¶The first Chapiter. ¶What naturall Philosophie is, and how many kindes there bee thereof.

WHat is naturall Philosophie?

It is the true knowledge or discourse concerning the Creation and distinc­tion of all this whole worlde with the partes therof, of the causes by whiche it was so wrought, and likewise of the effectes whiche followe thereon, apperteinyng to the praise of God the Creatour.

From whence do you gather this your definition?

Specially out of twoo places of holie scripture, wher­of the first is the. 30. chapt. and 4. verse of the Prouerbes. The other the first chapiter of Genesis, in whiche those fower poinctes are briefly recited, vnto whiche also that place maie bee added whiche is in the 7. Chapter and 17. and 18. verses, where it is euidently declared, that suche thinges bee handled in this Science.

Is this knowledge termed by this name onely, or is it called by some other also?

[Page]

Yea truely. For out of S. Paule it maie bee called The knowledge of Gods woorkes, Rom. the 1. chap. and 20. verse. Out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, The knowledge ofse­culare thynges. And finally wee maie as fitly and conue­niently call it The knowledge of thinges created, as naturall Philosophie was so called Of the searchyng of Nature, if so bee that the vse of that name had bin familiar, and re­ceiued by the Greekes and Latines.

Why then, doe you call it naturall Philosophie, which is a woorde vsed by the Heathen Philosophers?

For twoo causes. The firste is, for that Christians ought not to bee so scrupulous, or rather superstiti­ous, that thei should bee afeard to vse suche common woordes and names as the Heathē doe, for somuche as with them wee do vse and enioy the self same Sū, aire, earth, water, light, meates, and Cities. Neither doeth the Scripture it self refuse that woorde as vn­seemely or monstrous, as appeareth in the 2. chapiter and 3. verse to the Ephesians, and the 1. Chapiter and 5. verse of the seconde Epistle of S. Peter. Also the aun­cient and Catholike fathers in euery place, doe terme this knowledge of thynges by the name of Naturall Philosophie, as did Basile, Chrisostome, Ambrose, Augustine in his Enchiridion to Laurence: Naturall Philosophers, saieth hee, are thei that searche the nature of thynges. Secondly, that for as muche as this woorde, Nature, in the common vse of the Greeke tongue, is, for the moste parte, ap­plied to suche thynges as doe consiste, not of essence onely, of whiche sorte GOD is, but are compounded with certein accidentes adioined, suche as are all the thynges that wee beholde with our eyes, and where­of this visible worlde consisteth: that knowledge see­meth [Page 2] moste properly to bee termed naturall Philoso­phie, whiche is busied in the handlyng of the mixt, cō ­poūded, and materiall thinges, that it maie bee distin­guished from Diuinitie. Wherefore, Naturall Philo­sophie, saie thei, is the knowledged of Materiall and Instrumentall beginnynges.

How many sortes are there of naturall Philosophie?

Twoo: the one Generall, the other Particulare.

Whiche is the Generall part?

That whiche entreateth of the Generall and moste principall partes of the worlde, with their originall, nature, and causes: suche are heauen and the fower e­lementes, for that these, in respect of the other partes, are, as it were, the first beeginnynges, and principles, and causes of their beeyng and compoundyng: And likewise that is the Generall part of naturall Philo­sophie, which sheweth vs the generall maner and or­der of preseruyng and increasyng of all thynges, bee­cause it deliuereth vnto vs all thynges in generall. And these poinctes, for the more part, are comprehen­ded in the first chapiter of Genesis.

Whiche is then the Particulare part?

That whiche diligently setteth doune the peculiare natures, operations, properties, and effectes of euery kinde, which are seuerally distinguished in these crea­ted and visible thynges, as for example: What is the Nature of a Man, what of an Horse, what of euery kinde of liuyng Creature, with the operations also of Trees and Hearbes. These thynges are partly con­teined in the rules of Phisick, and partly also in those treatises whiche by the Auctours thereof are intitled by the names of Histories of liuyng thynges, and of [Page] Plantes, and suche like: certaine partes whereof and sparkes are founde shinyng heere and there dispersed in holie Scripture, as it were beautifull precious sto­nes. Howbeit the whole historie & general discourse of these thinges is not conteined in the Scripture: since that Salomons Bookes whiche were written copiously of the Nature of all thynges, are, through the negli­gence of men, perished.

¶ The seconde Chapiter. Whether Naturall Philosophie bee meete for a Christian?

IS there any profite in Naturall Philo­sophie?

Yea, manifolde. But that I may not run ouer them all, for thei are almoste infinite I wil alledge fiue onely. The first is, that thereby wee knowe God, not onely to bee the Creator of all thinges, but also to bee euerlasting, omnipotent, and mercifull, &c. The seconde, that by it wee learne the thynges that are created, with their operations and natures. The third, for that therein wee see ourselues and perceiue what wee are, of what thynges and partes wee consist, and eche part of ours, that is to saie, what maner of thing our Soule is, and what likewise is the state and condition of our bodie: which all men do confesse to bee the best, profitabliest, & moste excellēt knowledge of all other. The iiii. that wonde­ryng at in our myndes, and beholdyng with our eyes these woorkes of God, so greate, so many, so wonder­full, beyng thervnto holpē by none other meanes than by this Arte, wee are with greate zeale and affection [Page 3] stirred vp to set foorth the won̄derfull praises of God and to giue him thankes. Whiche thing happened al­so vnto Galene, yea, although he were a prophane Phi­losopher, that after hee had described the Nature of one of Gods woorkes, that is to saie, of Man, and the partes of his bodie, hee was enforced, yea, almoste a­gainst his will, to syng an Himne to God. Heerehence it commeth that suche multitude of hymnes, so many Epodes and songes of praise, so many Psalmes are written and celebrated. The v. that wee vnderstan­dyng these thinges, maie easily and plainly expounde, and freely enter into many places of holie Scripture, whiche vnto suche as bee ignorante of these matters, are not onely obscure, but also cannot possibly bee at­tained vnto, or by any meanes vnderstoode. Where­fore S. Augustine writeth, that Naturall Philosophie is verie profitable and necessarie for a christen diuine. What shall I speake of the singulare pleasure whiche this knowledge bringeth vnto y ^e minde, & of the great cōmodities whiche it ministreth vnto the life of man?

How doe you prooue these thinges to bee true?

Specially out of these places of holie scripture. The whole 104 Psalme. The 136. and 145. Psalme, & 10. verse. The 147. and 148. Psalmes. Iob the 12. chapiter and verse 8. 9. 10. and the 36. Chapiter, and 24. 25. 26. verses. The 14. Chapiter of the Actes, and 17. verse. The first Chapiter to the Romanes, and 20. verse. Unto these moreouer maie bee added the 7. Chapiter of the booke of Wisedome, and 9. verse, with the nexte follo­wyng: and likewise the 13. Chapiter and 1. verse, and the nexte followyng. Likewise the holie Fathers S. Basill, S. Chrisostome, & S. Ambrose in their Exameron, or [Page] woorke of sixe daies doc teache the same thyng: And moreouer the holie and absolutely learned father S. Augustine in his booke of christian doctrine, and in the viii. booke of Gene. vpon the letter, the viii. chapiter.

But there be certain obiections made, declaryng that the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie is not onely vnprofitable, but also vnwoorthie for a christian, yea, that it is hurtfull, and dangerous for hym.

Yea truely. And although many men haue gathered sundrie, yet all of thē maie bee referred specially vnto twoo kindes of argumentes, whiche are alledged a­gainste the knowledge of these thynges: whereof the firste is framed ab auctoritate, from auctoritie. The se­cond, a ratione & turpi, from reason and vnseemelinesse, or from a moste hurtfull consequent.

Declare them.

First, thei gather sundrie sentences, partly out of the Scriptures, and partly out of the Ecclesiasticall Fa­thers, out of whiche afterwarde thei frame their rea­sons, and make their conclusions.

Whiche bee thei?

Out of holie scripture this is specially alledged, which is written in the Booke of Ecclesiastes, or of the Prea­cher, the 1. Chapiter, and 15. verse in these woordes: I set my harte to seeke and to finde out with wisedome, whatsoe­uer thyng is doone vnder heauen. This euill exercise hath GOD gi­uen to the Sonnes of men, to occupie them selues therein Unto whiche thei ioyne that saiyng of S. Paule the 1. to the Corinthians, the 1. Chapiter, and 20. verse: God hath made foolishe the wisedome of this worlde: with other suche places like vnto these: whiche maie easely bee answered.

How I praie you?

[Page 4]

Forsoothe, that that in the Booke of the Preacher is not spoken absolutely, but onely in comparison of the true woorshippyng of God. Neither doeth Salomon cō ­demne or disprooue the true knowledge of the nature of thinges, whiche GOD gaue vnto hym as a greate benefite of all other moste surpassyng (for then should hee haue bin of all men the moste vnthankfullest man to God) and in respecte whereof, hee was then greatly esteemed of by the Queene of Saba, and other Princes neere vnto hym. Howbeeit this knowledge of Natu­rall Philosophie, if it bee compared with true Godli­nesse, if with faithe, if with the true feare of GOD, if with inwarde regeneration of the mynde, if with the knowledge of euerlastyng life and saluation, surely in comparison of these thynges, it is but a light busiyng of the minde, vnfruitfull, rather weariyng vs, then re­lieuyng or comfortyng our consciences. For it bryn­geth not the true felicitie, as faithe to Godwardes doeth, although a manne consume his whole life in it, and as it were, tyre his minde aboute it. And as tou­chyng the place of S. Paule, I see not how it oppug­neth the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie, seeyng S. Paule condemneth the wisedome of the worlde, not the wisedome concernyng the worlde, and thynges created. But that is called the wisedome of the world, whiche is wholy ruled by the counsell and iudgement of the sinfull and blinde fleshe, and therevpon reposeth it self: not that whiche discreetly and as farre as neede requireth, discourseth of the causes of thinges.

