ancient Heathens as Pythagoras and others and Angels in the Scripture also we know are sometimes called Gods doth grow insolent or rebellious And so I have done with this place of Plutarch which together with that of Tully being unquestionable deserve to be much made of by them who had rather a little genuine truth though they labour for it then plenty of specious impostures The Sibyls and Mercurius Trismegistus we purposely decline to meddle with in this case yea and the Oracula Chaldaica too which though I doe not altogether reject yet I am very suspicious that there is in them more of Porphyrius then his bare as himselfe pretends collection All this that hath been said well pondered S. Austins assertion that we spake of before with little variation that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the very first long before Homer was taken in the worst sense for an evill spirit and afterwards when evill spirits began to be worshipped which how it happened Justin Martyr and others that have written against the Gentiles doe shew for a good spirit goodnesse and bountifulnesse as Tully well argues against Epicurus being if not the only yet the chiefest object of divine worship this assertion I say so qualified though we cannot for want of proofs and evidences of those times affirm it certainly true yet certainly it may be supposed and granted not improbable But however take the word in either sense for a God or for a Devill the opinion we have spoken of of the envy and malignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will equally but in different respects appear to have proceeded originally from the Scriptures And besides this that the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by Greek writers as the Latin Deus by the Latins is often used upon this occasion hath been observed before and must here be remembred The Text of the Scriptures that we must ground upon is that unhappy conference between our first mother Eve and the subtill Serpent which we therefore think fit to set down here at large as we find it recorded in the third Chapter of Genesis and the 1 2 3 4 5. verses of the Chapter The words according to our last English Translation are these Ver. 1. Now the Serpent was more subtill then any beast of the field Gen. III. which the Lord God had made and he said unto the woman Yea hath God said Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden 2. And the woman said unto the Serpent We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden 3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said Ye shall not cat of it neither shall ye touch it lest ye die 4. And the Serpent said unto the woman Ye shall not surely die 5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eies shall be opened and ye shall be as Gods knowing good and evill Let the words first in themselves and then compared with the event and other circumstances be well considered and these two inferences will of themselves as I conceive without the help of a comment offer themselves to any ordinary judgement First that the Devill doth object unto God their Maker envy and malignity towards men Secondly that it was meer envy and malignity towards mankind that moved the Devill thus to set upon the woman and to counsell her as he did As I will not therefore altogether decline them so neither will I trouble my selfe and my Reader with multiplicity of Commentators upon the place I think it will not need and I must confesse I have not at this time many by me to look upon We shall treat of those two inferences in the order they were but now set down Of all Ancients that have written upon Genesis I shall ever give the preeminence unto S. Chrysostome for the most literall and genuine Expositor Upon the 4. verse And the Serpent said c. he hath these words upon the fourth verse as I said but his words concerne the fifth rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Afterwards not content to have contradicted the words of God that he might the better make way for his imposture and by foiling the woman fulfill his own designes he doth traduce their maker as envious Of later Commentators Junius as most generally received among Protestants and learned Diodatus lately set out in English I wish more care had been taken both in the version and printing will suffice Junius upon the place Videtur enim ex multis rationibus c. Among other arguments which he the Devill used to perswade them that men were not so loved of God as they thought but hated rather and that happinesse was envied unto them he brings this as the chiefest because they were forbidden to eat of that fruit from which depended man's chiefest happinesse the knowledge of good evil Diodatus upon the fifth verse God doth know c. He doth wrest I make use of the translation set out into a wrong sense the name of that tree as if it had power to conferre divine knowledge and the understanding of every thing accusing God of envy and provoking the woman to pride and curiosity Before I proceed I will by the way impart unto my Reader a certain passage of Aristotle which I have often admired and doe still as often as I think of it The opinion being currant in his days that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or envious which by the vulgar who have little sense of any other happinesse but such as is to be found in the fruition of worldly goods was applyed accordingly Aristotle in his Metaphysicks takes notice of both both of the opinion and how applyed and as for the opinion he doth protest against it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible it should be so but secondly were it so indeed that such is the nature of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then in all probability saith he his envy doth especially consist in this that he doth not afford unto men the happinesse of perfect knowledge and contemplation He speaketh it of the Metaphysicks particularly as absolutely being the noblest of all sciences by himself therefore and by others often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinity His words are not many as his manner is to be short but contain fully the substance of all I have said we shal have them afterwards upon another occasion I think no man hath ever laboured to any purpose in the search of any truth either divine morall or naturall or ever observed with himselfe how prone men are generally and always have been upon all occasions both of themselves to mistake and to be misled by others who will not acknowledge Aristotle though hardly censured by divers as well deserving that glorious title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine as his so much admired master by ancient both Christians and Heathens
