it were to begin another text.  
FINIS.