But what alledge thei out of the writynges of the fa­thers, to driue vs from this kinde of [...]die of Natu­rall Philosophie?

[Page]

It were an infinite thyng to goe about to report their saiynges, but I will onely recite a fewe.

Rehearse them, I praie you.

Lactantius in his third booke and viii. chapiter, writeth thus: What felicitie shall I atteine vnto, if I knowe where Nilus ri­seth, or whatsoeuer the naturall Philosophers do doate concernyng heauen? yea, moreouer there is no certein knowledge of those thin­ges, but onely opinion, whiche also is variable accordyng to the va­rietie of mennes wittes. S. Augustine also is cōmended, who in his fourth Booke de Trinitate, of the Trinitie, in the Preface writeth thus: That minde is more to be commended which knoweth it owne infirmitie, rather than that, whiche not per­ceiuyng the same, searcheth after the motions of the Planets, and the walles of the worlde, the foundations of the earth, and the top of the heauens. And that I maie not touche euery thyng, in his Booke de spiritu & anima, of the spirite and the soule, the 56. chapiter, hee plainly also setteth doune the same.

Can you answere these aucthorities?

Yea.

How I praie you?

That these thynges are also spoken by the fathers in comparisō, as it appeereth out of the same place of S. Augustine, whom you erewhile cōmended. For the Fa­thers reproued the disordered studies of men, whiche wee see also now a daies to reste in many, and that in Christians: who contēnyng the doctrine of saluation and neglecting the studie of the veritie of the Gospell, whiche is set for the in a simple stile, conuert themsel­ues wholy vnto these swellyng and puffed Artes of Naturall Philosophie, addietyng them selues vnto them, and openly preferryng the ambicious name of a naturall Philosopher, before Christiā godlinesse, and [Page 5] Diuinitie. Wherfore, the Fathers, to the intent to re­uoke men from this so greate an errour, haue vttered muche matter againste Naturall Philosophers, and their Art, and their opinions, and that truely, as haue S. Basill, & S. Chrisostome in their Exameron, or woork of sixe daies. Howbeeit thei doe not condemne the true knowledge of those thinges, whiche certain amongst them were verie skilfull in, and moste perfect.

Whiche is the other argument, whiche you said was taken, a consequenti, of the consequente, and alledged a­gainst naturall Philosophie?

That truely which S. Basile reciteth to be alledged by slouthfull and idle persones, therby to colour their fil­thie ignorance.

What is that?

That the wounderfull miracle of the creation of the worlde, is debased and made vile, wherein notwith­standing the greate power, maiestie, and wisedome of God appeareth & is laid before our eyes to bee woor­shipped: if wee bee able to sette it doune in any arte or Methode, and if it maie bee saied that so greate a mi­sterie maie bee comprehended. For what other thyng were that (saie thei) than to feigne our selues not onely to bee able to comprehend the woorkes of God, whiche doubtlesse are supernaturall and Diuine, but also to make vs iudges, & as it were Censores there­of. And finally to make God, as it were, a Gramma­rian, subiect vnto certein lawes of Nature, and Arte.

What answere you vnto that?

Truly euen that which in the same place, S. Basile the best learned amongst the Greek writers, answereth.

What saieth hee?

[Page]

That thereby, this miracle of God, which appeareth in the Creation of the worlde, is more manifestly ad­uaunced, and by vs more religiously adored, by howe muche the more it is distinctly declared, wherby is set forthe the greater commoditie and force thereof. And to the end y ^t you maie vnderstand this to bee true by another example, Gods decree concernyng our salua­tion, is it not commoly tearmed in the Scriptures, Gods secrete and misterie? And verely it is so, where­in the Maiestie and Wisedome of GOD is proposed vnto vs, no lesse than in the creatiō of the worlde: and yet notwithstandyng Faithe or the Gospell, setteth it forthe to our view so plainly, so orderly, and distinctly, that nothyng can bee more: Notwithstandyng the worshippyng of God is nothyng thereby diminished in that wee comprehende it by Art, and by a Theolo­gicall Methode, but rather by so muche the more bet­ter and ardently wee praise GOD, by how much the more commodiously and distinctly wee atteine to the vnderstandyng of these things. And to bee short, faith it self through which God will bee worshipped, is not a certein ignorance or a confused imagination concer­nyng God, but a cleare and res [...]te vnderstanding of the minde, whiche directly answereth vnto suche que­stions as are demaunded touching God, and his infi­nite mercie towardes mankinde. Vnknowen things are vn­desired, as the old Prouerbe saieth. Wherefore, when­as the Historie of the creatiō of the worlde is set forth by art, when the vertues whiche God hath giuen vn­to thinges are declared Gods: Miracle is not dimi­nished, but augmēted. Neither do wee set doune these things, as though wee did professe that we would al­ledge [Page 6] any other causes of these naturall thynges, besi­des the will and wisedome of GOD onely: Or that through them wee can acknowledge or conteine so much in our minde as is the power of God in crea­ting, and his goodnes in preseruing them. Or els as though wee went about to shewe, that our great and good God, the cheife gouernour of all thinges, were subiect to any of our lawes or decres: but onely profitably to busie our selues in setting forth of Gods woorkes so farre as wee may bee holpen by art, and as it were, through a glasse which looketh into thys schoole of the nature of thinges, to keepe such as are lesse heedefull, in the noble contemplation of them.

The thirde Chapter. From whence the knowledge of the Generall naturall Phy­losophie is to bee had most safely.

THese thinges I vnderstande, proceede to the residue.

The next is, that wee discusse from whēce this knowledge is to bee drawn & taken, bycause in this point wee disagree from certein, who suppose that it maye more safely and certeinly bee de­riued out of y ^e bookes of prophane Philosophers, thā the holy Scriptures: in that they saye that it is not all set foorth in the Scripture, and if haply there bee anye parte thereof conteined therein, it is confusedly handled, not by any art or order.

From whence then, doe you iudge, maye the know­ledge of naturall Philosophie most conueniently bee taken?

[Page]

Uerily of that part which beefore wee tearmed gene­rall naturall Philosophie the knowledge is chiefly to bee learned out of holy Scripture. And of that which wee called Particular out of the woorkes of Phisiti­ons, or of others which haue written the histories of Plantes, and of lyuinge thinges.

How proue you that?

First I suppose, this is agreed vpō by all men of soūd iudgement, that euery workman can best and truliest talke and dispute in his owne Art, and that hee is ra­ther to bee beleeued therin than any other. But what woorkmans woorkmanship, thincke you, is thys worlde? Is it any others than Gods onely? so that wee ought to beleeue none rather than him, who in hys woorde teacheth vs the maner and order of fra­minge his woorke, that is to saye, the worlde. To bee shorte, who knoweth, seeth, and vnderstandeth more truely the causes of all things, their properties, effectes, the maner of their beeing, & the times when first they began, then hee who is the maker of them all, and the perpetuall gouernour of them all? who beeing GOD, and sence hee him selfe telleth these thinges, what man will at anye time bee so mad, but to thinke that hee is rather to bee harkened vnto in thys respect and all other writers to bee neglected? Truely wee, as also all other Philosophers, howso­euer surpassing in wit, & abounding in leasure, what soeuer diligence they employed in study, yet could ne­uer neither wee nor they attayne vnto certaine ob­scure slender sparkes of naturall Philosophie. And whatsoeuer we define cōcerning these matters with­out the woorde of God, it is so vncerteine, doubtfull, [Page 7] variable, and contrarie to it selfe, and many times so contrarie to the trueth that in the ende wee are asha­med that wee either learned so, or taught so: which may appeare to be true, if it wer but only out of Plutar­chus booke De Placitis Philosophorum, Of the opinions of Philosophers: whereas that excellent learned man, and great Philosopher sheweth y ^t neuer two of them agreed in the knowledge of the things y ^t are created.

Can you confirme the trueth of your opinion, by the auchoritie of Gods woord, to wit, that this know­ledge may well and safely bee learned out of the holy scriptures?

Yeas verily.

Recite them I pray you.

