practise it and with many priuie nippes they deride them Stud. Albeit I haue not bin much abroad so that out of experience I can say little how men practize that in their déedes which in words they professe yet I make no doubt but that at this time and this age there are more wicked meÌ„ who denie God by their déeds whom in words they professe then euer were since the world began For albeit there haue béene alwaies vngodly men yet at one time they abound more then in other The Scripture foresheweth vs that in these last daies corruption of maÌ„ners should abound 2. Tim. 3.1 2. Pet. 3.3 2. Pet. 2. as errour in doctrine was prophesied should come immediately after the time of the Apostles termed the latter daies by the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.1 the truth of which prophesies the wofull experience of our forefathers can testifie of the one I meane the greatnesse of errour in doctrine of the other corruption of life and conuersation we who now liue cannot but acknowledge it to our griefe your selfe perceiue it finde it true Euen by this that all things come to passe according as the word of God foresheweth should come to passe I gather an vnfallible argument that the word of God Religion is not any inuention of man but that all things are disposed by the hand of God otherwise who can foretell many yeares before what afterwards shall come to passe Only God the disposer of al things can tell vs what shall come to passe Who therfore foresheweth vs what euils are to come and when that we might know that there is nothing which commeth to passe but by his disposition as also that being forewarned we might be the better armed and encouraged to withstand them since we know that they come not by chance but by the ordinance of God for our good if we patiently endure them and manfully withstand them As for the prowd disdainefulnesse of godles men who estéeme those fooles that sincerely endeauour to liue a godly life I do not much maruaile at it for in reason they cannot haue any better opinion of them presupposing that which they falsely presume that the whole felicitie of man is confined within the compasse of this present life that the soule dieth with the body that after this life there shall be no iudgement no heauen no hell no happinesse no reward for vertue and godlinesse no torment for lewdnesse of life and vngodlinesse that man is born by chance and also dyeth by chance They who thus think cannot but estéeme those fooles as Lactantius very well obserueth who whilst they expect future ioyes after this life Lib. 7. cap. 5. de diuino praemio doe let passe present pleasures and delights and whilst they expect happinesse not seene doe forgoe present worldly ioyes which are séene whilst they endeauour to auoide euils to come they runne into present euils This seemeth madnesse and foolishnesse to worldly wise men But notwithstanding this wrong conceite which Worldlings haue of godly men no reason it is that godly men should indéede become fooles either to please fooles or to séeme to be wise If the question be well discussed who are the wisest whether they who enioy al the pleasures of this world without respect of diuine and humane lawes or they who abstaine from voluptuous liuing and forgoe pleasures and commodities in respect of diuine humane laws it will easilie appeare who are the wisest Yea God himselfe hath pronounced of the wisdome of worldly men that it is but vaine But of the other wisdome Ps 94.11 1. Cor. 3.20 Pro. 16.16 Pro. 2.12 Iob 28.13 God saith that It is better than gold and siluer that It keepeth those that haue it from euill that it delighteth the soule And Iob speaking of the excellencie of it saith that Man cannot knowe the price of it This being so little cause haue any to be discouraged from well doing because fooles take them to be fooles Now wheras you say that Religion is but the inuention of certaine politick meÌ„ to restraine men froÌ„ offending and to kéep the simpler sort in obedieÌ„ce for feare of future punishments after this life herein you much mistake the matter for were it only a subtile deuice of men and not a truth it would soone be descried for a forgerie and come to naught For common experience prooueth which also a great Polititian Gamaliel I meane doth not only acknowledge but also set it downe for a most sure grounded truth and prooueth it by former examples that the counsailâ— deuise which commeth not of God Act. 5.38 will come to naught Now that there is a God which rewardeth the iust and punisheth the wicked all men all Nations haue and do acknowledge Begin at the first borne in the world Cayne and Abell there was then no common wealth to gouerne so that they had no cause to dissemble a Religion Gen. 4.3 Yet they acknowledge a God and they sacrificed vnto God Come from these two first borne men and goe through all Nations that euer were and are to this day and you shall finde that saying of a heathen man Cicero who knew not God a right to bée most true That there is no Nation so barbarous but doth acknowledge a God For God hath reuealed himselfe vnto men many waies sometimes by visioÌ„s somtimes by dreams sometimes by his wonders sometimes by his reuelations and written word But most generally to all men without exception Rom. 2.15 By his written law in the hearts and consciences of all men By vertue of which written lawe in their hearts al men naturally know good from bad That the good is to be embraced that euill is to be auoyded That the good and righteous man is worthy of reward That wicked and euill men are worthie punishment That truth is to be embraced That errour is to bée eschewed insomuch that no man can pretend any excuse when he doth euill since all men haue a naturall light whereby they may discerne good from bad As wée may sée amongst all heathen people who albeit they erre in the maÌ„ner of worshipping God yet in that euery Nation throughout the world haue their seuerall Ceremonies Rites Sacrifices and peculiar manner of worshipping their Gods they shew in general that God is to be worshipped they erre not In pietatis affectu sed in religionis delectu as one saith in the they make lawes appoint punishments for euill dooers and rewards for those that doe well They shew that piety iustice honesty is to be embraced Nay they shew that not only man punisheth wickednesse but that there is a God that regardeth the doings of men as wée may sée in those Marriners which carried Ionas â—â—nas 1.5 who of all men most commonly least feare God or men yet when God stirred vp a tempest they being in ieopardie of their liues each of them called vnto his God though they
