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
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
could I talke with you I haue all my sences this question is questionlesse Stud. But yet for all this Act. â— 38 you neuer saw your soule nor can wel describe vnto me what a thing it is Trau What if I neuer saw it nor can descibe it shall I therefore doubt whether I haue a soule or no her operations in me doe shew and prooue that I haue a soule Many things bee of that nature that they cannot be seene Gâ—â— 4.3 yet are no more to bee doubted of but that they are than whether the things which we see with our eyes are or no as the wind we see not yet our sence doth feele it my voice you see not yet you heare it we see not sweete or ill sauours yet our sence sheweth vs that there are such Stud. Were it not but that the Scripture teacheth me that God punisheth those who regard not to knowe him with a strange grosnesse of vnderstanding in spirituall matters and giueth them ouer to a reprobate sence 2. Thes 2 10.11.12 that they should not perceaue that which they sée I should much maruaile at you the like men Is it not strange that you can gather by consequent of reason that of necessitie there must he a guide in the shippe which sayleth in the sea because hee sayleth to the harbour auoyding all dangers which might annoy her which dangers shée could not possiblie auoid except she were guided by some hauing reason and skill how to direct and guide it And also acknowledge that you haue a soule in your body which what it is you caÌ„not sufficieÌ„tly describe only because it manifesteth it selfe vnto you by her operations in you so that no way you can doubt but that you haue a soule whose substance you neuer saw yet séeing the admirable order and course of all things in the world continually guided and preserued in an order farre passing the capacity of man doubt whether there be a God which made guideth and preserueth al things Herein you are farre worse theÌ„ heathen meÌ„ who albeit they were neuer instructed by the word of God yet by the continuall and orderly course of the heauens and by the seasonable fruites of the earth all of them comming in their due times seasons did gather that there was a God which mooued the heauens in such order and caused all things here on earth to obserue their certaine course Therefore now I must deale with you as with a heathen man since you except against Scripture and by thinges séene prooue the inuisible power wisdome and goodnesse of God who that all men might be without excuse made the world that all men séeing the infinite hugenesse the great diuersitie and the orderly course of all things in it and enioy-the commodities of all things therein might acknowledge hâ—s infinite power admire his wisdome and with thankfulnesse laud him for his excéeding blessings If you will yeeld to sence and reason you must of necessitie acknowledge that the creation of the heauens earth and varietie of al things contained therein cannot be effected but by a diuine power far excéeding the power of all the Monarkes since the world beganne If you consider the admirable order of all things created in heauen earth wherein euery thing is placed in his dignitie you cannot but with wonder admire the admirable wisedome of the disposer And to enter into the particular consideration of it consider first the blessed Angels who as in dignitie they come nearest God their maker so according to their dignitie they are placed in a most blessed place Man in dignitie next vnto theÌ„ being a creature consisting of two different natures his soule of a heaueÌ„ly substaÌ„ce his body made of the erth though by reason of the vnion of the soule with the body hée liueth here on earth yet as Hermes termeth him is he a diuine creature and according to his spirituall substance hath his conuersation in heauen meditating on the glorious maiesty of God his chiefest felicitie desiring fully to enioy his presence who hath so far dignified him that for his onelye sake hee created all the world and man for his owne glorie to this end hath hee giuen man reason to consider of all his workes senses to behold them a tongue to magnifie his goodnesse for these his excellent blessinges next vnto man consider the heauens themselues the greatnes and compasse thereof the number of the Starres and their varietie their continuall and orderly motions without ceasing or wearinesse whose vertues and influences no tongue can expresse so necessarie for all thinges liuing heere on earth that if they should but stay their motions and but for a small time cease to send downe their influences vertues al things here on earth would fade and come to naught Infinite is the number of the starres and planets in Heauen their vertues so necessarie that if you take any of them away his defect would hinder the operations of the other For proofe of this I will instance but in two of them Whose vertues are known so necessary that without theÌ„ all the rest would serue to no purpose there is none so simple who knoweth not nor any so impudent as durst deny that