The first testimonie, is that which is writen euident­ly in the epistle to the Hebrues in these woords: Through Faith wee vnderstande, that the worlde was made by the woorde of God. Wherefore wee vnderstande these thinges by Faith. If by Faith, then by the holy scripture, for ther can bee no faith without the scripture. And therfore wee must certainely conclude, that the true and cer­teine knowledge concerninge these matters, is decla­red vnto vs by the holy scripture. The seconde auc­thoritie is the 1. chapter of Genesis. For Moses, who at the commaundement and appointment of God wrot that historie of all other most excellent and wounder­full, of the beginninge of the worlde, and creation of all thinges, is either a vaine fellowe, or a lier, if the knowledge of naturall Philosophie be not conteined in the holy Scripture. For what other thing doth hee in that booke, than briefly, howbeit truely and or­derly, set downe the originall of thinges, and theyr [Page] vertues, natures, and effectes, that is to say, Natu­rall Philosophie? The thyrde is, a place in the Pro­uerbes the viii. Chapiter, and the 20. verse, & the nexte folowinge, where it is saied, that all thinges were created by the wysdome of God, and afterwarde as they were created, so are they preserued. The fourth aucthoritie, is alleaged out of the 42. Chapiter, and 17. verse of Ecclesiast. This wisdome hath God giuen to his Sainctes, (saith hee,) that they might recoumpt all his mira­cles and workes, and search them all, yea hell it selfe &c. where­vnto wee may adde that which is written in the vii. chapiter of the booke of VVisedom the 22. verse, and the next folowing. Finally, let vs heare the moste holye Martyr of God, and good Father Irenaeus, who in his seconde booke, and 2. Chapter saithe thus: To whom therefore shall wee giue more credit concerning the framing of the worlde: to those that wee spake of beefore so iangling in fol­ly and inconstancie, or to the Disciples of the Lorde, and the ser­uant and Prophet of God Moses, who first reuealed the creation of the worlde? The selfe same thing S. Basell, and S. Am­brose, and S. Chrisostome in the prefaces of their Exame­ron or Six dayes woorke, doe with one consent, and plainely confirme, so that whoso shall deney that the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie may not truely and commod [...]ously bee learned out of holy scripture, gainsaith the sacred woorde of GOD, and openly repugneth against the learned Fathers. In conclusiō, hearken to [...]ertullian, who in the 46. chapter of hys A­pologet: doth truely and plainly pronounce, that the sa­cred woorde of God, which is most auncient, was as it were, the treasurie and stoarehouse vnto all later wisdom. From thence, saith hee, the Philosophers haue quen­ched [Page 8] the thirst of their wits. But as men that were ouer riotous in the study onely of glorie and eloquence, if they found any thyng in ho­ly scripture, when they had digested it according to the purpose of their curiositie, they conuerted it to their owne woorkes.

Doe they that are of the contrarie opinion, bring no­thing against thys?

Yeas, two argumentes especially.

What bee they?

This is the first. That the ende of euery art ought to bee distinguished, and that Naturall Philosophie is one thing, and Diuinitie another: whereof thys last is conteined in holie write, but the other is not so.

Is that consequent, and assertion true?

No verily.

Howe so?

For that, although they gather that truly, that artes ought to bee distinguished, and that Diuinitie, which conteineth the promises of euerlastinge lyfe, teaching also the waye thervnto, and the causes thereof, ought to bee separated from Naturall Philosophie, whiche entreateth of the framinge of this visible worlde, and the natures of all thinges in the same: yet doe they not say truely, in denyinge that the order of the crea­tion of this world, the sundrie kindes of things, their natures, & manifold sortes are taught, distinguished, and orderly set downe in holy Scripture. All these thinges are copiously declared there, which are the peculiar subiect & matter of the Art of Natural Phi­losophie. Wherefore Naturall Philosophie is com­prehended in holy scripture. The same also you may learne by another example: are not Diuinitie and the morall parte of Philosophie, both of them as they dif­fer [Page] in kinde discerned in the holy scriptures? And yet who is so rasbe and folishe, that he dare deny that the Ethike or moral Philosophie, yea and that most tru­ly and generally is deliuered vnto vs in holie scrip­ture? wherefore the distinct endes of Artes and trea­tises, are no impediment, but that the Generall Na­turall Philosophie, and also Diuinitie are conteined in the holy Scriptures, forsomuch as Natural Phi­losophic is, as it were a parte of Diuinitie, and an handmaidē vnto the same. For it is a notable meane to knowe God by: which thing also S, Ambrose con­fesseth with mee. What shall I saye more? The Hea­then Philosophers them selues, when they dispute of the worlde, and the creation of the partes therof, and when they intreat of the nature of thinges, they saye that thei play the Diuines, and enter into discourse of Diuinitie, as Aristotle speaketh in his booke de mundo of the worlde: so that it is no maruaile that wee haue iudged that the true and Christian Diuinitie is part­ly busied also in matter of Naturall Philosophie, and the settinge foorth thereof, and that for that cause al­so the holie Scripture is in part occupied in settinge foorth of these things, forasmuch as this knowledge also maketh to the aduauncement of gods glory. For in these visible thinges the power, wisdome, and eter­nitie of God is to bee seene liuely.

What is the other argument of theirs, that are of the contrarie opinion?

This forsooth, that those thynges which Moses hath written are most plainely and simply set downe, and in such kinde of stile which is fitted to our capacitie and applied to the weakenesse of mans sence, and not [Page 9] truely and exactly expressed according to the truth of thinges: and finally that Moses doeth neither through­ly, neither subtily search out or set downe the thinges themselues, and their natures: wherefore, they con­clude, that the true, distinct, and perfect knowledge of the naturall part, is other whence to bee drawne, and learned.

What answere you vnto these thinges?

Uerily, I confesse, y ^t these matters concerning Natu­rall Philosophie, are not gloriously & in a filed style set foorth by Moses although hee were the beste learned man that euer lyued, but rather in a bare and simple kinde of writinge, striped out of all ornament, as it were out of apparrell, wherby that which hee writeth may the more easily bee vnderstood. But, as it is to bee graunted that hee spake simply, so can it not bee prooued that hee spake or wrote lyingly, falsely, and ignorantly of those thinges. It is one thing therfore, to acknowledg that Moses stile is bare & simple, which kinde of vtteraūce is meet for the truth: and another thing to say that hee is a false man and a lyar: which no man can affirme, but whoso is of a corrupt consci­ence. Wherfore simply, but truely: barely, but rightly: commonly, but purely, doth hee deliuer vnto vs those thinges which hee writeth, concerning the worlde, of the principall partes therof, of the causes and effec­tes of thinges, to bee beleeued, holden, and taughte among menne. Uerily, I confesse, that Moses applyed himselfe to y ^e capacitie of our sēses: Howbeit, I deney y ^t which they affirme, y ^t therfore hee did not roue at the trueth of y ^e matter, or had not regarde vnto it: for it was his purpose to set downe those things in wr [...] ­tinge [Page] easily, barely, and truely.

But some are of opinion, that all those things which hee wrote in the first chapter of Genesis, are to bee in­terpreted allegorically. So neither do they think that those six dayes are the space of time, neither that the woman in deede was made of Adams ribbe, neither that all the residue are so to bee taken as Moses words doe pretende, and sownde. Which opinion if it be true, what shall bee sure or certeine in all that whole chap­ter, and such like writinges of other Prophetes, as apperteining to the knowledge of Naturall Philoso­phie, or that maye teache vs the same?

You saye well. Indeede some haue benne of that opi­nion, which notwithstanding S. Augustine confuteth in his 1. booke in the Proheme, & also in the 8. booke and 2. chapter de Genesiad Literam, of Genesis vpon the letter. S. Peter likewyse in the 3. chapter, and 5. verse of hys seconde Epistle: and in the epistle to the Hebrues the 11. chapter, and 3. verse, doth openly impungne this errour of the Allegorists, affirminge that those things which Moses hath reported concerning the cre­ation of the worlde are spoken naturally, and plain­ly: and not allegorically, or figuratiuely.

And what at the length, doe you conclude of all these thinges, which you haue recited?

That forsooth, which S. Augustine concludeth in hys 5. booke, and 8. chapter of Genesis. That those things which Moses wrot, are true, although they can be esta­blished by no other reasons. For if a man will dispute to proue that these thinges are false, or hee himselfe can say no certentie con­cerning the estate and gouerment of creatures: or if hee saye not true, will hee suppose these thinges to bee false in that hee himselfe [Page 10] vnderstandeth them not? Who will beleeue that Aristotle or Plato, did knowe any thinge concerninge the crea­tion of the worlde and the causes of thinges, whereof Moses was ignorant? who first receiued the thinges which he wrote, by most secret reuelation from God. Secondly, who was wel learned in all liberall artes specially in the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie, and Phisick (which two artes were at that tyme spe­cially had in price amonge the Aegyptians) as it appea­reth in y ^e Scripture, Actes the 7. chap. and 22. verse. And to conclude, forasmuch as those y ^t were y ^e chiefest Philosophers amonge the Grecians, traueyled in­to Aegypt to the intent to learne Naturall Philoso­phie, as histories doe rport of Plato and Pithageras. And most certeine it is, (as Diogenes Laertius writeth, in hys first booke de vitis Philosophorum, of the lyues of the Phi­losophers) that all that parte of Philosophie whiche intreateth of the nature of thinges, was deriued to the Grecians frō strange nations, and from the Sy­rians, that is to saie, from the Jewes. Shal we say thē, against y ^e assured faith of y ^e scripture that any one of the cheifest Philosophers, to wit, Plato or Aristotle, whiche were heathen men, were called by GOD to counsell when hee went to framinge and creatinge of the worlde, that they shoulde knowe more than Moses the seruaunt of GOD, whom God himselfe taught, and shewed vnto him such things as hee should com­mit to writinge to the behoofe of Posteritie, and espe­cially for the instruction of his moste deerely beeloued Church? Surely this cannot bee thaught, muchlesse spoken, without notorious blasphemie against God himselfe. But rather as S. Augustine teacheth in his 5. booke and third Chapter de Genesiad Literam, of Gene­sis [Page] vpō the letter: that in that Moses speaketh so plain­ly, hee doth it by the assured counsell and iudgemente of the holy Ghost: to the intent that, by the hight of the thynges hee maye terrifie the proude, by the deapth hee may hold them attentiue, by the trueth hee may feede the great ones, and by hys affabilitie hee maye nourishe the little ones.