earth as doe the carkasses of beasts but the soule doth not so it goeth to God who gaue it Now Salomon was the wisest man that euer was as you acknowledge and in matters of difficulty wee ought to giue credence to the wisest men and this you will stand to acknowledge now your errour Trau Salomon only affirmeth this he giueth no reason for it Now if wise men varie in opinion and some of them giue reason for their opinion and some only affirme shewing no reason I will beleeue those who shewe reason more then the bare assertion of any You know Aristotle was an admirable wise man whose learning all men iustly admire and reuerence who also concerning this point hath written three bookes and by many reasons discourseth of this matter and hath laboured much in searching of the truth herein yet he affirneth the contrarye therfore you must pardon me if I dissent from Salomon who hath not laboured so farre in this matter as Aristotle hath Stud. It is well as long as Salomon séemed to deny the immortality of the soule he was the wisest man that euer was or shall be and then you had great reason to beléeue him but now it is prooued that hee taught the contrary now you haue found a wiser thē he Salomō now is not to be beleued because he only affirmeth the immortality of the soule but by reason proueth it not as thogh wise men would affirme anye thing without any ground of reason In that he onely affirmeth it you imagine that hee had reason so to doe else you denie him to bee a wise man But I doubt not but that Aristotle will bee of as small authoritie with you ere we haue done I pray therefore let vs heare your reasons out of Aristotle Tra. It is a position in Aristotle that whatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end but the soule hath a beginning therfore it hath an end A second reason is this euery naturall forme is corruptible with that whereof it is the forme as Aristotle saith Phisicorum 4. text 17. but the soule or life of man is the naturall forme of man As Aristole affirmeth lib. 3. de anima text 17. Therefore when man dieth his soule also dyeth with him Both the maior and the minor are the very words of Aristotle and I conclude directly ex praemisis A third most euident reason I take out of the eight booke of Aristotle denatura animalium cap. 1. where he sayth that the life or the soule of a man in his childhoode differeth nothing frō the life of beasts but the life of beasts are not immortall therfore the soule of man is not immortall A fourth reasō I gather out of Aristotle Lib. 1. Diuinorum text 35. Lib. 2. D◠anima text 7. that no eternall thinge can bee part of a mortall thing but the soule of a man is a part of man as Aristotle affirmeth therfore the soule of man cannot be immortall Stu. Many excellent Philosophers haue searched into the nature of the soule of man béesides Aristotle and written of it who giue excellēt reasons to shew the immortality of it as Hermes Tresmagistus Plato Plotinus Zenophon Plutarch Seneca and many Poets and heathen men Why should you reiect the reasons and opinions of all these notable men and stick onely to Aristotle Tra. Because I like his reasons best Stud. It is a straunge thing that you should refuse the authority of the scripture and the opinion of all other excellent wise learned Philosophers and sticke onely to one But if Aristotle faile you in this point will you then confesse that to deny the immortality of the soule is absurd against the authoritie of the scripture and opinion of all the learned in all ages Trau Yes I may well enough for I knowe Aristotle is verie cleare in this point Stu. Well then now I come to answere your reasons out of Aristotle and first before I answere in particular to any of your reasons I must tell you this in generall that Aristotle doth not in his three bookes de anima speake of the substance and essence of the soule of man but of his faculties powers operations in which respect the soule is said to be the naturall forme of man and actus corporis as for the substance and essence of the soule because it is a spirituall substance and not a naturall facultie of the body therefore it pertayneth not to naturall philosophy to handle it This I speake not vppon coniecture but Aristotle himself in plaine termes telleth you this in his second booke de anima the second chapter the last words of the chapter Now thē if you wil beléeue Aristotle him selfe expounding himselfe you must vnderstand whatsoeuer he saith in his thrée bookes de anima to be spoken of the vegitable and sensible life of men and beasts and not of the intellectuall and reasonable soule of man and he giueth a reason why in those books he speaketh not of it because saith he the intellectuall reasonable soule or life of man is a certaine diuine substance subsisting of it selfe separable from the body and in this respect not actus corporis not the naturall forme of the body and the better to illustrate his meaning he compareth the soule of a man in the body to a Marriner in a ship As a Marriner is of a different nature from the ship subsisting of himselfe so is the soule of man in the body of a different nature from the body of a far more excellēt nature subsisting of it selfe As the Marriner giueth motion vnto the ship and directeth it this way and that way whither so euer it pleaseth him to saile so the soule of man guideth the body whither it pleaseth him to goe As the Marriner hath a vigilent care and loue to his shippe to sée to it that it take no harme repayreth the decayes of it so the soule careth for the good of the body causeth it to decline from those things which are hurtful for the body by his sensible and vegitable faculties daylie repayreth the decaying body As the Marriner doth not decay with his ship but is safe and sound though his ship leake or by reason of age rotte away so neither is the soule of man any whitte the worse though his body decay turne to corruption This in generall might suffice to answere all which might be brought out of Arilio les books de anima but because you shal haue no cauil I will in particular answere euerie one of your arguments This is your first argument Whatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end But the soul of man hath a beginning therefore it hath an end I graunt your whole sillogisme to be generally true without exception in thinges whereof Aristotle maketh this generall Maxime Namely in things natural cōposed of the foure elements but the reasonable and intellectuall soule of man is not a naturall thing composed of the foure elements as