in his Noctes Atticae which in the latter Editions of Aulus Gell. is set out as imperfect or defective in the beginning it was not so in the old Editions and why it should be so in the new I know no reason but that as I conceive those that first so set him out did not understand him and chose rather as many in that ease to the great prejudice of good Authors to place the defect upon the Copies then to acknowledge it in themselves I shall be very willing to bestow some paines to do that good Author some right who hath taken so many paines to benefit posterity and we shall finde it to our purpose too Neverthelesse because all men are not for that kinde of learning it shall make no further interruption here but shall be added at the end The place of Gellius that we mean is lib. VI. cap. 1. Homines fecisse dicitur c. Lastly besides these we have spoken of there were yet others who upon grounds of naturall reason stood for the goodnesse both and omnipotency of God as perempâ—orily as any yet durst not upon the same grounds of naturall reason take upon themselves to answer all objections against their opinion which their naturall reason they modestly acknowledged weak and desective and incapable of such high mysteries and speculations Plotinus the Philosopher as I remember I might say Aristotle too but that what he saith of the defect of humane reason which he compares to the eyes of Bats is upon another occasion hath an excellent passage or two to that purpose Antoninus a great and glorious Monarch in his dayes by many as deservedly as ever Heathen was both for his learning and goodnesse surnamed The Philosopher hath I am sure which may be read in his Meditations concerning himselfe lib. II. n. 8. but especially lib. XII n. 4. How so many came to pitch upon this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or materiam and partly to joyn partly to oppose it unto God in the creation might easily be conceived if we compare what divers of them write of it with the words of Moses Gen. 1. v. 2. of the Chaos which very Chaos some of them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Necessity Though they say not altogether what Moses saith and added to it much yet a man may in Moses's words see some ground for their errours In so obscure a subject darknesse is in the Text and caligo is the word used by some of them also for the Chaos they might easily mistake him they especially that had him but by tradition But I will say no more of it here because it is but upon the by And so much concerning the originall of the opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daemon or The Daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God and the Deity in the language and more clear expression of divers others as by divers examples hath appeared is of an envious nature There be other places of Scripture I know besides that of Genesis which upon this occasion and not impertinently perchance might have been considered of As for example those Ironicall words though possibly not Ironically taken by all that might light upon them of Almighty God Gen. III. 22 23. And the Lord God said Behold the man is become as one of us to know good or evill And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden c. And againe those Gen. XI 6. And the Lord said Behold the people is one and they have all one language and this they begin to do and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do c. But especially that ambiguous signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as it signifies to be jealous Exod. XX. 5. XXXIV 14. and elsewhere frequently so Genesis XXXI 1. and elsewhere to envie But since we have as I conceive sufficiently discovered and laid open the main spring of the errour I shall be lesse solicitous about the Riverets and smaller streams We will now suppose that Daemon was originally taken for a Devill or Evill-Spirit This supposition is not without some probability as hath been said But if that will not be granted we are sure however that since Christ it was so taken by many Heathens and that even before long before Christ there was an opinion among Heathens of certaine envious Spirits or Devils that did set themselves against men to doe them what mischiefe they could Now how consonant it is to the Scriptures to adscribe all temporall evils to the malice and envy of the Devill as the first and originall cause is so apparently obvious as little shall need to bee said about it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Through envy of the devill came death into the world saith the author of the booke of Wisdome Chap. 11. ver ult attributed unto Solomon In which words by death must be understood not bare death onely but all the consequences of it all the changes chances to which this our mortality is lyable which make our very life as divers ancient heathens have taught rather a daily death then life properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Behold the envy and manifold or deep subtiltie of the wicked daemon For when he saw man created to highest honour and little inferior to Angels c. The word he useth here and some lines after is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but afterwards both here and upon the seventh verse it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil in his Homilie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God is not the cause of evills hath both the words together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being the Devill the receptacle of all wickednesse he laboured of envy also Our honour became an eyesore unto him So Basil there but in his XXI Homilie Vpon divers so inscribed places of Scripture having occasion to speake of envy in generall he falls upon this particular of the devills envy and mans ruine through it and handles it very rhetorically So Gregor Nyssen as pathetically though not so largely in his De vita Mosis Divers more might be added Hardly shall we finde any Ancients that either speake of Adams fall or his posterities miseries in this life but have a touch of the Devils envie As for moderne authors in so obvious and so unquestionable a subject among all Christians I shall for beare their testimonies and proceed to other matter We have presumed that time out of mind such an opinion was among the heathens concerning this invidia daemonis the subject of our Discourse We think we have said enough to make it probable VVe will now see what can be said against it to wit whether his Name can be produced that first either said it or was observed
THE ORIGINALL CAVSE OF Temporall Evils The opinions of the most Ancient Heathens concerning it examined by the sacred Scriptures and referred unto them as to the Sourse and Fountaine from whence they sprang By MERIC CASAUBON D.D. Orig. contra Cels lib. IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Argument fit for humane disquisition be of difficult investigation to humane industry among such may this which is concerning the Originall of Evils well be reckoned LONDON Printed by M. F. and are to be sold by Richard Minne at the signe of S. Paul in Little Britain 1645. The Preface ARistotle in his Rhetoricks where he treats of the properties of men according to their severall either ages or conditions of life hath a notable observation concerning those he properly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fortunate men That among a greater number of bad qualities they have one that is commendable and makes some amends which is that they are commonly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lovers of God or piously affected towards God It may well seeme strange if not altogether false it being more generally received and apparantly more probable that Bonae mentis soror paupertas Vertue and Poverty poverty piety the vertue of vertues especialy are of a kind It were no hard thing with such distinctions and limitations of circumstances as in cases of this nature must alwayes be presupposed to reconcile these two Neither indeed doth Aristotle simply say that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 religious in point of life which may prove quite another thing but this onely that such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that They love God whether really or in their opinion onely is the question See S. John Chap. XIV ver 15.21 23 24. and the same S. John I. Epist