The fourth Chapter. The difference beetween Christian and heathen Naturall Philosophie.

WHat differēce therfore, is ther betwen Moses & Aristotle: y ^• is to say, betweene Christiā and Heathen Natural Phi­losophers, in thys kinde of learninge?

Uery great: which notwithstanding maye bee especially perceiued in three poyntes.

Which bee they?

The firste is, in the ende of this knowledge, whiche thei bothe doe respecte and followe.

Declare thesame.

The Christian Naturall Philosophers, whiche in­treate of the thinges that are created, dooe referre the summe of their disputatiō to this ende, that our greate and good God, who is the auctour, Father, and crea­tour of them all, maie bee knowne, praised, and extol­led: and finally woorshipped the more ardently, and more feared. But Aristotle and the Heathen Naturall Philosophers, doe so dispute of the nature of thinges, that thei maie wholy sticke vnto these thinges them­selues, as it were, vnto certein lowe and meane de­grees, [Page 11] and an vncertein force, whiche is respected af­ter their Creation, and whiche thei terme Nature: thei dooe not arise higher, neither doe thei ascende by mea­nes of these, as it were by a Ladder, vnto GOD the Creatour of them. Wherefore, through greate blinde­nesse of minde, thei doe place seconde and onely instru­mentall causes, in steede of true and first causes. And as touchyng the principall causes, whiche are God, and his Commaundementes and preceptes, thei alto­gither let them passe. Wherefore thei make the cause of the thyng, of that whiche thei call the thyng it self: whereby it cummeth to passe, that this moste excellent knowledge, among them is full of vaine ostentation of the minde, of strife, and of contention: as for the glorie of God, it neither setteth it forth, neither once toucheth it, so that verie many of those Natural Philosophers, dooe at the length beecome indeede, verie naturalles, that is too saie, fleshely men, and Athiestes, not know­yng, or regardyng God.

But the Italian Philosophers, whiche haue handled matters of naturall Philosophie, were called also Di­uines, suche as were all the Pithagorians for the moste parte, who made mention of God the creatour. Anax­agoras beegan his disputation concernyng the nature of thynges, from a mynde that disposeth all thynges. That golden Booke de Mundo of the worlde, whiche whether it bee Aristotles, whiche I dooe not thinke: or Nicholaus the Philosophers who liued beefore Plutarche: or Alexander Aphrodisiensis of later tyme: or whosoeuer others it was, surely hee ioyned a treatice concerning God, togither with his discourse of naturall thinges.

You safe very well. For this was an aunciēt custome [Page] among the firste Philosophers, whiche wrote also of Naturall Philosophie in the Greeke tongue, as ha­uyng learned the same of the Aegyptians, or rather of the Syrians, as Laertius saieth, that is to saie, the He­brewes, or of their Scholars: but the Philosophers whiche afterwarde ensued, how muche thei despised, and laughed at this kinde and maner of handelyng matters apperteinyng to Naturall Philosophie, and how farre thei haue expelled it out of the Schooles of Naturall Philosophers, you are not ignorant. Aristo­tles crue at this present beareth the greatest swaie, and thei that would haue themselues moste truely too bee termed by the name of naturall Philosophers, neither doe thei themselues in their disputations of Naturall Philosophie, intreate of GOD the Creatour, neither thinke that hee ought too bee intreated of. So that now, the Naturall Philosophie of the Stoike Philoso­phers hath gotten the vpper hande in the Schooles: and the Italians is reiected: whiche Stoike Philoso­phers, haue ascribed the chief and principall causes of engendryng of all thinges, vnto Nature, whiche is to bee founde in euery thing, and too thinges created, as vnto Heauen, the Sunne, and the Elementes.

What other difference is there beetween Christiā na­turall Philosophers, and Aristotelians?

In declaryng the causes themselues, whose knowe­ledge and handlyng dooeth muche beelong vnto Na­turall Philosophie.

By what meanes?

Firste, the Christian Philosophers doe both alledge suche causes as are true, and also far other than thei do. For, who will doubt, but that thei alledge suche as [Page 12] bee true, since thei receiue them and learne them out of the fountaine of Truthe, that is to saie, the woorde of God? And that thei make farre other causes, the dis­putations and discourses of them bothe doe sufficien­tly declare. For wee professe, teache, and acknowledge that God himselfe is the first, and efficient cause of al thinges: moreouer, wee haue a speciall respecte vnto his voyce and commaundement as a moste mightie cause, whereby a certaine peculiare force is giuen vn­to euery thinge which is the cheifest and moste princi­pall cause of all other, that wee can possibly thinke of or imagine in our minde. Thirdely, wee make for one cause, that force and vertue whiche GOD hath alotted and ingraffed in all things: howbeit the same to bee onely a seconde and an instrumental cause, and not woorking of it selfe, as Esay teacheth in y ^e 44. chap­ter, the 3. and 4. verse: not principally but depending wholy vpon another, to wit y ^• power & cōmaundemēt of GOD, without which God woorketh the same effectes, when him pleaseth, which hee is wont to do by meanes thereof. So, when a Hen sitteth vppon egges out of which afterwarde chicken are hatched, what is she other than Gods bare instrument, foras­much as shee frameth neither the harte, nor heade, nor feete of hir chick within the shell, wherein it is con­teined, but onely keepeth it, and warmeth it? So, when a woman is with childe, doeth shee fashion hir babe with hir owne handes, whiche afterwarde shee bringeth foorth into the world? No surely: but is one­ly, as it were, the receiuer, nourisher, and keeper of the seede which the man casteth foorth into hir. For God, and the power and sownd of these woordes, Increase [Page] yee, and multiplye, and fill the earth which as yet are in per­petuall force, doe frame the infant within the woman, facion it, and bringe it foorth. The Philosophers doe not acknowledge this cause. For they holde opi­nion, that this force and vertue which was giuen vn­to things after y ^t they were created, is the first cause of all things. So that they place y ^e effected cause in steed of the efficient, and the instrumentall, for the agent: which is a verie foule errour in a Naturall Philoso­pher. Againe, in that they do not submit the capacitie of mans wit, which in deede is very simple, vnto the vnsearcheable wisdome of GOD, but rather make God subiect to them and to their capacitie, they deuise and dreame of the causes of all thinges and their ori­ginall, accordinge to the imagination of their owne braine, likeninge GOD hymselfe the incomprehensi­ble woorkeman, vnto some Smith or Carpenter: & also that the matter wherof hee made all things was before prepared and made readie vnto his hand, from euerlasting: and at the length, that the forme ioyneth it selfe vnto this matter, (for according to their iudge­ment, this matter is rude and without forme) and so they conclude, that this matter and forme is the first principle of naturall things, which comparison of most vnlike thinges togither, S. Augustine woor­thily laugheth at, and reiceteth, which as it thinketh nothinge honourably of God, so doeth it also repugne playnely against the trueth of the matter, and the ere­ation of this worlde.

Whiche is the third difference, beetweene the Heathē and Christian Naturall Philosophers?

That consisteth in the meane, maner, and order of [Page 13] teachinge, or handlinge the Art.

I praie you declare it.

The Christian and godly men, such as were the Prophetes of God, although they diuersly recite these vi­sible thinges, according to the argument of the mat­ter which they handle, proceeding somtime from the highest to the lowest, & at another time from the low­est to y ^e highest, as it appeareth in y ^e Psal. 104. & 136. & in the Prouerbes, the 8. chapter, verse 23. 24. and in y ^e next folowinge: the 4. of Esdras, the 6. chapter, verse 38. and the next folowinge: in the songe of the three children, verse 53. and the next folowinge: yet doe they euermore acknowledge, that that is the true order and meane of the creation of all thinges, which Moses hath discri­bed. But the Philosophers, imagininge of the bee­ginninge of this worlde accordinge to their owne in­uentions, can by no meanes agree amonge themsel­ues, whence to begin their disputation, concerninge naturall thinges. Some of them therefore, beegin it from a certaine first matter, which they bringe in amongst vs: others from the foure Elements onely: othersome from a confusion, and the distinction ther­of: certaine, from Heauen: and some from a bottom­lesse deapth alwayes boylinge foorth: to bee shorte, looke howe many heades so manie meanings, and in this point also euery seuerall sect of Philosophers de­fendeth somethinge, wherein they dissente not onely from other, but also manye times frō sundry of their owne profession.

The fifth Chapter. [Page] What, and howe greate the certentie is, of the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie.

HEtherto nowe concerninge these matters, discourse I praye you also of some other thinge.

Of what?

What is the certentie, & surenes of this knowledge.