themselues it were better through their own default that they had neuer bin and therefore Christ our Sauiour saith not simply of Iudas that it were better he had neuer béene borne but it were better for Him that he had neuer béene borne For if it had not béene good either in respect of himselfe or of the whole that he should be borne hee should neuer haue béene for God createth nothing but to some good purpose But our Sauiour saith of Iudas that it had béene better for Him that he had neuer béene borne as it may bee said of all the wicked in respect of themselues it had béene better they had neuer béene borne by reason of the euerlasting torments which by their iust desert they are to endure But necessary it was that there should be a Iudas and wicked men For who but a wicked Iudas would euer attempt the betraying the Sonne of God into the hands of his enemies who but wicked men would hier for monie false witnesses to accuse our Sauiour Christ of malice and enuie put the innocent to death These are necessarie executioners of the will of God though they doe these things not to fulfill the will of GOD but mooued thereunto by their owne ill affections and drawe on themselues such miseries that it were better for them that they had neuer béene borne Trau Well say that these words are to bee vnderstood of sinne and not of the misery of the afflictions which ordinarily come vnto those whome you cal the elect of God I am sure you will not denie but that Paul was one of these elect and yet hee saith of himselfe and generally of all those that professe Christ that in respect of the miseries of afflictions which happen to thē in this world they be of all men most miserable which directly prooueth my assertion cleane ouerthroweth all that you haue spoken Stud. Nay you wrest the words of Paul to your purpose contrary to their sence concluding that without exception which he affirmeth with exception saying 1. Cor. 15.19 If in this life only we haue hope in Christ we were of all men most miserable which is a most true spéech out of with you would conclude that which is most false For as S. Paul saith if our hopes in Christ were bounded in the limits of this present life surely none so miserable as a true Christian on whome for the most part greatest afflictions fall But this hope in Christ altereth the misery of afflictions which falleth on them as a pleasant sauce altereth the taste of harsh meates causeth that which in his owne nature is very vnsauourie to seeme very pleasant and swéete Take away this plesant sauce and harsh and vnpleasant meates will be offensiue to our taste and take away hope in Christ frō a true Christian and he will be of all creatures most miserable this hope maketh sower afflictions séeme pleasant For he that is a true Christian knoweth the all afflictions come by the appointment of God he is perswaded of the goodnesse of God who layeth no affliction on any of his elect but for their good either to exercise their patience and other vertues to represse their lasciuious natures which otherwise in prosperitie would grow vitious or to stir vp in them their hartie and zealous prayers who otherwise would careleslie and seldome thinke on him or seriously consider remember that he is the gouerner of all things Or if in particular they cannot coniecture the cause why God afflicteth them yet they vndoutedly know that God wil turne them to their good and therfore they willingly ioyfully embrace them They know that their corrupt nature néede such medicines to kéepe them in the true obedience of Gods will therefore are such afflictions welcome vnto them They know that God receaueth no sonne Heb. 12.6 but whome he correcteth and that they are bastard sons whom he correcteth not Wherefore with ioy they endure them as special notes and arguments of Gods loue towards them Thus you sée that farre happier is the estate of the godly euen in this life then the estate of the vngodly For the godly enioy sincere gladnesse of hart euen in the middest of tribulation but the wicked in their greatest iollitie haue feares mistrustfulnesse which marre their mirth they haue as Iob saith a continuall feare sounding in their eares 2. Corin. 5.12 they reioyce in the face but not in the heart it is neuer sincere The reason hereof is because God as a louing careful father ouer his childrē hath appointed vnto euery mā in particular a Tutor or Schoolemaster continually to watch ouer him I mean hath placed a conscience in euery man who not onely sheweth him and continually aduiseth him to embrace that which is good but also when hee hath done well doth glad him with preasent delight in that he hath done well and also filleth him full of good hopes to be rewarded for his well doing so that there is no man but feeleth this in himselfe when he hath well done a reioycing that hee hath done well and that his good hopes are encreased as I said before But contrariwise this conscience disswadeth vs from doing euill and if wee disobey him hee layeth before vs the iudgment of God No man can deny his doome but is constrained to confesse that he which euil doth deserueth punishmēt himselfe being iudge Hence springeth feares mistrustfulnesse and a continuall expectation of punishments due vnto his offences Wherefore most vnhappie is the estate of the wicked who in this life neuer enioy any sincere ioy but such as is mixed with feare and in the life to come are to endure vnspeakeable and endlesse torments But most happie is the estate of the godly who in this world euen in the middest of their tribulatiō enioy great and sincere ioy knowing God continually to watch ouer thē for their good expecting alwaies perfect and euerlasting ioyes in the life to come Trau True in the life to come they must looke for it for in this life they haue but cold comforts but this to come is a meere fansie For if you will beleeue Scripture or reason the soule hath an end of being whē the body dyeth and dieth with the body which being so what neede any man feare future punishments or why should any expect any ioyes after this life since after this life we shall haue no life or being Stud. Whereas you say that the godly haue but cold comforte in this life you so say because you neuer had any taste of the comforts of the children of God and therefore you cannot iudge of them Whereas you say that the life to come is a méere fansie because as you say the soule dyeth with the body you speake against both Scripture and reason how soeuer you pretend the contrary Trau Nay but I will prooue it plainely out of the Scripture and by manifest reason too Stu. I pray let vs heare
