Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	commandment_n	keep_v	love_v	23,346	5	7.4368	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10335	Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes wherein all the reasons that can be made for them are notably refuted; th'objections aunswered, and the case so cleared and resolved, as that the iudgement of any man, that is not froward and perverse, may easelie be satisfied. Wherein is manifestly proved, that it is not onely vnlawfull to bee an actor, but a beholder of those vanities. Wherevnto are added also and annexed in th'end certeine latine letters betwixt the sayed Maister Rainoldes, and D. Gentiles, reader of the civill law in Oxford, concerning the same matter.	Rainolds, John, 1549-1607.; Gentili, Alberico, 1552-1608.	1599 (1599)	STC 20616; ESTC S115568	189,176	200

loue God aboue all things and man after him that our loue to Godward is prooued by the obseruing and keeping of his commandements that if by keeping of them we should seeme to hate man we must hate him rather then not performe our loue to God that it foloweth not hereof the law is contrary vnto loue neither because to hate man so is to loue him lesse then God in comparison and not in deede to hate him nay it is to loue him sith it is to wish him and worke him greater good by losse of lesse good which he can not retaine therewith Howbeit had you doubted yet might you haue found enough to resolue you if you had read my writing rather with a minde to learne then to gainesay in as much as I shewed by Scripture touchinge Peter that hee should not haue lyed to avoid the daunger of whatsoeuer trouble because to lye is evill not allowed in any case by our law-giver no not for the defense of the glorie of God much lesse for the safetie of man a worme Or if notwithstanding all that this could teach you there might some occasion of doubting still remaine should you not haue rather sought to be resolved by me in private conference then publikelie in writing made common with many even in the country also not onely in our Vniversitie to affirme a point implying flat atheisme that wee are no farder to keepe Gods commaundements then standes with our commoditie and so conclusivelie to vouch it with an Ergo as if it did folow necessarilie that all the lawes of God for your reason holdeth by consequent in all must be sett aside like ceremoniall matters when our owne or other mens honour wealth or life cometh in question with them and to adde that the equitie thereof yet pertayneth to the law moral and so they are perpetuallie and simplie to be observed which semeth by distinguishing their equitie from strictnes to strēgthen them in sound meaning in deede destroyeth them by teaching their transgressors how to defend most grosse iniquitie as idolaters for example when if Nabuchodonosor doe threaten he will burne al who worship not his golden image they may say that albeit in Deuteronomie God saith Thou shalt not bowe downe to them nor worship them yet sith the morall law is never contrary to loue in forbidding any thing and the place of Deuteronomie being taken strictlie would hinder now mens actions of love toward them selues Ergo in that strictnes it belongeth rather to the law ceremoniall though the equitie thereof pertaineth to the law morall and so it is perpetuallie and simplie to be observed A sentence so vngodlie that when Peter onely touched it a farre off or rather lesse then touched it speaking of a particular case no generall law nor Ergoing against it nor terming the keeping of it strictnes nor plaistering the breach of it with equitie but when he tended towards it by saying to our Saviour Maister pitie thy selfe this shall not bee vnto thee our Sauiour answered him Gett thee behind me Satan thou art an offense vnto me because thou savourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men Sutable to this new argument of yours is the defense of your olde the onely one you pressed before from two examples For whereas you had reasoned thus Some men of Macedonie mooved by Prince Alexander did putt on Wemens raiment to save the honor of Ladies the like did Achilles the sonne of Thetis to save his life Ergo it is lawfull to doe it in such cases and I made answer thereto that the reason is naught because we are to live by lawes not by exāples neyther may we lye or forsweare our selves to save our lives or benefitt others though David Peter did so men worthier to be folowed then Macedonians or Achilles you reply that the reason is good this must you meane by saying that the examples are alleadged to good purpose in the circumstances that you apply them for or else you delude vs with an other sophisme and why For Alexanders fact is commended say you as proceeding from a most noble and true heroicall minde and because it was better that the Persian Embassadors were slaine then that the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be either overthrowne or so much as assailed and Thetis might well hide her sonne Achilles in a maidens apparell in respect of motherlie love pitie which shee was to beare her sonne knowing as shee did that hee should be slaine in that iourney to Troy whether he was requested to accompanie the other Grecian Lords Touching the former wherof to admitt that Alexanders fact proceeded from a noble true heroicall minde and that it was better the Persian Embassadours were slaine then the chastities