Uerily, there is not one onely meane of defininge, and determininge of all the partes therof. For those thin­ges which in this art and knowledge wee learne out of Gods woorde, are most sure & most true, as groun­ded vpon a most certaine foundation, whiche, whoso will gainsay, wee must deale no farther with him, but giue him quite ouer. But whatsoeuer other things are recited touching Naturall Philosophie, they are not so sure and firme, bycause they bee onely establi­shed by mans sence, and reason: which two thinges, are no vndoubted, and assured groundes. For mans reason is many times: and his senses are most times deceiued. Wherefore, they doe thincke well, who will haue the foundation of that knowledge of Naturall Philosophie which is not learned out of Gods word, chiefly to reste vpon these two grounds, to wit, mans coniecture, and historicall experience: in whiche two poyntes also, as S. Augustine writeth in the 9. chap­ter of his Enchiridion, Naturall Philosophers doe suppose more, than they knowe.

That parte therfore of Naturall Philosophie, which is taught without warrant of Gods woorde, is it vaine and altogither vncertaine: and is it, as some suppose to bee contemned?

[Page 14]

No, not so.

Why?

Bicause GOD hath not giuen those two partes of iudgement vnto men in vaine: to wit, reason of the minde, and sense of the body, as wee bee taught in the 12. Chapter of Iob, the 12 verse, and 34. chapter, and 3. verse: the iudgement of both which, althoughe it bee not most certaine in al things, and suffeciently subtile and expacte: yet is it not lyinge, and deceiued in al­thinges. So that all handlinge of matters, which is established and confirmed vppon those twaine, ought not to bee condemned as altogither vaine and false. For who will saye that the knowledge of so manye notable things and artes is worthily to bee dispised, which GOD, besydes the Scripture of his woorde, hath giuen vnto men, yea vnto Ethnickes? suche as Plato, Aristotle, Galene, and many other Philosophers, both auncient, and of later tymes, haue founde out, and taught. Whoso despiseth these, despiseth the gifts of GOD, Wherwith somtime godly men also haue bene indued and blessed by God, vnto the notable testi­monie of Gods goodnesse towardes vs, and miracle of mans nature such as was Moses himselfe, and Iob, and those foure whiche talked with him, Solomon the kinge, Ethan the Ezraelite, Heman, Calcol, Dorda, Ionathan vncle to Dauid, all whom the Scripture commendeth and namely maketh mention of thē, to the intent wee shoulde imitate them. Actes the 7. Chapter, verse 22. Firste of the Kinges, the 4. Chapter, verse 30. and 31. Psalme. 88. and 89. First of the Cronacles the 27. Chap. and verse 32.

The vi. Chapter. The endes of the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie.

I Haue hearde enough concerninge the cer­tentie of this science: declare nowe what endes, and measure wee ought to respecte in that knowledge.

These two ought to bee the endes. The first is, that accordinge to S. Paules aduertisement, whatsoeuer shall bee disputed of in this kinde of science, all maye bee referred to the onely glory, and knowledge of our great and good God. For that is the chiefest and truest ende of humaine Philosophie, that through it, wee may attaine to the vnderstandinge of the trueth, and the nature of GOD, like as also Plutarch wri­teth. The seconde is, that wee folow not, and affirme vncerteine thinges in the steede of certeine. For since to erre and bee deceiued is alwayes shamefull, then it is most shamefull to erre in those thinges which of­tentimes are of great importāce, and in which a man maye honestly and sittingly enough for him, confesse that hee is ignorant. Wherfore, in my iudgement, S Augustine said very well in his bookes de Genesiad Lite­ram, vpon Genesis accordinge to the letter, There bee manye things, saith he, of this vniuersall creature which wee know not, either bicause they bee higher in heauen than our vnderstan­ding is able to attaine vnto them, or perhaps are in vnhabitable regi­ons of the earth: or lie hidden very low in the bottom of the deap­thes. And this rasshnes in pronouncinge certainely of vncertaine things, hath ministred occasion that Na­turall Philosophers haue beene mocked by many, frō [Page 15] which wee ought to absteine as frō a moste stronge poison of humaine ambition. Wherfore, in this Arte, especially curiositie is to be auoided, & sobriety embra­ced. Let vs acknowledge our selues to bee farre in­ferior to GOD, and that wee are not able to finde out the reason and cause of all thinges that hee hath made, as saith S. Irenaeus in his 2. booke, 43. and 45. Chapters.

The vii. Chapter. The subiect of the knowledge of Naturall Philosophie, is a creature visible and that can bee seene: and first how farre and in what respect the worlde is a certaine vni­uersalitie vnto them all.

I Haue alredy learned what natural Phi­losophie is, and how manifolde, from whence also it is to bee learned, likewise what is the truthe and certentie of this knowledge, and what bee the endes ther­of: I praie you wade now more deepely into the mat­ter, and declare vnto mee what is the obiecte of this science, about whiche it is busied.

I wyll doe so, and that willingly.

Then tell mee, what is the matter of this arte and knowledge?

A creature, and not euery one, but that onely whiche maye bee seene, that is to saye, the same which maye bee perceiued by some one, or by all our bodily senses.

Howe prooue you this?

Especially by two places of holy Scripture, whereof the first is in y ^e 1. chapter to the Romanes, and 20. verse, [Page] where Naturall thinges are called visible creatures, and are distinguished from those things which in the same place are tearmed, vnuisible. The other place is in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the 11. chapter, and 3. verse, where the same thinges are called, such as may bee seene. Althoughe that whiche is written in the booke of wisedome the 7. chapter, the 17. 18. and 19. verses, and the 13 chapter, and 2. verse, may expound and confirme the same, if it bee ioyned to the places a­boue recited.

Declare these thyngs more at large.

This therefore it is, whiche I saie. Not euery thyng whiche subsisteth, and whiche the Greekes dooe call, his sumthing, doeth apperteine to the handlynge of na­turall Philosophie. For God subsisteth, who hath not onely some beeing, but the same also moste true and an absolut substance: and farther, I would adde also, if I maie bee so bolde so to speake, a nature also, (for what shall let mee to saie with S. Peter in his 2. Epistle, the 1 chapit. and 4. verse. The diuine nature, or, The nature of God?) the declaration and discourse cōcernyng whiche, is to bee sought by an other Arte, and whiche is of more price and dignitie than this is. For God is the Crea­tor and maker of thynges, & not a creature and made. And the force and nature of creatures, is onely consi­dered of in this science and knowledge.

Yea, but is the knowledge of euery creature conside­red of herein?

No, not so. For Angelles are a kinde of creatures, but they belōg not vnto natural Philosophers, although, it bee cōmonly saied by all men that thei haue nature, and this kinde of phrase also is vsually found among [Page 16] the Fathers, to wit, The nature of Angels. Of which na­ture therfore Moses entreated not in al that whole fyrst chapter of Genesis, although in the same hee haue most breifly comprehended the whole matter of Naturall Philosophie.

But in the same first chapter he hath intreated of dar­nesse, which thinge surely can not bee seene, and yet it belongeth to this science.

You iudge well for indeede it belongeth to the setting foorth of the nature of things, but by accident, as they call it, for neither the meanes of gatheringe togither the lighte, neither of other the firste thinges coulde bee plainely declared, vnlesse they were sette foorth by their contraries, or priuations. For darkenesse, as it is a meere priuation, doth not properly of it selfe bee­longe to this art: but so farre foorth as it possesseth an vse and place in the nature of thinges, and hath decla­red the power of GOD to bee the greater in the cre­ation of this worlde, it is very well mencioned of by Moses. Of all which matter, wee will speake more hereafter.

Gather therefore nowe togither such thinges as you woulde, and what you haue proued.

Since then, neyther God, neither the Angels, doe ap­pertaine to the Naturall Philosophers, and to this our present disputation: it remaineth, that the matter of this knowledge and science bee saide properly to be that creature which may bee seene, and hath a place as S. Augustine speaketh, and hath a body, and is sub­iecte vnto our senses, all, or some of them.

But the Philosophers, almost all of them, are of an­other opinion: For they thinke that y ^e subiect & mat­ter [Page] of this Art, is that thing which is mouable in that respecte that it is Moueable, not in respecte that it is created, or subiect vnto our sight.

It is true. But therein they erre doubly. The fyrste errour is, that forasmuch as the signification of Mo­tion is verie large, accordinge to their owne opinion, that it may also bee extended to the Angels, since ma­nye times also they moue from place to place at Gods commaundement, and indeede are fallen from theire fyrst originall, (hauinge suffered no small chaunge not onely of their place, but also of theyr nature:) sure­ly the disputation concerninge them were a parte & that proper of the science of Naturall Philosophie, which notwithstandinge they doe very stoutly, and that also verily & in deed dency. And this is theyr first erroure. The second is that the knowledge of Natu­rall Philosophie doth not beelonge vnto the thynges which wee see, if so bee any of them bee vnmouable, as thinges that neither perishe nor are changed. Which, since it hath hapned vnto man for sinne after his cre­atiō & perfect nature: truely, according to their opiniō neither should mā before hee had sinned, for the most part of him haue ben a subiect of natural Philosophie, neither shoulde the treatie of him haue appertayned to Naturall Philosophie. Which thing, howe vn­true it is, it appeareth out of the sayinge of S. Paule: who will haue althings that may bee seene with our eies, to belong to this our knowledge, & to the science of Naturall Philosophie, and to bee a ready and apte meane and degree, to the knowledge of GOD. It appeareth also by the same place, that the nature of man, while hee was pure and had not yet sinned, is by [Page 17] Moses reckoned amonge Naturall thinges. It appea­reth moreouer, out of sundrie Psalmes, that Man and the nature of man, as it was first created by God is most truely numbred among the kindes of Natu­rall thinges: as in the 8. and 104. and 139. Psalmes. the 13. 15. and 16. verses: and also in the 148. Psalme. To conclude, they that make The mouable bodye to bee the subiect of this science, what other thinge go they about, but to teache that there bee two subiectes of one Art, to wit, the bodie, and his motion? when as indeede one arte ought to haue but one subiect.