Chap. V. ver 1 2 3. and have a kinde of confidence in him or trust in him after a sort because of those goods Fortune hath cast upon them And this is further confirmed by S. Basil also for herein the common saying that Contrariorum eadem est ratio will hold well where he discourseth of the originall of Atheisme When men saith he at first are crossed in their worldly affaires then begin they for want of patience to doubt in themselves whether God in very deed regardeth the things of this world whether he take care of particular men and whether he reward every man according to his deeds But afterwards when they see no end of their troubles and miseries but one evill continually attended with another evill they settle in themselves that wicked opinion and absolutely resolve in their hearts that there is no God So Basile in his Homilie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God is not the cause of evils The words therefore of the Psalmist are very emphaticall Psal 44. ver 9 10 c. Thou hast cast off and put us to shame c. All this is come upon us yet have we not forgotten thee neither have we dealt falsly in thy covenant Our heart is not turned back neither have our steps declined from thy wayes At such times then especially hath that question been most rife and pertinent indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence are evills and what brought them forth into the world of which so much hath been written by ancient Philosophers The Scriptures indeed not in positive assertions onely which in divers places are to be found but even by the whole streame and series of Ecclesiasticall stories and events of all kinds afford so bright and resplendent a light in this point that he sees not the Sun in the firmanent at noon day who makes not this conclusion from them That as all evill of sin is from man by the instigation of the Devill so all evill of punishment is from God for the amendment of sinners These two malum culpae and malum poenae as they are commonly discerned the evill of sin and the evill of punishment though this latter be not evill absolutely but rather good in regard of the end and consequents of it as heathens themselves have well acknowledged being the two springs from whence not Illae as it is in the Comick but omnes lachrymae whatsoever Adams wretched posterity groaneth under and through which the very frame of this lower and sublunary world laboureth doth flow So that were all that professe Christianity and consequently to embrace the Scriptures as divine Oracles truely and really what they professe as the resolution of this point would be easie and obvious so the arguing of it among Christians needlesse But by bookes that of late have been written as well by Protestants as by Papists it may easily appeare that many among Christians are to be found who in their inward are nothing lesse then what outwardly they professe themselves yea and not a few it should seeme that dare freely enough professe what they beleeve Libertins as I take it is their name in some countries And besides this it may further appeare by holy David or whoever was the composer of the 73. Psal that in time of either publick extraordinary confusion or private distresse and extremity it may be the case of a man religious otherwise and godly to be at a stand for a while and to entertaine some doubts Of all opinions in this kind contrary to the truth and destuctive of all godlinesse I find two chiefely to have prevailed in the world That of Epicurus so I call it because from him chiefely propagated to afterages though long in part at least in the world before him as more knowne I shall first name which was as he openly professed it for some ancients make him to have been an arrant atheist That there is a God an excellent Nature whose happinesse and perfection is to injoy himself free from all troubles and cares not regarding or heeding any thing at all but himself That it is a folly to beleeve that God had created the World as either Sun or Moon or any other part of this Vniverse and not folly alone but impiety to beleeve that God either regarded what is done by men or was the cause of any whether good or evill that hapneth unto them This opinion though it might and did in the later ages of the world when God ceased by strange apparitions and otherwise so familiarly to reveale himself unto men as before yet in the first ages of it impious enough otherwise when the memory of the Creation other great and miraculous works of God was so fresh and his presence by Angels and the like so frequent among men it could not possibly take place The Devill then in those dayes when God did so manifestly interesse himself in the affaires of men because the time for Epicurisme was not yet come in stead of it hee poysoned men with an opinion That God was of an envious nature which was as is shewed in the ensuing Treatise the very argument he used to our
first father and mother Adam and Eve to make them transgress and so to forfeit their first happiness And when some men by the very light of naturall humane reason that remained in them began to discerne the impiety and absurdity of this opinion they fell into another not altogether so impious but more absurd that God is not omnipotent and wanted not will but power to amend what they conceived to be amiss in the world or that there were two Authors and Creators of all things the one good and the other evill These were the first errors and extravagancies of men against the true doctrine of Gods Providence and administration of the world as it is taught by the holy Scriptures Most men that have written of and for Providence fall upon Epicurus and his opinions copiously enough as indeed it is a large and copious argument especially since that by so many it hath been beaten and troden But I know not of any that hath examined and refuted that more ancient error or scarce taken notice of it which neverthelesse is not lesse yea in some respect I may say more considerable For as it is more ancient so it may more clearely be derived from its first spring mistaken Scripture which affords us a good argument for the antiquity and authenticknes of the Scriptures themselves against atheists and infidels as good almost as any can be This is it therefore that in this ensuing Treatise I have proposed to my selfe and endeavoured I intend it I confesse but as a part of a greater worke concerning Divine Providence in generall which long agoe I have had in my thoughts But whatever becomes of the rest this either as a part if it shal please God to spare me life and other opportunities shall serve may begin or if otherwise stand by it selfe as a supplement to what hath already been written by others of that argument and either way give some satisfaction I hope in this maine point to His glory to whom whatsoever is not referred I never thought much considerable Errata Pag. 14. Lin. 33. Soon after p 16. l. 26. he did so p. 20. l. 25. in his XV. Iliad p. 22. l 6. heterogeneous p. 50. l. 2. Thou shalt know p. 61. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE ORIGINALL CAVSE OF TEMPORALL EVILS THat the life of man in this world is full of troubles miseries is so common a complaint in the mouths of all men of what ranke and quality soever they be and so obvious a subject in Writers of all Ages Nations and Professions as that it may well be reckoned among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or known Principles which common sense teacheth and Artists ground upon as indisputable truths Yet he that will see this common and beaten subject most exquisitely even in the judgement of humane reason setting aside the credit and authority of divine inspiration handled needeth but goe to Ecclesiastes the excellency of which discourse he shall best understand who judiciously compares it with the choicest and most approved peeces either old or late concerning that argument The truth is there hath been little said by others upon that Theme either for wit or wisdome much considerable which may not both be found here and probably be supposed originally to have proceeded hence I will give one instance What among the Ancients upon this subject of mans misery more famous then that old saying whereof they made one of their Sileni a degree above Philosophers among ancient Heathens to be the authour That it was the chiefest happinesse not to be born next to that quickly to die Divers expressions of this saying by severall Greek Poets if any shal desire to see them together compare them have been collected by Erasmus The matter is by Tully in his Tuscul briefly thus recorded Fertur de Sileno fabella quaedam c. There goes an old tale or story for so the word fabula sometimes is taken of a Silenus who being taken by Midas the King is said to have given him a ransome or reward for his dismission which was that he taught him how that it was a most happy thing not to be born but in the next place to die very soon And this long before any memory of any either Midas or Silenus Eccles 4. ver 1 2 3. was thus delivered by wise Solomon So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the Sunne and behold c. Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more then the living which are yet alive Yea better is he then both they which hath not yet been who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the Sun These words Better is he then both they c. misunderstood might probably occasion that opinion of the ancientest Philosophers of which we shall have occasion for to say more afterwards that the soules of men had a subsistence long before their incorporation and were thus driven into this lower world and confined into bodies as Cages or Prisons for some miscariages in their former and better condition Pliny the eldest who had studied the world as much as any man and hath written of the world his Naturall History I mean more then any who for his parts of nature wit and curiosity and other great advantages of fortune might be supposed to know as much as any other man his observation is that nullum frequentius votum no wish more frequent among men then the wish of death and thereupon his conclusion is that Natura nihil brevitate vitae praestitit melius and elsewhere he cals death pracipuum naturae bonum the greatest benefit of nature or the greatest blessing that heavens have vouchsafed unto mankind Yet all this notwithstanding if any judging of this life by what hath hitherto happened unto themselves and not much sensible of what they have known to happen unto others be of another mind and thinke better of the world then so I might tell them of Croesus and others who once thought themselves the happiest of men and afterwards became notorious examples of mans misery I might also tell them that among the miseries of this life those that are publique and extend unto many such as are the miseries of wars slaughters slaveries plagues famines and the like of which that of the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That both Sea and Land are full of miseries hath generally beene true and visible at all times are the chiefest and those which most affect a man that is a man indeed that is truly sociable and communicable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Philosophers expresse it this I say and much more to this purpose I might tel them but that not the consideration of our miseries be they more or lesse or what opinion men have of them is the subject by me here undertaken but the originall cause of our miseries what was the opinion of ancientest Heathens about it and
how consonant and agreeable it is with the truth of the holy Scriptures such consonancy either of humane reason in times of Paganisme or ancient traditions with the Scriptures having been accounted by ancient learned Christians no small evidence of the truth of the Scriptures themselves and by them therefore upon all occasions with all possible care and curiosity sifted and inquired into But before I come to what I have more directly proposed to my selfe I must be way of introduction take notice of some other opinions of theirs that have much affinity with the former subject and what relation they have to my main scope will appear in the progresse and conclusion of our discourse It is a common observation among the Ancients that there is no worldly good which is not either tempered with some present evill or at least hath the seeds in it selfe of some evill consequence and future inconvenience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as some others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no worldly good or pleasure is pure and sincere unmixed and untainted of the contrary I know not any other subject that ancient both Historians and Philosophers Greeks especially more frequently insist upon if it come in their way or more willingly digresse into Theophrastus in that excellent fragment of his Metaphysicks handles it with admirable wit and profundity shewing that such is the nature of this sublunary world as to consist of contraries and how one contrary doth beget another a curious speculation curiously handled and speculated no◠by Theophrastus onely but by the authour of that polite Treatise De mundo too polite I doubt for Aristotles stile though ascribed unto him by divers ancients besides Apuleius as Justin Martyr and Philoponus the which Apuleius of old and Budaeus of late have turned into Latin One of the first if not the very first now extant in whom this observation of the mixture of sweet and sowre in worldly things is to be found is old Plato who recordeth how his Master Socrates that very day that he dranke his last and fatall cup which made him immortall to all ensuing generations having casually rubbed his thigh or knee to allay the itch which the fetters had occasioned and perceiving a kind of pleasure to ensue upon it took that occasion to instruct his friends and auditors then present concerning the nature of all worldly delights and pleasures in these wo ds How incongruous in my judgement O friends is that thing which men usually tearm sweet how marvellously or naturally inclinanable it is to that which because they cannot be together at one time seemeth contrary pain Yet neverthelesse such is their nature that if a man pursue after the one and obtain it it shall go very hard but he shall be constrained as if both hanged by one string to have part in the other also And certainly had Aesop thought of it he would have made a Fable of it how that God purposing to reconcile these two sweet and sowre together and not being able he did chain them together by the head alterum ex altero verticibus inter se contrariis deligavit as Aulus Gellius expresseth it so that whosoever is partaker of the one cannot be long without the other also as now it hath happened unto me the same fetter having caused first pain and now pleasure unto my thigh So Socrates in Plato What Aesop did not learned and ingenious Camerarius hath since done he hath contrived it into two fables the one of thē with the text of Plato the Reader shall find if he please at the end of this Treatise This