of so many great Ladies should so dishonorably be overthrowne or assailed yet doeth it not folow that men might therefore lawfullie put womens raiment on to kill them the thing might be cōvenient and good to be done the meanes of doeing it not good As it is better that a person guiltie should bee left vnpunished then a person guiltlesse should be condemned and he whose saying this was spake it of a noble true heroicall minde Yet were the meanes naught to procure by bribes or by false witnesses the escape or acquittall of a guiltie person and if any man who had vsed such dealing should be commended for it he should bee commended amisse in that respect as Alexander is by you Now for the later how proove you that Thetis might well hide her sonne Achilles as shee did You say that you thinke not but she might doe it well So. Your reason then is I thinke shee might doe it well Ergo she might A common kinde of argument with you but thinne and leane nor likely to proove better at the length in triall of whatsoever plight it seeme in your writing For let it fare as it may in Topickes in Analytickes it must fast it can not away with moode and figure And what if you thinke not that shee might neither as I thinke you doe not vnlesse you thinke contraries or speake otherwise then you thinke For your selfe affirme that the putting on of wemens rayment which is termed an abomination to the Lord in the place of Deuteronomie is the wearing of it ordinarily so to converse among men and wemen against the course of all naturall and civill regard But Thetis intending thereby to hide Achilles did clothe him to converse so ordinarily among men and wemen even longer then he would endure to converse so though he endured for certaine yeares Therefore that which shee did you thinke to bee abominable yea pronounced in Scripture an abomination to the Lorde The lesse materiall is it whether that be true which by the way I noted that Statius the Poet making Chiron Calchas and Achilles himselfe to reproove the putting of

Rome not what is done there but what ought to bee done there Else by these verie examples that you stand o●… not onelie kinges but also their sonnes may put to death and that for wanton touching not onelie for adulterie nor their owne subiects alone but forein embassadours yea their servants also though innocent and giltlesse and make a bootie of their cariage their treasure their furniture all against the kinges advise and commaundement for so did the sonne of Amyntas And a man whose countrie doeth need and craue his seruice in lawfull warre against their enemies may for feare of death vse Vettienus his shifts to keepe at home a youth that is in loue may put on maidens raiment as Chaerea did the Eunuches for his Pamphilaes sake a sonne may obey his mother not in the Lord but against the Lorde and by her commaundement behaue him selfe vnduetifullie cowardlie wantonlie for so did the sonne of Thetis Wherein by the way you may obserue too both what inconvenience and danger of vncleannesse cleaveth to this practise and how Heathen men by the light of nature did descry the shamefulnesse of it and condemned it For as hee whose fact your selfe adiudge wicked Clodius I meane did satisfie his vilanous lust with Caesars wife by cladding him selfe in womans raiment semblably Achilles deflowred Deidamia king Lycomedes daughter by the same occasion And Statius who reporteth the storie so to terme it with you most exactlie saith that Chiron the instructer and bringer vp of Achilles would not haue suffered his mother to haue had him away Si molles habitus tegmina foedafateri Ausa foret that Calchas the Prophet being filled wth Apollos spirit cryed out O scelus en fluxae veniunt in pectora vestes Scinde puer scinde timidae ne crede parenti that Achilles him selfe did say vnto Deidamia Neque ego hos cultus aut foeda subissem Tegmina ni primo te visa in littore and vnto his mother Paruimus genitrix quanquam haud toleranda jubebas Paruimus nimium and vnto Ulysses that Maternum nefas had caused him to put on indecores fatorum crimina cultus The wich resolutions and speeches being attributed to heathen men by an heathen and him an excellent Poet who so well discerned what was fitt and seemely for every one to speak and thinke that in this respect he is preferred by a learned iudicious autor before Homer doe argue and declare that wise vertuous persons represented in Chiron would not haue a man for safegard of his life vndergoe the shame of wearing womans raiment that religious folke having the Spirit of GOD as Calchas is imagined accounted it a heinous crime and wished children to rent such raiment when it were put on and therein disobey their parents that ingenuous valiant youths like Achilles may be ensnared for loue sake to weare it not for life and doo it for reuerence of parents though with griefe and lay the fault afterward vpon their mothers and the destenies that they were tainted with such dishonour Thus is it apparant euen by the example which your selfe commende that as S. Paul obserueth on the like occasion nature and scripture ●…each the same and the moral law of God and law of nature agreeing both in one doo prooue it to be simply vnlawfull and evill for men to put on wemens raiment But suppose it were not vnlawfull simply alwayes because a great Diuine saith it is a great question whether a man may do it to deliuer his countrie from an enemie though him selfe