Why then doe Naturall Philosophers define and determine those thinges which they call Naturall by Motion especially?

First, bicause al their knowledge is gathered, as they tearme it, from that which is latter, not from that which is fyrst. For things then began to bee knowne when they were once extant, and by meanes of mans transgression were made mortall, that is to saie, were by GOD appointed vnto miserie and destruction. For when they were destitute of Gods woorde and light, they perceiued not nor saw, what manner ones they were first created. Wherefore, when they began to bee busied in these naturall things which are now corrupted, they perceiued their great and perpetuall chaunges, ebbinge and flowinge, and inconstancie in abidinge in one estate, and they iudged that Natural things should bee supposed of accordinge to that their owne condition. Moreouer, seeing that Motion and chaunge may most easilie and generally bee noted in all these things which wee see, and which are in this worlde: it was an easie matter to distinguish and de­termine [Page] Naturall thinges by their motion. There is motion truely in all naturall thinges, and also in other which are not Naturall, as in Angels: where by it cummeth to passe, that Natural thinges cannot properly bee separated and discerned from things not Naturall by Motion.

Why do you call a thing, Natural, bicause of it owne nature it maye bee seene and perceiued?

Bicause, forasmuch as God hath created two chiefe kindes of thinges to his owne glorie, as S. Augustine teacheth verie often, the one is visible thinges, the o­ther is inuisible, which is to bee seene in the 1. chapter of Genesis, Moses in his treatice of Naturall Philo­sophie, hath cōprehended and handled but one kinde, to wit, of visible thinges onely, and those things onely doth the Scripture acknowledge for the Natural thinges. Wherefore Naturall thinges are to bee de­fined, as wee haue saide, in that they bee visible. As for inuisible thinges, and such as cannot bee seene, whether they moue or moue not, they are reuoked & reduced to another kinde of Art as thinges that are not Naturall. And to confirme this my sayinge, I coulde alleage the aucthorities almost infinite of the auncient Fathers, S. Basile. S. Chrisostome S. Am­brose. S. Augustine, but what shoulde that neede in so euident a matter?

I vnderstande these thinges: and as I perceiue, this is your iudgement and opinion, that all those things are properly the matter and subiect of the Art of Naturall Philosophie, whiche are the creatures of GOD, and subiect to our senses, and maye bee bee­holden, or seene.

[Page 18]

You saye true.

Nowe therefore, define euerie one of these, to the end that this whole disputatiō may proceed in order and methode.

I will doe so.

What is a creature?

It is euerie thinge which is neither of it selfe, neither hath bene euer, but was once made, yea and that by GOD. Thus doe the learned saye, and that true­ly in my iudgement.

But S. Paule to the Romaines, the 8. Chapter, and 20. verse, seemeth to haue taught otherwise, to wite, that a creature is that thinge which is subiect to vanitie, corruption, and seruitude by reason of sinne: which deffinition also S. Hillarius followeth in his booke of the Trinitie.

You remember it well. Howbeit S. Paule doeth not in that place define what a creature is generally, and of it selfe, but what it is now after sinne, and so farre foorth as was thē necessarie for the argument which hee had in hande. Wherfore, hee had respect then vn­to one kinde of creatures onely: Neither doth Sainct Paule define a creature by it owne true nature, but on­ly by the qualitie and accident which indeede is in it, and which hapned vnto things after they were crea­ted, that is to say, after they were once made creaturs, but as hauinge nowe lost their full and perfect nature in parte, by reason of mans transgression. Which al­so may bee answered vnto him, whoso shall obiect a­gainst vs the sayinge of S. Augustine in his booke a­gainst Felicianus, the 7. chap. A creature is the substāce of euery corruptible thinge, made by the will of God, out of that which is not yet, or was not sumtime, so far as the nature of the thing wil permit.

[Page]

You thinke then, that it maye otherwise bee defined more commodiously and more truely, generally what a creature is.

Yea verily: For neither should the blessed Angels bee truely called creatures, neither wee our selues, (if so bee that Adam had continued in his first state of inte­gritie) haue bene truely tearmed creatures, if the lat­ter definitions were reteined: for wee shoulde haue beene incorruptible, and without all vanitie. Final­ly, the fleshe of our Lorde Jesus Christe shoulde not rightly be called a creature, as it is oftentimes called by S. Augustine, and the trueth it selfe beareth record, that it was a creature. For of it owne selfe it might haue beene voide of all infirmitie, bycause it was free from sinne and corruption, neither was it subiecte to death for it owne sinne: although notwithstandinge wee confesse, that Christ died in the fleash. Wherfore, whosoeuer stubburnly impugneth y ^• whiche wee say, shall fall into all maner of absurdities. So that thys which wee haue alreadie alleaged, and which wee fo­lowe in this place, is the most true and ample defini­tion of this woorde, creature.

Nowe then by your definition, is that to bee called a creature, I meane the essence of the thinges them­selues, and also their vertues and properties, togither with their accidents? as for example, in a man ther is a certayne essence, which consisteth in the body and soule: there is in him also a vertue & property where­by hee reasoneth, woorketh, feeleth, mooueth & wal­keth. There are moreouer certeine accidentes which are existinge and vnseperable partes in euery particu­lare man, whiche doo distinguish & separate the same [Page 19] man, makinge hym to differ from other particulare persons of the same kinde, whiche in the Schooles are called indiuiduall Conditions. These are also ne­cessarie and existing partes vnto the same particulare persons whereby they liue, as place, time, coloure of the face, stature of the body, with other such like: whi­che by reasō of their essence, Logicians call accidents. Wherefore I demaund this question of you, whether you cōprise vnder the name of a creature, those three kindes of thinges, to wit, the essence of the thing, the propertie, and accident, which, as you see, are distince one from another?

Yea truely. For whatsoeuer was by GOD first in­graffed within thinges, or by course of nature is ioy­ned vnto them, or whatsoeuer was by him created in this great vniuersalitie of all thinges, whether it bee a substāce, or called an accident, I tearme a creature. Although Moses haue onely or specially handled and entreated of those kindes of thinges whiche are sub­stances, and so in deede are called, which onely I con­fesse principally and of them selues to belong to a Na­turall Philosopher. And whatsoeuer hath not pro­ceeded from him, but is made by the art of man, or by him wrought, or by his mischeiuous or peruerse will added, that I call not a creature of GOD, no not a creature at all. For there can bee no creature, but that which is made by God, who is the onely creator.

Wherefore, the handie woorkes of men, their deuises and inuentions, which sometime are very excellent, shall not beelong vnto this arte: no not y ^• sinne of man, but by accident, and in respect that by meanes thereof ther is a great alteration wrought in the fyrst & pure [Page] nature of thinges, which at this present appeareth in all thinges, but specially in man, who is the most beu­tifull woorke of God.

Howe doe the Grecians tearme a creature?

They call a creature Ktisis: although the woorde a­monge the Grecians signifieth not onely the thinge that is created, but many times also the verie woor­kinge of the creator, and sometimes likewise the con­dition of the thinge created as it nowe is, and as wee see it.

These thinges I vnderstande. But what meane you by this woorde visible, when you saye a visible crea­ture was the subiect of Naturall Philosophie?

Not that onely which maye bee comprehended by the sense of the eies, as are substance, light, and coloure, (although this woord visible seeme properly to signi­fie the same,) but what so euer else may bee knowne and perceiued by anye other sense of the bodie, as by feelinge, hearinge, smellinge, and tastinge: as smell, sounde, sweete, or soure, &c. And all bodily thinges are especially tearmed visible, for that our sight is y ^e most certaine, most excellent, and most noble of all the sen­ses of our bodie: and for that also the actions of euery lyuinge thinge, and the argumentes whereby we per­ceiue them to bee aliue, are chiefly gathered by y ^e sence of seeinge, as moouing, and breathinge. Finally, that bodily thinges are more exactly discerned by the eye, than by tastinge or hearinge: so that to saye, that a visible creature is the matter and subiect of Naturall Philosophie, is as much as to meane, that wee wold haue euery creature whiche is sensible of it owne na­ture, to be the true & proper obiect therof: whether the [Page 20] same be bodies, as are the substaunces of thinges: or whether they bee not bodies, as are the vertues, pro­perties, qualities, motions and actions, which vnto all corporall thinges by nature and their first creation and beeginning either cleaue vnto them without, or are engraffed in them within. All these kindes are, as I haue sayd, naturall thinges, and created by God.

I Understād these things. But tell mee now, by how many maner of meanes doeth a Christian Naturall Philosopher handle and consider of these creatures?

Onely twoo waies: the first, to wit, as they are all ge­nerally conteined in one, and all comprehended as it were, within the compasse of one bodie whiche inclo­seth them all, which is called the world. Or else euerie one in his kinde, which are sundrie, wherein the crea­tures are distincted, and seperated one from another. Whiche the particular Historie of the creation in the six dayes, setteth downe vnto vs.

How prooue you that?