was the practice of the Ancients I note it by the way because we have many examples of it in the holy Scriptures by fables and parables to worke upon men and they found it a most powerfull and effectuall way whereof Plutarch in his Consolation to Apollonius hath a notable instance it is in an argument of much affinity to this But to return it would be long even to name those severall ancient Authours who have descanted upon it and applied it to severall occasions Pliny the latter among the Latins in his incomparable Panegyrick in few words but as elegant and pithy as they are short thus Habet has vices conditio mortalium ut adversa ex secundis ex adversis secunda nascantur nascuntur not noscantur as it is in some editions Occultas utrorumque semina Deus plerunque bonorum malorúmque causae sub diversâ speci◠latent But that which concerns us to take more especiall notice of is an other observation of the same Ancients concerning all extraordinary worldly successes and more then usuall prosperity in any kind which they held generally to be very ominous yea very unlucky in so much as they were accounted wise and prudent who could if not altogether prevent which is not in the power of man yet by certain art and cunning temper and allay such excesses of fortune Whether this was intended by Menander or no that famous Comick I know not for he might have another aim but his words are pertinent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of all unhappinesse among men the chief cause is Much or too much happinesse The opinion may seeme strange but the practice of many of them upon it much more and the grounds both of the one and of the other when well weighed and considered most of all Herodotus shall be the first from whom we will take our information about it as being the first of ancient Historians now extant and in that respect for his antiquity to us most considerable He toucheth upon it often upon divers occasions but most fully and positively though not as from himselfe there but in the person of Amasis King of Aegypt a Prince of great renown among the Ancients in his third book and fortieth chapter as it is usually divided Polycrates King or rather Tyrant of Samos an Island of the Egean sea bordering upon Asia once so flourishing that even the hens of it were proverbially said to be milked but now in a manner altogether forsaken of inhabitants having had for a long time more then ordinary successe in all his enterprises his felicity all that while not crossed in any other kinde either at home or abroad Amasis King of Aegypt his great friend and confederate is reported to have writen a Letter to him about it the copy whereof according to Herodotus was this Amasis to Polycrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec mandat as Camerarius renders it saith thus That thou dost well and prosper is no small joy unto me as thy friend and confederate but I must tell thee plainly that these great and overflowing successes doe not please me who know ful wel the nature of the Deity how envious it is It is my wish concerning my own self and the same I wish to all that are deare unto me sometimes to prosper and sometimes to miscarry and in
of that word For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self sounding then but ill in the ears of most men he knew well enough if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its ordinary acception for subterraneos or infernales were put to it it would be a hard thing to perswade men to take it in the better sense for any other then meer Devils Therefore not content with this bare interpretation he adds withall for further prevention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For God forbid that is any should conceive that the authour of these verses would bid us worship any evill kinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means or evill spirits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as some perchance might surmise according to the more vulgar use of that word Had learned Salmasius thought well of this and better considered of the text of Hierocles he would have been I beleeve of another opinion concerning the right meaning of these words then that he is of in his Preface to the Arabick Translation of Cebes his Table Now to return to Tertullians words which I must desire the Reader once more to look upon it hath been observed by some that exsecramenti in one word and not exsacramenti is the reading of some ancient Manuscripts and exsecramentum or rather execramentum in Tertullian his African Latin for execratio or maledictio is by some others well expounded also who so far saw the right meaning of the words but did not or could not sufficiently prove it which now I think no man will make any question of But whereas Tertullian both here and elsewhere in his book De Testimonio Animae doth seem to affirm which hath most troubled Expositors and made them to understand him of Christians that not only the word Daemon but that of Satan also was even by Heathens frequently used in detestation or by way of cursing whereof I know no vestigium in any other Author extant but much against it extant in divers I therefore conceive that the word pronuntiant which is the word in both places must be understood not of words expressed or uttered but of a sense or rather sentence and so the word pronuntio is very proper that may be inferred as implicitly contained in the common use of that other word daemon which was spoken of as if he said That whilest they commonly used the word daemon in detestation to expresse their aversnesse from a thing they did at the same time implicitly subscribe to the truth of the Scriptures which set out unto us Satan the Prince of daemons as the authour of all evill The very word proinde in the Text of Tertullian by which his denique in that other passage must be expounded doth imply some such thing that it is but by way of collection or inference that Satan is thus pronounced against Nam Satanam principem hujus mali generis proinde de propria conscientia anima eâdem exsecramenti voce pronuntiat as it was well before in some former editions And Rigaltius his edition varies but very little from this In stead of anima it hath animae which comes all to one but that he that reades Tertullian in De Testimon Animae cap. 2. will as I conceive judge that the righter But now for the sense of the words he that shall reade that learned man his Observations upon this and that other passage of Tertul. De Testimon Animae cap. 3. will I hope if he mark well Tertul. his words think the better of what hath here been said of them We take it then for granted that the word daemon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soon after Christ began to be taken in the worst sense of the time before is all the question not yet resolved There be who because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken sometimes in the worst and sometimes in the better sense for a happy sometimes and sometimes for a wretched unfortunate man infer upon it that therfore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise was originally vox media as they call them as properly signifying an evill as a good spirit But why not rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so taken and used on both sides upon a supposition that all mans happinesse or unhappinesse as by divers Heathens is maintained is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according to some from God immediately according to others taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fortune