if the Sun were taken out of the number of the Planets all the rest both of starres and planets would loose their light and consequently their operations all trées and hearbs which grow on earth cease bearing fruit and quickelye come to naught Take away the moone besides that the comfortable guidance which Trauilers by night haue by the benefit of her light would bee wanting all trées and hearbes also on the earth would soone wither away through the heate of the sun for want of her moâ—stenning Nay suffer them to haue their being in heauen only stay their motions all things on earth would come to nothing For the Sun wheresoeuer hée stayed would skorch all things directly vnder him and dry theÌ„ to powder the Moone wheresoeuer shée stayed would putrify al things vnder her bring theÌ„ to rottennesse The like may be said in particular of euery star in heauen for if there were not a necessarie vse of euery one of them theÌ„ would it follow that God had made some thing in vaine the which you know is against a ground and principle in philosophie and therefore néedes not any farther proofe Next vnto these consider the decent order of the elements which as they are in dignitie one more excellent than another so according to their dignity are they placed one aboue another this I knowe you are not ignorant of being a matter agréed vpoÌ„ by al Philosophers Lastly coÌ„sider al things here on earth how they in their dumbe language do set forth the glorie of God here first consider the sea most wonderfull to behold and most profitable for al mankind wonderfull to sée how his mightie waues séeme to threaten the ouerflowing of all the earth yet by
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
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
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
themselues are good pleasant Arist Eth. li. 9. c. 9. But Adam immediatly after his transgression lost those things which in themselues were good and pleasant therefore he died immediately after his transgression Which positiō of Aristotle fitly agréeth with our commō spéech When wée sée a man heauie and dumpish without any courage we say that hee hath no life in him and of men in misery we say such a life is no life Hée dyed therefore the same daye though hee liued in the body many years after If you like not Ambroses interpretation consider what the Scripture saith 2. Pet. 3.8 that a thowsand yeares are as one day with the Lord. But Adam dyed within the compasse of a thowsand yeares therefore hée died the same day a day being taken for a thowsand yeares with the Lord. Now say that Adam neuer died either in body or soule yet you cānot iustly say that there is any falshood in those words of the Scripture which you haue alleadged concerning the punishment of Adam for these words Thou shalt die the death the same day wherein thou shalt eate the forbidden fruit are not a prophesie what should come to passe but a commination annexed to a precept to deterre Adam from breaking the commandement Now you knowe that hee who hath authoritie to make a law and appoint punnishments for the breakers thereof reserueth alwaies a power vnto himself to mitigate those punnishmēts which it plesed him to appoint for the breakers of his law in mittigating whereof he offendeth neither the law nor equity The primary principal intent of good Princes in appointing gréeuous punishments for offenders of their lawes is especiallye to deferre and feare their subiects frō transgressing their comandements They intend not principallie their punishment in those comminations but especially vse them as means to kéep thē in obedience vnto their law wishing rather their obedience then their punishments so the punishments denounced in cōminations are not alwaies intended to be executed vnto the vtmost extremity But so farre forth as they may deferre subiects from breaking the lawes which in dutie they are bound to obserue But sée how Sathan ruleth your malitious heart and tongue if God should in rigor without mercie haue vtterlye destroyed Adam presently vpon his offence both body and soule Then would your clamorous mouth haue béene open to declaime against the rigor of Gods iudgements but now because he vseth mercie in his iudgements there is no truth in his woordes because he treatneth seuerely but dealeth mercifully refrayne your blasphemous tongue least you tast of his iudgmēts without mercy Concerning your second contradiction as you imagine that Kain was a housdweller and built and liued in a Citie and therefore that was not true which God said shold happen vnto him that he shold be a runnagate and a vagabound First the word in the originall which is translated a rūnagate doth as well signifie an vnconstant and variable minded man or a man of a troubled fearefull mind alwaies mistrusting and expecting some euill to happen vnto him and that Kaine was such a one the verie building of his Citie doth argue For before this sentence of God against the hainous sinne of Kaine Kaine nor any else euer fortified themselues with walles or Cities which was an argument