In that the Scripture many tymes reciteth vnto vs all thinges created and visible, vnder the name of the world: as in Isay the 38. chapter, and 11. verse: Iohn the 1. chapter, the 9. verse; and the 9. chap. the 39. verse. And many tymes the Scripture reciteth them di­stinctly and seuerally, thereby the more to set foorth the wounderfull wisedome of God, as in the 104. and 147. Plalmes, and 8. verse, and the 149. Psalme. Wherfore wee muste also entreate of them after both these man­ners, that sutch thinges as may bee gathered & lear­ned out of these creatures apperteinyng to the know­ledge of God, and setting foorth of his glorie, accor­ding as the Scripture teacheth, may bee by vs abun­dantly [Page] vnderstoode, so that at the length wee may bee­come perfect Christian naturall Philosophers.

With whiche of these twoo Methodes must wee first beegin?

Euen with that treatice, which proposeth vnto vs all thinges generally comprehended in that one bodie, which is called the world.

And why with that?

Bicause, that way of teaching is more generall, and more easie. For whole thinges are better knowne than their partes: for a man shal with more ease bee­hold an whole house, than bee able too distinguishe or comprehend in his minde euerie part thereof. And moreouer, that whiche shalbee saied concernyng the whole world, wil open vnto vs the way and entrance too the handling of the particular kindes of thinges. For it shalbee as a foundation to the residue that shall ensue.

The viii. Chapter. What the world is.

DIscourse then of the world.

I will.

What is the world?

The signification of the worlde is diuerse and manifold, as the Philosophers doe teache vs, as Laertius in his 7. booke, and Plutarche in his first booke of the Philosophers opinions, whiche signification wee must first distinguishe, least beeing deceiued by the ambiguitie of the woord, either wee do mocke the rea­der in this whole disputation, or else deceiue him.

How many significations therefore are there of this woord, world?

[Page 21]

Three speciall. First, the world is taken for the crea­tures themselues, whereof this whole visible frame and woorke consisteth. So is it taken in Iohn the first chapter, the 10. verse: so likewise in the 2. Epistle of S. Peter, the 3. chap. and 6. verse. And moreouer, for the corrupt and miserable condition of this world, which falling vnto all these thinges by meanes of mannes transgression, now hangeth vppon them: whereby there is a most manifest confusion, and a great disor­der in al thinges. So sayth S. Ihon in the 2. chap. and 16. verse: and likewise the 5. Chapter, and 19. verse. Finally, it is taken for one parte of the worlde, and that the most noble and excellent, to wit, for men only, and manye times for all men, as to the Romanes the 5. chapter, and 12. verse: Ihon the 3. chapter, the 16. verse: and oftentimes for the faithfull and regenerat, as in the 1. Epistle of S. Ihon the 2. chapter, and 2. verse. and at another time also for the reprobate and vnbe­leeuinge, as in the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians, the 1. chapter. and 21. verse: and S. Ihon the 14. chapter, the 17. and 22. verses. Otherwise also if a man would call the definition of this woorde worlde, vnto certaine chapters and speciall pointes, wee maye saye, that vnder the name of the worlde, sumtime the place it selfe, sumtime the substance of the thinges, sumtime the men as the principall part thereof, and sumtime the corruption of the same part, that is to say, of men, is to be vnderstoode.

But the worlde was by the Latins called Mundus, for the most beutifull order of all things therein coteined, like as it was also tearmed by the Grecians, K [...]smo [...], of the cumlynesse thereof: which reason of the name, [Page] truely is repugnant vnto that signification, whereby you saye that confusion of thinges and vice is sum­time signified by the name of the worlde.

Uerily, you haue alleaged a true definition of thys woorde worlde, from which notwithstandinge after­warde the vse both of the Greeke and Latine tongue hath deflected. For men vnderstoode that rebellion, corruption, and disorder was generally in all things and partes of the worlde, they called the same by the name of the worlde, bicause it is inseperably distribu­ted throughout the whole, a [...]d ingraffed, as it were, within the marrowe of euery singulare thinge. By which meanes, men are many times tearmed to bee the common destinie and miserie of men. The Hebrues in their tongue call the worlde Gola (which woorde the Apostles doe translate Euerlastinge, as to the He­brues the 11. chapter, and 3. verse: the 1. chapter, and 2. verse, to the Ephesians the 2. chapter, and 2. verse: not of eternitie, as if the worlde had beene alwayes and from euerlastinge, but rather of the fixed and certeine order thereof, which the Lorde God hath established in it after that he had created the things that are in it, which wee beholde to bee in it & to continue in it euen vnto this daye: as are the risinge and settinge of the Sunne, and the chaunge and alteration of the foure quarters of the yeare. And this shall indure so longe as this state of thinges shall continue, as it appeareth in the 8. chapter of Genesis, the 22. verse: the 9. chapter, the 9. or 10. verse: & Iob the 26. chapter, the 10. verse: & Ecclesiast the 8. chapter, and 11. verse. Wherfore, whē this age and figure of this worlde is past, this order of thinges shall perishe also: the 1▪ to the Corinthians [Page 22] the 7. chapter, and 30. verse: the 1. Epistle of S. Peter the 3 chapter the 4. and 7. verses, but it shall continue vntill that time. For the Hebrues themselues do plain­le signifie, that this worlde shall one day haue an end, callinge the same worlde by the name of Chadel. Psalme 39. verse 5.

By which definition therefore, or by whiche of those three significations, muste the worlde bee taken in this disputation?

By the fyrst.

What is the worlde?

The worlde is not onely a certeine comprehensyon and heapinge togither of all these visible thinges, but also a most orderly and wise distinction, ordeined by God in euery kinde and space, whereof hee made hea­uen and earth to bee the extreame partes.

Whence doe you prooue this your definition?

First, out of the verie same places of the scripture, by whiche I prooued that all thinges visible and whiche can bee seene, are the matter of this Arte: and also by that y ^e scripture, for the most part, vseth to tearme the most excellently and beutifully ordered frame of thys whole worlde, by the name of the worlde as in Ge­nesis the 24. Chapter, and 22. verse: the 2. Chapter the 4. verse: Mathew the 11. Chapter, the 25. verse: and in other places also almost infinite.

Why haue you comprehended both these pointes in your definition, to wit, that the worlde is not onely a general comprehēsion of al things togither, but also of them seuerally distinguished?

Bycause, if wee wil conceiue in our minde confusedly all thinges whereof this world consisteth, and is dif­orderly [Page] heaped togither, or lyinge one vpon an other not yet disposed into any order, but as it were y ^e rub­bishe of some house that were fallen downe, or as it were stuffe prepared to build some house withall: such an heape of thinges can not yet bee called a worlde. It is rather that whiche the Grecians, both Poetes & others, tearmed by the name of Chaos: the Hebrues call the same Bohu, that is to say, a disordered heape, from whiche some thinke the woord Chaos was deriued, by a smal chaūge, to wit of the letter B. into C. as though the Grecians, beeing disdainfull hearers, and vnskilfull Schollars, had vnderstoode the woord rather after that maner: Hereof that phrase and maner of spea­king in the Latine toungue is knowne, whiche Ver­rius the learned Grammarian hath noted, that in the olde tyme the auncient people called the world Cohum, and from thence this woord, in [...]h [...]are, to beeginne and leaue vnperfect, was deriued. But by the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrues, the 3. chapter, and 4. verse, the worlde is called an houshold, and compared to a familie well and orderly disposed: neither is it a disor­dered heape in deede.

The. ix. Chapter. Whether the world may truely and Christianly bee called an vniuersalitie.

BUt in that this world is by some Latine Writers called vniuersitas, an vniuersali­tie, and by the Grecians all and the whole, doo you allow of it?

Although I know, that so proud a name as that is, doth scarce please well some very well lear­ned [Page 23] and godly men: notwithstanding, forasmuche as graue auctours, and also Ecclesiasticall Fathers and writers haue vsed that woorde, truely I iudge that it is not to bee reiected. For S. Augustine in his Enchi­rid. the 10. chapt. and in the 8. booke, and 25. chapt. of Genesis accordyng to the Letter: and Tertullian also in some place: and Ireneus likewise in the 2. booke and 12. is not afeard to vse this woord for the world: that I may not also commende vnto you in this respecte S. Ambrose, and S. Basill, whose opinions perhaps may bee confirmed out of the 3. chap. and 4. verse of the E. pistle to the Hebrues. For although, besides this visible world, there bee other creatures of God, and those al­so many very excellent & beutifull, as are the Angels, and the seates of the Sainctes, and blessed men: and this name, vniuersalitie, seemeth to bee an arrogant and bold name: yet all men knowe in what sense they call it so, and how wee ought to vnderstand it, to wit, that the worlde is an vniuersalitie, not of all Gods creatures, but of those onely that can bee seen, and are corporall.

Hetherto concernyng the name of the world: now let vs come to the thing it self.

Yes, for so the order of the disputation requireth.

The. x. Chapter. Whether the worlde, and the thinges that are conteined therein, bee sound bodies, or certeine shadowes onely.

WHat things therfore, may there bee taught out of holie Scripture concernynge the world?

Many thinges truelie, and those all moste [Page] woorthy too bee knowne, whiche apperteine too the praise and admiration of God the Creatour: wherof some declare the nature of the world, and othersome the causes of it.

Whiche bee they that declare the nature of the world, and of this whole vniuersalitie?