as frequently from fortune and that the endevours of men in that kinde can but little or nothing Whence Eustathius upon a place of Homer The words saith he may also be understood of Jupiter who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Orpheus though not that ancient Orpheus often mentioned by Plato and by ancient Fathers yet an ancient Poet yea perantiquus as some very learned and judicious speak of him in his hymn or prayer intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authour as of happinesse to some so of misery to others There is as much ambiguity in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by Christians is usually taken in the worst sense for daemone corript vel agitari to be possessed but by heathen Authors for the most part in the better sense for numine afflari to be inspired and so it should be translated indeed in divers places wheâ—e Christian Interpreters impose unwittingly I beleeve their own sense upon heaâ—hen Authors wrongfully Again whereas ancient Heathens Historians and others speak often of hurts and mischiefes done or occasioned by daemons it is no good argument to inferre thereupon that therefore the word daemon of it selfe is sometimes taken in the worst sense it being as ordinary with them to ascribe such things to their best gods as is at large proved by Clemens Alexandrinus and some others and that in those very places sometimes where they tel us of either their evil daemons or evils done by their daemons they forbear not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but use it promiscuously calling the same sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I could shew by divers instances so that we can inferre no more upon this of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then may be inferred of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also The word Angel is a good word of it selâ—e alwayes taken in the better sense when absolutely used yet Psalme 78. ver 49. we are told of evill angels He cast upon them the fiercenesse of his anger wrath indignation and trouble by sending evil angels among them Some Expositors by these evill angels understand devils or evill spirits but others with no lesse probability good angels Good angels may be the instruments and ministers of temporall evill and in that respect called evill Angels But as for this place I for my part rather incline to them Rabbins and others who by evill angels understand the evils or plagues
themselves which were sent upon Aegypt and this the rather because I find that kind of expression to have been familiar to the Hebrewes of old So for example where Psalme 89.49 according to the Hebrew it is What man is he that liveth and shall not see death the Chaldee Paraphrase renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What man is he that liveth and shall not see the angel of death And Hab. III. v. 5. according to the Hebrew Before him went the Pestilence the Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from before him was sent the angel of death and so elsewhere These kind of expressions whether used the better to teach us that all things life death good evill that happen to men in this world are from God originally whose ministers these Angels called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirits in the New Test are or by a kind of figure called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby things insensible incorporeall are made to live vertues and vices which some Stoicks really beleeved represented as animals and the like I shall not here inquire fuâ—ther But it seasonably puts me in mind of an interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much to this purpose which I remember to have read in Dio Chrysostomus in a long Oration of Diogenes the Cynick to Alexander the Great It is a very considerable interpretation but not to our purpose here and therefore it shall serve to have mentioned it Hitherto we have found nothing that could induce us to beleeve that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of old as is affirmed by some and before Christ vox media taken sometimes even by Heathens in the worst sense much lesse that it originally signified a Devill or an evill spirit as is by others affirmed If Plutarch help us not I doubt no man will out of whom I finde two passages quoted to this purpose The first is out of his De I side O siride to which they might have added another passage of the same author in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he hath the same words againe where speaking of the opinion of many which it seems was Plutarchs opinion too as appears not by this only but by other Treatises and paslages of his concerning two contrary principia or creators the one good and the other evill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Of these two the better they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god the other they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 daemon as Zoroaster the Magus c. Here first it must be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Plutarch's own words or interpretation for the words used by them he speaks of Zoroaster and others were as himself soon often tels us Oromazis Oromaides rather as it is in that other passage we told you but now of and Arimanius Secondly that Aristotle long before Plutarch writing of the same thing expresseth it otherwise and it is not unlikely that Plutarch though he kept not precisely to his Authors words might take it if not out of Aristotle yet of some other for divers are named by Dio. Laertius that write the same that related it as Aristotle doth Now Aristotle in his first De Philosophiâ they are Diog. Lâ—ertius his words in his Proem to the Philosophers lives writeth that the Magi were ancienter then the Aegyptians and that according to them there be two principles or authors the one a good and the other an evill daemon or God and that the first is called 〈◊〉 or Jupiter and Oromasdes and the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell and Arimanius which Hermippus Eudoxus and Theopompus c. From which words it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotles language is all one and that all we can inserre from Plutarch's words is but this which is no more in effect then hath already been granted and proved that in his dayes who was some 100. years after Christ and some 40. or 50. before Tertullian the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began in ordinary language to be taken in the worst part sometimes in the writings of learned men also The second passage out of Plutarch is out of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Table-talk of the seven wise men at a solemn Feast where to a question proposed by Amasis King of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is most profitable or beneficiall answer is made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What most pernicious in the world it is answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a daemon or the daemon But what is the censure even there upon this answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is a bold insolent unheard of answer and distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the word is used oftentimes upon such occasions or if you take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ordinarily that it is a bold Answer of dangerous consequence of dangerous consequence indeed as making Devils of those whoÌ„ they beleeved worshipped as Gods an answer then