that they neuer feared inuasion of men or beasts Secondly that Kaine built a Citie and dwelt in it is a weake argument that hee was no vagbo and for although Moses presently after the sentence of God against Kaine Sheweth where he built a Citie and dwell yet he setteth not down when he built this City Moses briefly setteth downe that which was done after many yeares it was vsual thē that men liued Eight or Nine hundred yeares Now it may be that Kain was a vagabound for the space of Fiue Hundred yeares and after builded this Citie and this is not my méere coniecture but Iosephus recordeth that Kaine wandred into many countries before he built this Citie Thirdlye these words Thou shalt be a vagabond is a iudicial sentence in which sentences alwaies what shall be done vnto the offender is not set downe necessarilye to bee executed but what his offence deserueth As we sée dayly in the execution of malefactors the extremity of the sentence of the Iudge is sieldome performed but in compassion mitigated Trau Well but yet you will not denye but that Kaine builded a Citie Stu. It cannot bee denyed for the plaine words of the text affirmeth it Trau If he did I pray tel me how many Citizens he had what Masons and Carpenters he had If you will beleeue the Scripture there were not then in all the world aboue Fiue or Sixe men Therefore for Kaine to build a Citie seemeth an absurd thing since then there were no people to inhabite it Stud. Hee that hath a desire rather to cauill with the Scripture then to vnderstand it shall for his vnreuerend vsage of it and his infidelity haue this punishment that hee shall neuer vnderstand the Scripture I beléeue the Scripture yet am I not bound to beléeue that there were in all the world but fiue or sixe persons when Kaine built his Citie for the Scripture saith not so neither in any probability was it so The Scripture indéede mentioneth no more but it followeth not thereon that then there were no more Moses onlie briefely nameth those of principall note but that there were then many more it is more thē probable Iosephus recordeth that Kayne built this Citie about his latter dayes as it should séeme by the vsuall time that men then liued when hée was about some seauē or eight hundred yeares of age Now in seauen or eight hundred yeares Kaynes children and his childrens children might very well grow to a very great number sufficient to inhabit a Citie Therefore if you consider the matter dulie you may know that it cannot séeme that Kayne should not build a Citie for want of people to inhabit it as you without probability gather Now concerning your third vntruth which you wold gather out of the Scripture in that God promiseth all manner of blessings spirituall and temporall to those that kéepe his commandements and contrariewise all manner of punishments against those that breake his lawes and yet the Scripture testifieth that they which were most godly suffered most affliction and they which were most wicked especially prospered and enioyed greatest happinesse here on earth as also daylie experience teacheth the same For answer whereof you are to consider that the promises of temporall blessings are promised cōditionally if they kéepe the law but none euer yet kept the lawe Therefore no man can in right chalenge them to be performed vnto them Secondly you are to consider that when the Lord promised the land of Canaan wealth health and worldlie prosperity the land of Canaan nor health wealth and prosperity is properly and principally to be vnderstoode and meant but figuratiuely vnder the
pietie For albeit it be not altogether vnlawfull to haue respect of future reward for well doing and also abstaine from doing euill for feare of punishment God promising the one and threatning the other yet to make this the sole or principall end of doing well and auoyding euill is not to obey God for loue of him whome aboue our selues and all other things we ought to loue but to obey God for our owne commoditie and to preferre our selues before God Now if God should alwaies presently reward godlinesse and presently punish wickednesse considering the infirmity of man as now it is in his corrupt nature such is his weakenesse that he would obey God not for the loue of God as Sathan falsely accused Iob Iob. 1.9 10 but for his blessing sake such mercenary loue in truth is no sincere loue nor accepted of God for a vertue but reiected for a vice Secondly you are to consider that the iustice of God is a perfect iustice no way defectiue which it should bee if hee should take that course in rewarding godlinesse and punishing vice with you would prescribe him For as the godlinesse and pietie of the good die not with them wheÌ„ they depart this life but oftentimes their vertues pietie and good works doe more good after their departure out of this life then in their life time as the goodly and learned writings of godly men who liued in ancient times doe now instruct many in the way of truth and conuert many vnto godlinesse of life so that albeit they are long since departed out of this world yet they continue still in