seeme to approoue the negatiue and a certaine Schoolman affirming it to be euill and naught of it selfe saieth that it may neuerthelesse be done for necessitie perhaps vpon I know not what conceit of somewhat ceremonial in it but suppose a man might doe it for the sauing of his life or countrie yet your reason faileth in the consequution that a man may therefore doe it to play a part in comedies or tragedies Dauid when he was hungry did eate the shewbread which was not lawfull for him to eate and our Sauiour sheweth that he did well therein But if he hah done it in sport and of a meriment when no neede enforced the law which condemned a man for gathering stickes vpon the Sabbatday would haue condemned him too The graue Athenian Iudges Areopagitae did never punish any I trow for killing quailes to supply his want But whē a lewd boy did picke out quailes eyes of a wanton humor they iudged him worthy of death for it Good Emperours haue allowed men to doe their workes of tillage and husbandrie on the Soonday when other dayes the season serveth not What to haue stage-playes vpon the Soonday therefore or running of horses or beare-baytings No they disallowed it He that should spende his life as Samson did in avenging him selfe of the Philistines might haue the same testimonie of faith which Samson had But if one should spende it to shewe men Theater-pastime as that fellowe did who played Icarus before Nero and falling down neere to his chamber sprinkled him with blood wel might he earne the praise of Icarus Wherefore albeit a man for the performance of necessarie dueties might putt on womens raiment yet would it not folow thereof that he may doe it to play a part in Enterludes Much lesse will that conclusion followe which in steede hereof you sett downe generallie thereby to fetch about this hidden cōclusion For you doe inferre as proved by those examples with the contrarie of Clodius that it is no fault for young men to weare womens raiment but to doe it as Clodius with a lewde intent of committing whoredome beguiling and deceyving neither doeth anie apparell but the minde make a man dishonest And so assuming hereto that none of your young men who were attired like women had anie such intent or meaning you implie by consequence that it was no fault for them to be attired so and therefore men may lawfully put wemens rayment on to play But what a foundation this frame is built vpon the consequence in religion and reason both will shew The Scripture saith that wemen praying or prophecying ought to haue a veile or couer on their heads in token of subiection but men ought not to haue so Nowe what if a man should preach or pray in the Church with such a veile as women beare in this respect with a calle for examples sake or with a French hoode should he offende or no Your inference sayeth Nay vnlesse he weare it with a lewde intent as Clodius did For no apparell but the minde doeth make a man dishonest and therefore it is no fault for a man to pray with a French hoode on his head But Saint Paul sayth otherwise and though he would graunt the wearing of it with Clodius minde to be

Wherefore that of Terence wherewith you conclude saying that you thinke it was a fowle shame for noble men and Nero to play but to play noble men or Nero it is no shame for you as hee saith in the Comedie Duo quum idem faciunt saepe vt possis dicere Hoc liceti mpunè facere huic illi non licet Non quòd dissimilis res sit sed quòd is qui facit although you straiten the point whether for shame or for the figure when you speake of playing noble men and Nero your purpose being to iustifie the playing of the basest drunkards whooers too but if Terences saying would fitt the point in question the vse thereof must bee to proove that they might lawfully come on the stage you may not The truth is that it cannot bee applyed hereto because the law speaketh generally of stage-players as it doeth of bawdes of theeves with the like and common sense doeth teach vs that wee may not distinguish where the lawe distinguisheth not Else if I should say that by the same law our English theeves who robbe on Gaddes hill are infamous one of their abbetters might aunswer No not so for the Law speaketh of such as Lucius Tubulus men of wealth and state who robbed the whole worlde repairing vnto Rome not of poore good felowes that robbe a few Kentish men travailing to Graves-end and I thinke it was a fowle shame for rich men and Tubulus to robbe but to robbe riche men and Tubulus it is no shame for vs as he saith in the Comedie that oftentimes you may say when two men doe the same thing the one is not blameworthy for it the other is not as if there were difference in the thing it selfe but in the man that doeth it Which Comicall sentēce though it might be as well applied by Iustice Graybeard to the excuse of theft in poore men as by Terences Mitio it is to the excuse of whoordom in a young man yet were it vniustly applied therevnto because the law condemning theft in whomsoever without respect of persons bee they rich or poore doeth count it none of those things which fall within the compasse of Terences oftentimes So considering stage-players are spoken of in like sort as theeves by the law you see how Terences saying may be applied vnto them But if we might apply it vnto them iustly wee must inferre thereof that it was no shame for Nero his mates to come on the stage for you it is as S. Paul commandeth vs