Aristotle himselfe confesseth therefore this position of Aristotle VVhatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end maketh nothing against the immortalitie of the soule albeit it hath a beginning Your second reason is this Euery natural forme is corruptible with that wherof it is a forme But the soule of man is the naturall forme of man therefore when man dyeth the soule dieth also To this I answeare that the resonable soule of man may be considered 2. waies either according to his essence or according to his operations powers and faculties his operations also are of 2. kindes whereof some are such as the soule exerciseth without any instrument of the bodie as his intellectuall powers as for example the soule of man iudgeth of truth and falshood discourseth of the naturall causes of thinges and by the effects of thinges searcheth into the causes of things it discourseth of celestiall matters and things inuisible these and the like operations the soule vseth without any ayd or helpe of the body and these remaine still with the soule though the body perish other faculties the soule exerciseth in the body and by the ayd of the bodie In the bodie when it giueth life vnto the bodye by his sensible and vegitable faculties and in respect of these his faculties and operations the soule is truely said to bée the naturall forme of man and these sensible and vegitable operations of the soule dye with the bodye True therefore is your Maior Proposition that euery naturall forme dyeth with the wherof it is the forme but this is nothing against the immortality of the soule because the soule is not properly the naturall forme of man in respect of his substance but only in respect of some of his faculties because by his faculties it giueth life to man But if you respect his essence it is a spirituall substāce separable from the body without impeachment to his being and in this respect it is not the naturall forme of man Arist. lib. 2. de anima c. 1. vlt. verb. capitis as Aristotle himselfe doth confesse so that Aristotle being your iudge your argument is of no force Your thirde reason is this The soule or life of man in his childhood differeth nothing frō the life of beasts but the liues of beasts are not immortall Ergo. I confesse both the Maior and Minor to be most true in that sence as Aristotle speaketh them but not in the sence whereunto you wrest them Aristotle speaketh in that place not of the essence of the soule Li. 8. de nat anim ca. 1. whether it bee corruptible or immortall but only of the operation of mans soule in his childhood which as hee saith differeth then nothing from beasts which is most true Nay I say further in this respect beasts are to be preferred before children Childrē know not what is good or euil for thē but beasts naturally knowe what is good for them what is ill for them and they chuse the one and refuse the other But this assertion maketh nothing against the immortality of the soule Neither had Aristotle any intent to speake of it in that place Lib. 1. diuinarum as the circumstāce of it will manifest vnto you if you looke into it Your fourth reason is this No eternall thing can be a part of a mortal Lib. 2. de anima ca. 1. or a corruptible thing but the soule of man is a part of man therefore it cannot be immortall Both Maior and Minor are Aristotles I confesse I distinguish therefore of the soule if you respect his owne nature as a thing subsisting by himselfe it is not a part of mās body but if you consider his operation in giuing life to the body it is a part of mans body is as Aristotle saith actus corporis and the forme of the body Now that the soule according to his essence is not a part of the body of man but only in respect of his faculties and operations Aristotle himselfe plainely confesseth in many places as in his first booke de anima he saith that the intellectuall life or soule of man is contayned in no part of mans body and that he is separable from the body without any diminutiō or hurt to his essence This affirmeth he also in his second booke de anima in diuers places And in his third booke de anima he saith that the intellectuall part of the soule of man procéedeth not frō the matter of the body as all naturall formes doe and therefore by consequent it is eternall and not subiect to corruption Aristotle therefore himselfe being iudge the intellectuall soule is not a part of the body but only in some respect as by his operatiō it giueth life vnto man with he not only affirmeth but also explayneth his meaning by fit examples by the example of a Marriner which giueth motion to the Shippe and directeth it but is no part of the Shippe and by the example of a seale which causeth a certaine forme in the waxe but is no part of the waxe You may bruse the waxe together and marre the forme imprinted by the seale without any hurt at all to the seale so may the body of man turne to corruption whereunto the soule giueth a naturall forme by his operation yet without the hurt of the essence of the soule because it is a diuine substance subsisting by it selfe separable from the body by the confession of Aristotle himselfe Thus you see your reason is of no force by the opinion of Aristotle on whome only you relie Now because I will not be beholding to you for your foure reasons out of Aristotle against the immortality of the soule I will requite you with foure more out of Aristotle to prooue the immortality of the soule and if néede were I could double them since in this point you relie so much on him My first reason out of Aristotle is this God and nature saith he maketh nothing in vaine but the soule of euery man naturally desireth to be immortall to liue continually in euerlasting happinesse therefore is it immortall else this naturall desire of the soule of being euerlastingly in happinesse is made in vaine which Aristotle denyeth Other liuing creatures appetites runne on those things which presently they loue and like their imaginations runne not on pleasure to come they conceaue not of any felicity after this life much lesse do they desire it for they know it not God hath giuen to euery creature such seuerall appetites and desires as are agréeable to their seuerall natures the Horse desireth not to flie as God hath not giuen him meanes to flie the fish desireth not to walk on the land or liue on the land as God hath not giuen him meanes to walke neither is able to liue out of the water neither beasts fowles or fishes desire to abound in riches gold or siluer sith they haue no vse of it Generally God indueth no creature with any naturall desire