doing good euen to the worlds end So on the contrary wicked meÌ„ who in their life time liued lewdly and corrupted others by their ill conuersation leaue behind them after their death the seedes of their wickednesse whose infectious contagion successiuely remaine in others perhaps to the worlds end so that impossible it is to reward the one or the other according to their desert in their life time since the effect of their doings are not finished vntill the worlds end And this was the reason that Diues being in hell Luke 16. desired leaue to go admonish his brethren whom in his life time by his ill example he had corrupted not for any loue to them but least they continuing in their lewd life corrupted by him his torments should be increased Thirdly it cannot stand with the goodnesse of God presently to punish sinners so soone as they offend for in God there is perfect patieÌ„ce who giueth time and leasure to repentance Rom. 2.4 Many in their youth haue béen vitiouslie giuen who in their latter daies become notable members of the Church and Common wealth whome if God should haue cut off in their youth wee now should haue wanted many a notable instrument of his glory Paul at the first was a persecutor of those that professed Christes name but afterwards who may hee compâ—â—ed with him S Augustine in his youth was none of the best yet what notable monuments hath he left behind him to the great good of all the Church Infinite are the examples that may by brought to this purpose Fourthly in requiring that God should presently reward the godly and punish the wicked in this life you require that which is impossible For vertue pietie godlinesse cannot bee prized with any earthly blessing they are of greater value then al the gold and siluer and pretious stones in the world The true loue of God our neighbour iustice patience and such like are spirituall graces and cannot but with spirituall blessings be rewarded So on the contrary the breach of Gods law and vngodlinesse deserue greater punishment than man in this life is able to endure so that the iust reward promised to godlinesse and the due punishment threatned vnto vngodlines cannot be performed in this life sith the glory of the one excéedeth the capacitie of man liuing in this mortal life and the extremitie of the other excéedeth the abilitie of any man liuing in this mortall body of ours God therfore who doth al things in his iust order and due time hath appointed their seasons when they both shall be rewarded Wherefore you are not to determine of these matters but leaue them to the iudgement of God Trau What tell you mee of the iudgment of God I tell you in plaine tearmes vpon your former promise of secrecie I am fully perswaded that there is no God Stud. I pray you abstaine from these abhominable spéeches Trau Tush first prooue them abhominable speeches then terme them so I am a reasonable creature I will beleeue nothing contrary to force experience and reason Stud. Sence experience reason and especially Scripture doe prooue it Trau Scripture I beleeue not one word in it Proue it by reason then must I needes acknowledge it but I know this fansie is altogether against reason Except therfore you proue this by reason in vaine you shall heape testimonies out of the Scripture for if I dâ—d beleeue there were a God I would beleeue the Scripture if I did beleeue the Scripture I must needs beleeue there is a God Stud. This your hateful opinion wold séeme very strange vnto me but that the Scripture fore sheweth 2. Tim. 3. â— that in these last dayes there should be many of this detestable imagination as now your experience abroad in the world doth manifest vnto you that there are many such but to the point Wil you acknowledge without cauelling what Sence Experience and Reason will prooue Trau Yes I will alwaies willingly yeeld to these Stud. Albeit in excepting against the Scripture you debarre me of the greatest chiefest means whereby the Maiestie of God is liuely set forth yet to prooue there is a God I require no more thaÌ„ those principles with you yéeld to Sence Experience Reason Now before I come to prooue this matter suffer me to aske one or two questions of you If you shold stand on a Mountaine by the sea side behold a Shippe sayling in the sea in a great tempest amongst many dangerous rocks if you saw her saile directly to the harbour skilfully auoyding euery rocke lying in her way on which the violence of the wind and rage of the waues would driue her break her in péeces were it not but that by winding this way and that way shée auoided froÌ„ them Though you saw no maÌ„ in the shippe would you not think that there were some maÌ„ who guided the sterne wherby shée passed all those dangers came safely into the harbour Trau Yes I must needs think so otherwise the shippe would bee carried whither so euer the wind waues would driue her and be ouerturned by the waues or beaten in peeces on the rocks Stud. One question more and then I will come to the matter in question thinke you that you haue a soul in your body Trau What an absurd question is this How otherwise