not to eate with any that is called a brother if he be a fornicatour which with an infidell committing the same filthines he doeth not forbid And thus while you endevour to vnwind your selfe out of the nett of ignominie and infamie cast vpon you by the civill lawe you are bound faster in it to the fulfilling of that proverbe which I wish you had marked in the Comedie rather if not in the Scripture It is hard to kicke against prickes In the second head to a reason drawn out of the law of God for the reproofe of stage-playes as now you handle it denying that you made it to proove that men may lawfully put on wemens raiment therein as I tooke it though howe iust cause I had to take it so I haue declared but vnto this reason grounded on the law of God in Deuteronomie Whatsoever man doeth put on womans raiment he is abominable to the Lord But men did put on wemens raiment in your playes you must acknowledge therefore that you were iustly blamed you reply in like sort as vnto the former of the civill law first that the prohibition of men to weare wemens rayment is not generall but toucheth certaine cases onely next that your players did not weare wemens raiment And because in treating of the prohibition I shewed out of the Scriptures that it doeth belong not to the ceremoniall law but to the morall and no parte of the morall law may bee transgressed no not for the saving of honour wealth or life my proofes hereof beeing so cleere strong and pregnant that you durst not deny the thing to bee prooved you moue a dout as your terme is out of wordes of mine in deede you reason thus against it I pray you giue mee leaue to propose my contrary dout The morall law as you truely say is the law of loue and charitie to the which wheresoever the ceremonial law is repugnant there it giveth place to the morall The morall law therefore is never contrarie to loue and charitie in commanding or forbidding any thing But the place of Deutero nomie being taken strictly absolutely and in the rigor of the letter may sometimes hinder the actions of loue and charitie both towards our selves and others as in those cases which both you and I propose Ergo in that strictnes it belongeth rather to the law ceremoniall though the equitie thereof pertaineth to the law morall and so it is perpetually and simply to bee observed Nowe I haue given you leaue to propose your contrary dout I pray you giue me leaue to propose my contrary question In the same booke of Deuteronomie it is written Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit adulterie These precepts beeing taken strictly absolutely and in the rigor of the letter may sometimes hinder the actions of loue and charitie both towardes our selves and others as appeereth by the example of Ioseph and of David Ioseph who lost his libertie and put his life in hazard because he refused to commit adulterie with his Maisters wife David who cast his folowers and him selfe into sundry dangers and distresses because he would not kill Saul Herevpon I aske you whether you thinke that seeing the morall lawe bound Ioseph David to loue their neighbours themselves therefore they should haue made no scruple of adulterie and murder in these cases in which the forbearing thereof did hinder the actions of loue toward them selves and others but ought to haue iudged those precepts in that strictnes to belong rather to the law ceremonial though the equitie thereof pertaineth to the law moral and so it is perpetually and simply to be observed Which if you thinke not as God forbid you should and you will professe as I am perswaded that you detest such thoughts then doe you acknowledge that it came rather of a lust to crosse and contradict my speech then of any dout you had within your selfe that you say a precept which beeing strictly kept might breede some disadvantage to our selves or others must in this respect bee counted ceremoniall and not be kept strictly because the morall law is never contrarie to love and charitie in commanding or forbidding any thing And sure you might haue reason to take it not well if I should suppose you to be so ill catechized as that you knew not that the moral law commandeth vs to

it were which Nero gaue to Acte he had no whit the lesse in his coffers to giue others Sophistrie if by the woorde neverthelesse you meane notwithstanding For Phoedria in the Comedie mought haue helped Parmeno notwithstanding the moony that he spent on Thais Yet the greater charge he was at with his harlot the lesse had he remaining to giue his poore seruant And your dout if Nero had ever any such good minde will bee as badly opposed vnto my speech of his lesse willinglesse For both him selfe having so good a minde once became worse minded afterward when he was growen wastfull such wayes yea simply wastfull prooving that to bee possible which Aristotle iudgeth not easy to bee done and if he had alwayes bene equally ill-minded yet commeth it otherwise to passe in mans nature as you might haue learned by Caesar and Plutarch Of whom the one beholding certaine rich strangers and foreiners at Rome carying whelpes of dogges and apes in their bosomes and making much of them did aske Whether wemen brought not foorth children in their countries the other saith that Caesar herein gaue a woorthy and princely admonition to them who doe consume wast vpon beasts the naturall affection and loue due to men Both evidently shewing that the more wee spend on