of the whereof he is not capable Now then sith God hath indued the soule of euery man with a naturall desire of continuing immortally in euerlasting hapines therfore he is capable of it according to the opinion of Aristotle who holdeth this as a sure ground that God and nature hath made nothing in vaine My second ground out of Aristotle for the immortality of the soule is this Whatsoeuer substaÌ„ce is not coÌ„posed of the foure elements is not corruptible for as he saith the cause of corruption procéedeth from the contrariety of the elements whereof they are made but the soule is not composed of the foure elements therefore the soule is not corruptible but immortall Both the Maior and Minor are Aristotles therefore according to Aristotle the soule is immortall My third reason which I take out of Aristotle is this The intellectuall and reasonable soule of man is a diuine substance which hath his being separable from the body whose essence is not contayned in any part of the body may be separated from the body as a thing incorruptible saith Aristotle whence I make this sillogisme whatsoeuer is a diuine substance separable from the body and incorruptible Howsoeuer the body of man perisheth is immortal but Aristotle saith that the soule is a diuine substance contayned in no part of the body separable from the body as an incorruptible thing froÌ„ a corruptible Therefore according to Aristotle the soule is immortall My fourth reason which I take out of Aristotle is this That substance whose operations depend not of the body his essence dependeth not of the body but the operations of the soule of man dependeth not of the body but of the spirituall and diuine substance whose essence is separable froÌ„ the body therfore it perisheth not with the body Both the Maior Minor are Aristotles which Aristotle proueth by the example of the eyes of old men If saith he an old man had the eye of a child hee would sée as cléerely as a child hereby signifying that the soule of man doth not impaire with the body as in diuers diseases it is manifest When as the body is most weake the faculties of the mind are most stronge then the minde and soule of man most sharply vnderstaÌ„deth any thing and is most iuditious then his desires are most vehement and his loue to goodnesse mislike of sinne is most ardent then that naturall inclination and desire of being euerlastingly in felicity doe most shew it selfe Which naturall affection and appetite of the soule were in vaine if the soule of man were not capable of immortality which is a thing flatly denyed by Aristotle that God should giue any naturall desire to any thing in vaine Besides these and many more arguments with I could bring out of Aristotle there are diuers other reasons which might be brought for the proofe of this point as that it cannot stand with the iustice of God that the soule of man should perish with his body because as there are many who haue seriously worshipped him and haue passed their liues agréeable to his will yet worse hath betide them then hath happened vnto those that haue dishonoured him so contrariwise many in this life haue liued most lewdly yet haue spent all their daies in great prosperity inriched with great wealth dignified with great honours Wherefore necessarily it followeth that there must be a life to come wherein the one is to be punished and the other rewarded It cannot stand with the mercy of God that the soule shold perish with the body since he made man the excellentest creature in the world whom he loueth aboue all creatures for whose sake hee made all the world and indued him with more speciall graces then all creatures euen in a manner equal to Angels and when he fel from the excellency wherin he created him spared not his only begotteÌ„ Sonne to redéeme him from misery and yet for all this if you consider man in this life onlie whether you respect the manifold diseases incident to his body or the infinite vexation of his mind hee is of all creatures in the world Diuels excepted the most miserable Now sith it so fareth with him in this life it cannot stand with the mercy and goodnes of God but to appoint a better place and better life where his goodnesse and mercy to man may bee shewed It cannot stand with the honour glorie of God that that creature shold euer perish the which hée hath made to behold and consider his euerlasting and maruailous workes to participate of his euerlasting goodnesse as to this purpose he hath made men and Angels And therefore of all the creatures vnder heauen hath made the countenance of man to looke vpwards his eyes rowling fit to turn euery way his necke flexible to looke round about that with facility ease he might contemplate behold all the works of God both aboue him about him and vnder him He hath indued him with reason to consider discourse on the excelleÌ„cy of them and only vnto man a tongue to expresse the power wisdome and goodnesse of God and to glorifie him for the goodnesse which he imparteth to his creatures Now if the reasonable soule of man made to glorifie God should perish then the chiefest instrument of Gods glory should perish but it cannot stand with the glory of God that the chiefest instrument of his glory should perish Therefore it is against al reason that the soule of man should perish with the body It cannot stand with naturall reason that the soule of man should perish with the body because the soule of man hath not his beginning from the substance of the body as the liues of beasts haue their beginning out of the matter substaÌ„ce of their bodies therefore it dyeth with their bodies because the beginning thereof came from a corruptible cause Their bodies are corruptible because they are composed of coÌ„trary qualities as your frend Aristotle confesseth But it is not so in the soule of man The soule of man is not made out of the matter of his body as Aristotle also confesseth but is a diuine substance which came froÌ„ God And here by the way suffer me to shew you that your Aristotle agreeth in this point with the Scripture When as God made the beasts sowles and créeping things hee said Let the earth bring forth euery liuing thing according to his kinde Genes 1.24.25 and in the words following it is said Gâ—d made the beasts of the earth But when God commeth to make man he speaketh after another manner saying Let vs make man where the holy Ghost speaking to the weaknes of our capacitie signifieth that man is of that excellencie that that God euen the Trinitie tooke consultation in making man Let vs make man When hee made other creatures hee saith only let this or that bee and it was done but when he commeth to make maÌ„ he sheweth to what