not grounded upon any publickly known and approved difference or different sense of the words but upon the conceit of one single man That this is the sense of the words may further appear by another passage of the same Plutarch in his tractat De defectu Oracul where at the mention of evill daemons one of the interlocutors is much scandalized as at a thing unknown and absurd And yet the question there was not whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it selfe or absolutely was ever taken in the worst sense which is our question here and must needs have offended much more but whether there were any such indeed as evill spirits or daemons Besides what may be suspected not without some ground that here also Plutarch might alter not of purpose but heedlesly the ancient words and fit them to the dialect of his times And this I must also answer if another place of the same Plutarch should be objected where speaking of Pythagoras his opinion concerning the first principles of all things he writeth that he the said Pythagoras called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the unity God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duitie daemon And indeed it is observable that speaking of the same thing in divers other places I doe not find that any where else but in this he tels us of this difference no not in his Treatise De Iside Osir where neverthelesse we find divers other names and appellations collected whereby the Pythagoreans extolled their said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as much vilified and reviled the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having therefore taken some pains to satisfie my selfe as not willing to passe by so notable an advantage to my cause if I might have sound grounds to convince me I must now desire to be excused and that I
and in true humility be happinesse then those judgements not the effects of envie but of mercy rather There remaineth now nothing but Aulus Gellius his words of the opinion of many opposed by Chrysippus concerning the originall of evils and the Etymologie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we promised to be considered We shall begin with Aulus Gellius upon whose words if we be long yet we shall not digresse from our subject We shall say little upon him but we might as well without him and still keep to our Text. His words then wherewith be begins his sixth booke in ancient editions of Gellius I find thus printed Homines fecisse dicitur tantam vim esse aerumnarum malorum Adversus ea Chrysippus cum in libro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quarto dissereret c. So in the Colon edition Opera impensà Ioannis Soteris Anno 1526. mense Junio I know there were many editions of Aulus Gellius before this but this is the ancientest that I could find at this time He that took care of it whether Soter or any other professeth at the end of the two Tables or Indices Ad Lectorem c. to have compared it with divers former impressions as particularly that which he calls Veneta impressio and observeth some differences of lesse moment but not any here so that we may probably suppose this to have been the reading of ancienter editions also And this the rather because Petrus Mosellanus in his Annotations upon Aul. Gellius added to that impression he also is altogether silent about it In another edition by the same Ioannes Soter a. d. 1533. mense Sep. and another Coloniae Agrippinae a. d. 1563 and another Basileae a.d. 1565. all which I have lately seen I find no difference but that in some of them the dicitur is parted or divided from the rest of the words with two comma's on each side thus Homines fecisse dicâ—tur tantam vim esse aerumn c. But now if we come to later editions in some we shall find it thus Homines fecisse dicatur tantam c. dicatur for dicitur and a colon or two points after it So in the Francford edition Ex officanâ Zachario Palthenianâ a. d. 1603. much improved by the learned lucubrations which he calls his Noctes Parisinas of that great improver of learning Henricus Stephanus In others as particularly in that of Leyden apud Hieronymum Vogel a. d. 1644. it is set out as imperfect with three asterises as they call them at the beginning thus *** homines fecisse dicatur tantam vim esse aerumnarum malorum adversus ea Chrysipus c. I hope I shall make it appeare cleerely enough that the words before as in former editions I meane were very right and full but what might make some men to deem them imperfect and thereupon as is most probable rashly to stigmatize them for such if any desire my opinion it is this First I conceive that they stuck at the Latine it self as either not congruous or too course to be owned by so polite a writer as Aul. Gellius is generally acknowledged Those words of the second period or sentence adversus ea might also move them as importing in their construction much more to have gone before then that short sentence Besides they might light upon a Manuscript it is very likely they did that wanted if not the whole first word of the book as I have seen some Latine Manuscripts yet the first letter of the first word then which nothing is more ordinary a void space before it which was done where the first whether word or letter was intended artificially to be set out in colours and beautified with figures to be an ornament unto the Book I have seen it in some old printed books also as for example in a Virgil and an Horace of Aldus his Edition printed a. d. 1501. But if either word or letter were for any such reason omitted in the sixth Book were they not at the beginning of other Books as well where no such imperfection is noted They were certainly but they that stuck at this beginning and did not at others might unconsiderately phansie more here then they did elsewhere But I will not take upon me to give a reason such an one as may be satisfactory for that which I conceive to have been done without reason However they that know what inconveniencies yea mischieves sometimes both to Church and State from such mistakes have issued will not think such observations altogether inconsiderable But now to proceed whether as I say it were done without reason or no we shall first begin with the sense as for the Latin of the words we shall say more of it afterwards The sense then of those words Homines fecisse dicitur c. I take to be this That men themselves were generally said or supposed to have been the cause that this world is so full of troubles and miseries Many if not most ancient Heathens that were of this opinion did also maintaine that God did not intermeddle with humane affairs And that which lead them into this conceit is because they could not conceive how so much wickednesse and misery as is apparently seen and acknowledged among men could be the fruit of his administration who as he can do no evill himselfe so he is of purer eyes then to behold with patience approbation iniquity in others The Stoick Philosophers which Sect Chrysippus was a prime if not sounder yet propagator of stood for providence and a fatall necessity of all events a fatall necessity and yet a freewill too none more eager and peremptory for it then they It was indeed the main fundamentall of all their philosophy But whilest they went about to reconcile these two how they did involve and puzle themselves hath sufficiently by Tully and other Ancients been observed But to this particular of evils that which they maintained is that they partly proceeded from God and partly from men From God and yet he good neverthelesse because said they such is the nature of worldly things that good here below cannot be without evill How this businesse is stated by Plutarch and how by Simplicius I must refer the Reader to what hath been said of it before which gave us occasion to mention this place of Aul. Gellius This and the next Chapter of this sixth Book of the said Aul. Gellius are about it I mean concerning the originall of evils both morall and others according to Chrysippus anciently famous for the multiplicity of his writings his opinion But I will not meddle with any particulars of the Stoick philosophy that are not to our present occasion So much as hath been said of it was necessary for the better understanding of these words we are now upon For therefore saith Gellius that Chrysippus in his books opposed that common opinion That we have next to do is to shew that such an opinion