thinges of lesse value the lesse we are disposed to spend on thinges more pretious sith as a mans loue is so is his willingnes to spend for loue sake and the loue of apes and dogges may better stande with the loue of Children eche of them beeing to bee loved though not alike then expenses on playes may with releeving of the poore the Lorde accounting mercy had vpō the poore as had vpō him selfe mony spēt on playes being as mony spent on harlots Wherfore if you wil be sutable to your self as you deale for playes so for the loue of apes dogges for which you may more reasonably your threefold answer against Momus in your own defense is quicklie turned against Caesar Plutarch for those strangers The loue which they did beare to the whelpes of dogges and apes was their owne loue it was not Caesars or Plutarchs great might it be to Caesar and Plutarch meane to them neither would they loue children the lesse for that nor more without it And as you assaulted Momus with the Scripture telling him that Iudas his speech who said what needed this wast is an evill speech and nowe notwithstanding the difference betwene your playes and Christ vs and Indas doe thinke that it may also be applyed against either the niggardise or the hypocrisie of any Momus that shall condemne all expense as cast away that is sometime moderatly bestowed vpon honest sportes and pastimes and not vpon the poore so what letteth you to thinke that it may also bee applyed against either the clownishnes or the hypocrisie of Caesar and Plutarch who condemned all loue as cast away that is sometime moderatly bestowed vpon sweete whelpes of dogges and apes and not vpon children For if you should answer the case is vnlike because you can not proove that mens colling and dandeling of such whelpes is seemely which Caesar and Plutarch sawe good cause to reproove you must bee remembred that yet you may say the thing is seemely though say it onely and deny their reproofe to bee iust though not refute it as you avouch against mee that your playes were honest and lawfull recreations whatsoever is rather obiected then prooved to the contrary Nay if Caesar or Plutarch had beside their reasons to proove it vnseemely alleaged sundry testimonies of Romans and Grecians so esteeming it as I did the iudgements of a Lacedemonian of Horace of Tullie of other learned men to shew that they deemed such cost as you were at to bee vaine and wastfull yet as you reply to me that all Paynim and heathen iudgement you haue answered in the defense of your first reason so might you to them that all the testimonies which they bring you haue aunswered in the prologue of your last play I haue read that whē the Spaniards invincible navie mett with ours about some five yeares since vpon the narow seas it was published in print at Parise by Mendoza the Spaniards procurement that they gott a brave victorie wherein my Lorde Admirall of England with sixteene of the Queenes great shippes were sunke to the bottome of the sea and the rest put to flight with the Vice-admirall Francis Drake But God bee thanked wee saw my Lord Admirall of England alive at her Maiesties late being here with vs and now may the Mendozians picke out of their owne Mercurius Gallobelgicus that neither any one shippe of the Queenes navie were it great or small was sunke by the Spaniards nor the Vice-admirall put to flight And thus at length approching vnto the conclusion I come to your maintenance of that which you obiected concerning the iudgement of our Vniversitie Wherewith least I passe any thing of weight in your reply as you doe many in mine I will ioyne that elswhere you touch about the woorshipfull sometimes honorable presence at your playes and those reverend famous and excellent men for life and learning and their places in the Church of God who haue bene not onely writers of such things them selves but also actors and doe thinke well of them as you affirme to this day Our Vniversities iudgement therefore you avow that you produced rightfully to the approoving of your playes because the greater part of the Universitie did with their harty applause approove them An argument that neither layeth sound foundation nor buildeth therevpon to purpose For how proove you first that the greater part did with their harty appause approove them seeing you acknowledge that many some absent some present disallowed them Forsooth you say you are sure of it But your bolde avouching thinges you are not sure of doeth make mee dout of your assurance For vpon my speech that certaine who came thither were pressed therevnto by great importunitie you wish they had more truly and more charitably for dansing kissing and other demeanour reported to me of your playes with such a minde as you will forbeare you say to speake of Wherein you doe charge them how charitably iudge your selfe but questionlesse most vntruly with making false reports of your playes to me to whom they made no report at all thereof Yea you take vpon you to pronounce of their thoughts and say they did it with such a minde as in your figurative forbearing to speake of you speake most bitterly of and raise a very wrongfull and vile suspicion of them Againe where I tolde you how the grave and learned man our common friend shewed me his dislike of the representation of amorousnes and drunkennes in the Comedie both the former not in it onely you say that you know how farre hee did somewhat dislike some Comicall