dignity hee ordayneth him and whereunto hée maketh him euen like vnto himselfe The soule of man which is properly man according to that speech in the Scripture Gen. 2.7 1. Cor. 15.45 MaÌ„ was made a liuing soule is the very image of God As God is infinite and knoweth all things so is the soule of maÌ„ made infinite to receaue all knowledge He neuer knoweth so much but is capable to know more Secondly as the will of God is infinite so is the will of man made infinite not tyed to will this or that but whatsoeuer it pleaseth it cannot be constrayned to will any thing Thirdly as God is infinitely good so is the soule of man capable of infinite goodnesse nay it neuer ceaseth vntill it attayneth it Make man a King he is not satisfied but his desire enlargeth it selfe farther Make him a Monarke he is not contented he will desire more Make him Lord of all the world yet is he not contented The reason hereof is because these thinges may bée bettered So that as the natures of the elements are they neuer cease vntill they come to the place of their proper elemeÌ„t The fire neuer ceaseth tending vpward vntill it be aboue the element of the aire nor the aire vntil it be aboue the water nor the water euer ceaseth to fall downward vntill it come to the bottome of the sea nor any part of the earth vntill it come vnto the center of the earth if it were not hindred So the soule of man neuer ceaseth vntill it come vnto God himselfe from whome it came No finite goodnesse can satisfie it but only that wherein there is no defect which only is God himself Fourthly as God is eternal so the naturall desire of the soule is to be eternall in happinesse and to liue euerlastingly Fiftly as God ruleth al the world and euery creature therein and giueth life vnto them and motion so the soule of man giueth life vnto all the body of man and motions vnto euery member thereof and ruleth the whole body according to his wil nay further man according to that authority which God hath giuen him hath authority ouer all the beasts of the field fowles of the ayre fishes of the sea and all earthly creatures to rule vse them at his pleasure as a pettie God on earth Sixtly as God ruleth all the world yet can he not be séene nor comprehended what he is so the soule ruleth the whole body yet can it not be séene nor rightly by humane reason be comprehended what it is Seauenthly as God is in the world but is not contayned in any part of the world so the soule of man is in the body of man but is not contayned in any part of the body as your Aristotle saith but by his reasonable and spiritual faculties discourseth of things far distant from the body he is with a trise discoursing of matters in forraigne countries and in the twinckling of an eye at home againe He is considering on things on earth and in a moment he mounteth vp to heaueÌ„ he is not wearied or payned with the greatnesse of the iourney There he discourseth on spirituall inuisible and diuine matters of the maiesty of God of his infinite wisdome power mercy and iustice of the felicity and eternall happines of the Angels all these the like operations the soule vseth without any ayde of the body Now in all things created there are two things to be considered the essence of the things and their operations There can be no operation of any thing whereof there is no essence no more theÌ„ there can be any accident without a subiect But you sée euen by the opinion of Aristotle that the soule hâ—th peculiar operations vnto himself no way depending on the ayde of the body Therefore the soule is a seuerall substance differing froÌ„ the substance of the body wâ—ose operations are diuine therefore their subiect the soule must néedes bee diuine But how now man what muse you on so stedfastly how do you now like Aristotle Trau I cannot tel what to say to this point it is hard for Aristotle or any humane reason wel to determine what the soule is it is so strange a thing Stud. You say right in diuine spirituall matters therfore you might doe well to beléeue diuine testimonies If you would but reade the Scripture beléeue it your mind would be easilie setled in this point and all others necessary for man to know in it there can be no errour Trau The Scripture no errour in it nay the Scripture was it that first draue me to these opinions For I find in it so many falshoods and vntruthes so many absurdities so many vnreasonable things that he is a sencelesse man that perceaueth it not and a foole that beleeueth it Stud. It is your manner to be confident in your opinion be it neuer so absurd But shew either any vntruth or absurdity or any vnreasonable thing contayned in the Scripture I will be of your opinion that no credit is to be giuen to the Scripture Trau Will you stand to your words Stud. Yes truely Trau Well then I will shewe you diuers playne and euident vntruths God sayd to Adam when he placed him in Paradise in that day that thou eatest of the tree of knowledge of good and euil thou shalt dye the death and in the next chapter following Moses saith that hee did eate of the forbidden fruite and dyed not and saith further in the 5. chapter Vers 5. that Adam liued nine hundred and thirtie yeares If he dyed not that day wherein hee did eate of the forbidden fruite But liued many yeares afterward and begat children Then that is not true that he should dye the same daye that hee should eate of the forbidden fruite If he dyed that day that he did eate of the forbidden fruite Then the other cannot be true that he liued so long and begat children then tell me which of these two are false The second vntruth I take out of the 4. chap. of Genesis When Caine had slaine his brother Abel God saith vnto him for his punishmeÌ„t a vagabond and a runnagate shalt thou be in the earth And yet in the same chapter it is sayd that Kain dwelt in the East side of Eden and builded a Citie If Caine were ahoushoulder and builded a Citie How was hee a vagabound and a runnagate both these cannot be true Tell me which of them is false A third vntruth I gather out of the whole scripture which is this large promises of health wealth and prosperitie vnto those that keepe the law of God And contrariwise many curses against the wicked Yet if the scripture be true they which in the Scripture are renowned for piety and holinesse were most afflicted and the wicked most abounded in prosperitie The like wee see in our dayes true for the most part Now tell mee whether these promises haue beene truely performed or no. A