was though not approved by all yet generally known and agitated among ancient Heathens that men themselves had been the cause of those evils they commonly complained of And that this was the opinion of some though not of them only who either brutishly denied the providence or blasphemously the goodnesse of God which opinion as commonly known being here by our Author but briefly set down and not understood by some that read him principally as we conceive occasioned this imaginary at the first but now reall as the words are printed imperfection Homer shall leade not for his antiquity only but for his credit also among ancient Heathens In his first Odyssie he makes Jupiter himself to expostulate the matter with mortall men in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of which words is That men do wrongfully accuse the Gods as the authors of their evils whereas they may thank their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wretchednesse or wickednesse through which they bring griefs upon themselves which never were destinated unto them So the Golden verses as they commonly call them containing the chiefe doctrine and instructions of Pythagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He shall know he that takes a right course to knowledge and wisdome that is how men by acts of their own free-wils bring mischiefs upon their own heads c. Crantor an ancient Academick Xenocrates his Scholar in his Consolation to Hippocles cited by Plutarch in his Consolation to Apollonius had these words All these things doth that ancient philosophy well teach and admonish all which if we shall not altogether allow of yet this that concernes the troubles and travels of this life is certainly true For if it be not so by any order of nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his words yet by our selves it is brought to this degree of wretchednesse and corruption Now these and so divers others whom we may spare though they derive the chiefest miseries of men from men themselves yet doe acknowledge certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unavoidable chances or casualties which proceeded from another cause as by Crantor his words that follow in Plutarch and by other passages not of Homer only but even of those Aurea carmina though not many may appear The Stoichs might be thought to say the same but do not That concourse of free-will and fatall necessity they speak of is quite another thing as will appear to them that shall examine the particulars of the opinions which we shall not now stand upon But Seneca in his Naturall Questions comes off more roundly and charges men to the purpose Never did man I think upon one single subject as that is the benefit of windes with more wit or Rhetorick plead for providence then he doth in that Chapter His words some of them that chiefly concerne us here are these Ingens naturae beneficium si illud in injurtam suam non vertat hominum furor c. Adeò quicquid ex illis utile necessarium est non potest his repensari quae in perniciem suam generis humani dementia excogitat Sed non ideò non sunt naturâ suâ bona si vitio malè utentium nocent And againe Non tamen ut paulò ante dicebam queri possumus de auctore nostri Deo si beneficia ejus corrumpimus ut essent contraria efficimus And afterwards more generally yet If we shall weigh saith he the benefits of nature by the perversenesse of them that use them we may say we have received nothing but to our hurt Who useth his eyes that he may be the better for them who his tongue to whom is not his very life a torment There is not any thing so apparently good and profitable which abuse or vitiousness may not turne to a contrary use Much more to the same purpose is there to be found Later Philosophers that have written of this subject to mans wickednesse they joyn Gods justice punishing or preventing which how conformable it is to the Scriptures no Christian need to be told So Hierocles upon the Aurea Caerminae in few words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our wickednesse saith he and Gods righteousnesse these two concurring are the cause of all our calamities It is very well said but it is not unknown to them that are versed in these Philosophers that lived since Christianity began to spread in the world that they borrowed even those that were their greatest enemies as Porphyrius this very Hierocles divers things from Christians and so might in divers points come nearer to our doctrine then former Philosophers did There is not any thing that I more admire in this this kinde then what Virgil hath to this purpose in his fourth Ecloge Sicelides Musae c. which consideratis considerandis what he was when he lived c. I conceive to be a very good comment upon GODS words Gen. III. v. 17 18 19. But to return to Aul. Gel. or rather for we have not digressed what hath been said to apply to him as it often fals out that men may speak the same thing but upon different grounds and which much alters a case to contrary ends so we noted before that many who derived the evils and miseries of this life from men did it not to maintaine but to overthrow providence so far as in them lay which must now againe be remembred because to such especially these words of Gellius seem to have reference Those many I speak of were for the most part Epicureans professed Epicureans I mean who positively maintained That God had nothing at all to do with the affairs of men no nor with the World in generall which they did not acknowledge to have been created by God and consequently what either good or evill happened unto men in this World they must needs fetch from some other cause Epicurus as Dio. Laertius witnesseth in his life made this very thing to be the chiefest occasion of evils among men that men adscribed the cause of their goods of their evils unto God So Diogenes of Epicurus so Tully Plutarch divers others But the Latin Interpreter of Diog. Laert. as if he had studied how to make him ridiculous and to speak contradictions he turnes it to a quite contrary sense and makes Epicurus of the worst of Heathens by Heathens thens themselves for his opinions extreamly abhorred rather a Christian then a heathen The same Epicurus as the same D. Laer recordeth maintained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is That most evills men suffered or were subject unto in this life proceeded from men themselves either hatred or envy or comtempt being the cause Upon which foundation was that famous saying of his erected that Fortuna sapienti rarò intervenit as his words are translated by Seneca that is That Fortune suddaine evill chances and alterations had little or no power upon a wise man because he held none