fourth vntruth I take out of the booke of Iudges Iud. 10.13 where God saith to the Israelites that hee had manye times deliuâ—red them out of the hands of their enemies but when they were once freed then they would forsake him againe and fall to Idolatrie Therefore he gaue them this flat answere wheÌ„ they cryed vnto him in their troble that hee would helpe them no more Yet for all this he did helpe them afterwards How can this agree God would helpe them no more and that God did helpe them againe both cannot bee true Now for absurdities in the scripture this is one especiall Stud. Nay pray before you procéed further let me answere these which you call falshoodes and vntrueths Trau Yea pray answere theÌ„ if you can Stud. Iosephus recordeth that Sedechias King of Israell who had no intent or purpose to obay the will of the Lord Lib. 10. cap. 10. et 11. anti sought rather how is cauill with the words of the Prophets which were sent vnto him then either to knowe or obserue the will of the Lord so that when as Ieremias the Prophet prophesied that he should bée caried away captiue to Babilon except he repented and obayed the will of the Lord And Ezechiell also prophesied that hee should be made captiue vnto the King of Babilon and led away into captiuitie but he should neuer sée Babilon Sedechias comparing the wordes of these twoo Prophets together it séemed to him that there was a contradiction in their prophesies that one prophesying that hee should bée caried away captiue to Babilon the other prophesying that hée neuer should see Babilon Both these could not bee true as hée thought and if either of them were false both of them might be false and therefore he beleeued neither of them but continued still in his wickednes vntill he indéed he was carried away captiue vnto Babilon according to the prophesie of Ieremie but he neuer saw Babilon according to the prophesie of Ezechiell Ieremie 39.7 For the King of Babilon caused his eies to be pulled out of his heade before hee was brought vnto Babilon Such is the iudgement of God against the wicked 2. Pet. 2.19 that they who haue no purpose to obaye the will of God shall not vnderstand the woordes of God yea the word of God which is to others a light in darkenes to guide them the right waie is hidden vnto them nay it is a stuÌ„bling blocke vnto them Ioh. 7.15 if aeny man will do his will saith our Sauiour hee shall knowe of the doctrine whether it be of God or no them onely God teacheâ—h the right way who feare him and intend to keepe and obserue his commandements The true vnderstanding of the word of God is a secret resâ—rued as a peculier thing onely for such Psal 25.12.14 as in sinceretie feare the Lord as the Prophet Dauid saith And therfore when as our Sauiour spake in the presents of the malicious Scribes Pharisies hee spoke in parables for the pearles of God pertaine not vnto Dogs and Swine but he causeth his disciples to vnderstand them in priuate Saying Math. 7.6 cap. 15.26 vnto you it is giuen to know the secrets of the kingdome of heauen but vnto theÌ„ that is to the wicked and malicious it is not giuen I doe not meruaile therefore to see you as a corrupt stomake which turneth euen the best meates into corruption and matter of diseases with sound stomackes you turne into good nutriment so turne that which is most true in it selfe vnto falshood and absurdities being carried away with a preiudicial conceit more willing to cauill with then to vnderstaÌ„d the word of God Now that these are not vntruthes which you haue alleadged I will by the grace of God make most manifest The first with séemeth vnto you to be vntrue is in that God said vnto AdaÌ„ that he should die the same day that he should eate of the forbidden fruit but the Scripture testifieth that he died not the day that he did eate of the forbidden fruit but liued nine huÌ„dred and thirtie yeares afterwardes In these words there is no contradiction or falshood as you imagine that which that you may the better vnderstand you must know that there are thrée sorts of liues and thrée sorts of deathes thrée sorts of liues as first the corporal life which is the coniunction of body and soule in which vnion the soule giueth all vegitable sensible faculties vnto the body his intellectuall and reasonable faculties hee exerciseth without the body Secondly the spirituall life whereby wée liue vnto God when as we being made the temples of the holy Ghost liue a sanctified life vnto the honour of God A third kind of life is that spirituall life which after this life the Saints of God liue in the presence of God in fulnesse of ioy and happinesse Likewise there are three sorts of deathes a corporall death when as the soule departeth from the body leauing neither sence nor motion in the body Secondly there is a spirituall death in this life when as the spirit of God departeth from vs or is not resident in vs without whose presence and ayde we cannot but fall into all kind of wickednes neither can we haue any motions of godlinesse wherein consisteth a spirituall life A third kind of death is after this life when as a man is cast into hell body and soule there euerlastingly to endure torments vnspeakable Now true it is Adam died not the first kinde of death which is the seperation of the body and soule the same day he did eate of the forbidden fruit as it was not meant hée should but he died the second kind of death which is a reiection out of Gods fauour wherin the happie life of man consisteth and that God denounced vnto Adam the second kind of death and not the first S. Ambrose prooueth out of the words of the text God saith not to Adam what day thou eatest of the trée of knowledge of good euill thou shalt die saith S. Ambrose but thou shalt die the death by saying thou shalt die the death hee importeth more then if hee had said thou shalt die For in saying thou shalt die The death he signifieth that he should die the death of all deathes the greatest death of all others euen reiected out of the fauour of God and that he died this kind of death the same day he tasted of the forbidden fruit I néede not stand to prooue sith the thing is manifest so that there is no contradiction in the Scripture in this point but the fault is in your miscoÌ„struing it he died the same day he tasted of the forbidden fruit the second death and the same day also was his bodie made subiect to death which before by the fauour of God was immortall and this mortality of the body was the consequent of the second death To liue is to enioy those things which in
your reasons Tra. First I proue it by plaine testimony of the Scripture and first out of Ezechiel Cap. 18.20 The soule that sinneth the same shall die Againe Ec◠10.19 Salomon saith that The condition of the children of men and the condition of beasts are euen one as the one dieth so the other dieth for all haue one breath and there is no excellencie of man aboue the beasts Now if they both die alike how can it be that the soule of man should liue when man dieth I am sure you will not say that beasts haue soules which liue or haue any kind of beeing after they die Now if you reply that albeit beasts haue not yet the soules of men haue a being after they die then is not that true which Salomon affirmeth That there is no excellencie of man aboue the beast and that they both haue one breath alike which being so why should I either feare torments after this life for liuing ill or expect any rewards for that I haue liued well Now besides these euident testimonies of the Scripture I can also prooue this point by manifest reason and grounds of Philosophy as first Stud. Nay pray let me first answere your testimonies out of the Scripture then propose you humane reasons Trau Be it so Stud. Concerning your first authority out of Ezechiell The soule that shineth shall dye by dying you vnderstand a seasing or leauing off of hauing any further beeing as when a beast dyeth his life ceaseth to haue any further being in which vnderstanding you much mistake the meaning of the words for by dying there is nothing else mēt but that that soule which sinneth shall be reiected out of the fauor of God vnto euerlasting torments which is therefore termed a death because the loue of God is the true life of the soule which loue fauour being separated and taken away from the soule the soule is truely sayd to die Tra. But this answere cannot stand if the words of Salomon be true For he saith plainely that there is no excellencie of man aboue beasts that their breath is all one that they die alike but if man hath a soule which liueth euerlastingly capable of eternall blessednesse then there is an excellency in man far aboue beasts then they die not alike Where if you wil not deny flat scripture and denye the opinion of him who was the wisest man that euer was or euer shal be You must acknowledge that a man dieth like a beast and haue both one end one no better then another Stud. Sir you must consider that comparisons hold not in al things and therefore you must not extend stretch them farther then wherein they are cōpared Salomon in those words speaketh of the condition of mē and beasts according to the outward shew which by our eyes and senses wée can discerne and no farther he extendeth his comparison which words so farre are most true For in respect of their bodies their condition is both alike they both are made of the earth they both continue their naturall life by the benefite of the ayre their breath is in their nostrels as their bodies are made of the earth so they returne to earth againe when they die all their vegetatiue sensitiue faculties doe then end when they die In these things the conditions of man beast are all alike but aboue al these things God hath endued man with an intellectuall spirit a spirituall soule which as it was not made of the earth so it returneth not to the earth when man dieth as his body doth which was made of the earth but being a spirituall substance created of God of no materiall substance is no way subiect to mortality but alway hath his being in a more perfect manner after it is separated from the body Salomon doth not compare beasts with man in this respect For this soule of man is not subiect to the viewe of the eyes of men The soule is not a corporall substance but a spiritual substāce and therefore cannot bee séene with our bodily eyes to sée to be séene is onely proper to corporall bodies composed of elements the soule being not of this kinde it commeth not within the compasse of this cōparison which Salomon maketh betwéene the condition of men and beasts sith his comparison is only in matters visible and herein I confesse they nothing differ Trau Well sir I cannot hinder you from gathering a meaning of Salomons words contrary to their sence Salomon was wise enough to expresse his own meaning He saith plainely that there is no excellencie in man aboue beasts you say the contrary Here you stand not to Scripture and yet you would haue me beleeue Scripture I for my part haue great reason to set by the opinion of Salomon because he was the wisest man that euer was or euer shal be in matters of difficulty wee ought to giue credit to wise men Stud. It is well that now you vrge the authoritie of the Scripture if in shew it séeme any way to fauour your error now you haue reason to beléeue Salomon because he was the wisest man that euer was but if Scripture or wise men be against you you will stand to neither Trau Nay say not so though I yeeld not to the authority of Scripture yet I ascribe much vnto the opinion of wise men Stud. This I doubt you wil deny againe Trau Neuer Stud. Then stand to your words Now I wil shew you euidently by the very words of Salomon that he compareth mā and beast but only in things visible and no further so that it is not my bare coniecture what he meaneth but his own words do sufficiently manifest this to bee his meaning héere take the Bible read the words going next before those you haue alleadged or heare them read Salomon speaking in the verse before of the condition of men saith To see to they are as beasts for the condition of the children of men and the condition of beasts are euen one Now the words going before the testimony you alledge doe manifest wherein hee compareth them Vers 18. Namely To see to and he giueth instance in things visible as dying and breathing and thus farre and herein they are both alike Now to vnderstand a doubtfull text the best way saith Augustine is to consider that which goeth before that which followeth which if you had obserued you would neuer haue alleadged these words of Salomon for your errour Now to put the matter out of all doubt that Salomon acknowledgeth the immortality of the soule heare his words speaking of the death of man what followeth he saith the dust returneth to the earth whence it came Eccles Cap. 12.7 the spirit returneth to God that gaue it Here he speaketh distinctly of the body and soule of man of the body as he affrmed in the wordes which you alleaged that it dyeth and returneth to the