Those questions for the most part, whiche are diuers­ly tossed, either by Heretikes, or by Philosophers.

Which is the first of them?

Whether this world, and the thinges therein contei­ned bee substances, that is to say, certaine sound bo­dies, and natures truelye and in deede subsisting: or whether thei bee certeine shadowes onely, and the re­presentations and images of thinges.

How should they bee so?

Bicause not onely Plato will haue all thinges that are here, to bee the images of certein ideae or patterns, and the shadowes onely of true natures whiche are in heauen, and remaine in Gods minde: but also the Va­lentinian heretikes contend, that whatsoeuer thinges are in this world, are onely the meere imagies of their Eternities, and representations, and transitorie sha­dowes of them. In confirmation of whiche their opinion, they alleage the testimonie of S. Paule, the 1. Epistle, the 7. chap. and 31. verse, to the Corinthians. The figure of this world (saith hee) passeth away: as though they were but vaine shewes, and no sound bodies whatso­euer thinges wee beeholde here with our eyes, what manner thing that was which the Poet described in these woordes:

Can you answere vnto this?

Yea.

How I praie you?

Firste, as touching Plato, let vs bid hym farewell, for that hee is not onely an Academike, and doubtfull of minde, and vncertein in euery thing: but also an Eth­nike, and nothing beelonging vnto vs Christians: for the thinges that are without beelong not vnto vs, as S. Paule sayeth. But as touching the Valentinians, who would bee called Christians, they are sufficiently con­futed, and most sharply reprooued by S. Ireneus in the 2. booke, and 7. chap. of his woorke whiche hee wroat against heresies. But what absurdities and inconue­niences doe followe that opinion, marke. For they muste needes confesse that those thinges, these hea­uenly ideae and Patterns, whereof, by their Doctrine, these earthly thinges are shadowes, too bee bodies, which is an absurd thing. Neither can a bodily thing be an image of thinges y ^t are meere spirituall. More­ouer, all this whole most beutifull woorke of GOD, whiche is called the worlde, shalbee a fantasie, and a meere dreame, and not that thing whiche we suppose it to be: which is blasphemous. Also to se, handle, and feele, shalbee nothing else, but to bee deceiued, and to be mocked, and after the maner of madde and drunken men too bee sicke and to dreame: and this which wee call sumthing, shalbee nothing. The meates whiche wee eate shalbee imaginations: the men with whom wee bee conuersant, shadowes the earth whiche wee goe vpon, a vanishing shadowe, not a sound body, and [Page] an element. And finally, Christe himselfe, who was made like vnto vs, was an imaginarie man only, and not a very man in deede, and therfore his passion ima­ginary also. And by what meaues might the madnes of the Mar [...]i [...]nites bee better called out of Hell againe? Yea, the case should stande otherwise than hath the olde Prouerbe, to wit, that the life of man is a stage play, and the world the Theater.

What answere you to S. Paule?

That hee doeth not holde with the Valentinians. Ney­ther doth S. Paule speake of the thinges themselues and their nature, what manner it is: but onely of the state and condition of them howe transitorie and vn­certayne it is, that wee shoulde make no accompte of it.

How doe you prooue your opinion to bee true?

Beesydes the great absurditie of these thinges which wee haue beefore declared, experience it selfe confir­meth the trueth: adde here vnto also whiche maketh plainly for the confirmatiō of mine opinion, the saying of S. Peter, in the 2. Epistle of S. Peter, the 3. Chap. the 10. and 12. verse: and Psalme 102. the 25. and 26. verse. And to bee short, all those places of holy Scrip­ture in whiche the Lorde witnesseth that hee founded the earth, & created all thinges: and not that hee hath cast beefore our eyes vaine representations, and emp­tie shadowes of thinges, to deceiue vs with all.

The xi. Chapter. [Page 25] Whether there bee one worlde onely, or many.

THis I vnderstande, discourse now of such thinges as next are wount to bee moued concerninge the worlde.

That is this, whether there bee manye worldes, or but one onely?

Haue there beene some of opinion that there bee ma­ny worldes?

Yea truely. And in thys point they are of two opi­nions.

Declare them.

Some thinke that there bee many, and those of sun­drie kindes. Others also, that there are manye, but all of them of one nature.

What meane those first; which think that the worlds are of sundrie kindes?

They make two sortes of worldes, whereof the one is intelligible, Ideall, or as a patterne, which indeede subsisteth, but it is residēt aboue this world: the other is earthly and figuratiue, which God hath created ac­cording to the representation and image of that spiri­tuall and ideall worlde, which subsisteth also, and it is this worlde which wee mortall men doe inhabite.

Doe some saye thus?

Plainely they affirme it. And those not onely pro­phane▪ Philosophers, as Plato, Philo Iudeus, and Plu tarch in his booke of the Moones face: but also graue men, and some among the Christian writers not to bee contemned.

Is their opinion true?

No veryly. For the Scripture in no place maketh [Page] mention of this ideall worlde, as they call it: and they that are of that opinion, they speake to childishly, I will not say reprochfully, of GOD, as if hee were an ignorant and an vnskilfull younge woorkman, that could doe nothing vnlesse hee hadan example or pat­terne laid before him, and that hee could deuise on no­thing, nor thinke vpon any thing in his mind, nor vn­derstand any thing without a fourme layd before his eyes. All which, how well they agree with the omni­potencie of God, and his incomprehensible wisedome, let them see, for I cannot see. Finally, where, and in what place at the length this spirituall world is, and how it subsisteth, whether it bee in Gods minde, as one substaunce in another▪ Surely, it can not so bee. For GOD is a most simple nature, whiche receiueth and conteineth none other thing then it self: but if in­deede it were so, whether were it as an accident, and a certaine fourmyng, or a phantasie & fiction of Gods mind? Truely it cannot bee so neither. For there sal­leth no such accident vpon God, who in that hee seeth the thinges that are present, hee gathereth not in his minde the fourmes and representations of thinges that are obiect vnto hym: when hee thinketh and me­ditateth, hee discourseth not from one thing to ano­ther: when hee woorketh and maketh somewhat, hee doeth not consider of it, and examine it according too some patterne which hee hath conceiued in his mind▪ to the ende hee would not erre.

Howbeit, the Lord cōmaunded Moses, that hee should doo all thing accordong to the example and patterne which was shewed hym in the Mount, as in Exod. the 25. chap. and 40. verse: and in the Epistle to the Hebrues [Page 26] the 8. chapter and 5. verse.

First, if I list, I may make exceptiō, that in that place are handled heauēly things only & not things apper­taining to natural Philosophy. Then again, there is difference betweene God the most wise creatour, and Moses a creature & a man, subiect vnto the same blind­nesse & infirmitie that other men were. Wherefore, to theintent hee might well execute that which hee was commaunded to doe, surely hee had neede of suche an example, or patterne. This patterne also which the Lord shewed hym in the Mount, did not indeede sub­sist, nor was a substanciall thing, as I am of opinion: but it was sutch a representation and image, sutch as were the images of many thinges to come, whiche were afterwarde by God reuealed to the Prophetes, and beefore that, vnto Abraham and the Patriarkes.

They that defend that there bee many worlds of one kinde, what doe they say?

This for sooth, that like as wee inhabite this world, so others inhabite other worldes, in whiche is also an other earth like vnto ours, and other heauens, and a­nother Sunne, and a Moone, and all other things in them as in ours. Wherefore, some of them suppose that there are an infinite number of worldes, some moe, some fewer. Among whom are rekoned the fol­lowers of the Philosophers Epicurus, and Democritus.

Are there in deede many worldes?

Fie vpon this infinite or multitude of worlds. Ther is one and no moe: although S. Ierome out of a cer­teine Epistle of Clements disputeth of the same in his Commentaries vpon the Epistle of S. Paule to the E­phesians, the 2. chapter, and 2. verse.

[Page]

Tell mee why you iudge wee should thinke so?

First, for asmutch as when the holie Scripture doeth diligently reckon vp the special visible works of God, wherein his maiestie and omnipotencie may easilye bee perceiued, hee maketh mention of this one worlde only, and not of any other. Whiche if there had bine many, doubtlesse hee would haue made mention of them. For that poinct had made verie mutch to the settyng foorth of Gods glorie, and power. Moreouer, what is their state, order, condition, fall, constan­cie, Sauiour and Jesus: what likewise is their life euerlasting, and from whence commeth the saluation of this second or third world, it is no where declared, neither in what sort these other worldes were made and created: but al these thinges are expressed concer­nyng this one onely. Wherefore, it must needes bee, either that those worldes were made by some other God, or that they came of themselues, both whiche o­pinions are plainly blasphemous. Or if they bee crea­ted by the same God by whiche this was whiche wee dwell in, why doeth the Scripture speake nothing of it? Surely there can bee no probable reason alleaged of so enuious and daungerous silence. And therefore it came to passe, that the auncient fathers in fore time did verie well thinke and gather that there is but one God, bicause there is but one worlde, and cōtrariwise that there is but one worlde, bicause there is but one God. Moreouer, all this framing of manye and sun­drie worldes, how foolish and childishe is it? For why should God make many worldes, since hee might cō ­prehend althing more commodiouslie in one, and the same beeyng of so greate receite, whiche hee ment to [Page 27] comprehende in those diuerse and sundrye worldes? But, as it is commonly and truely sayd, God and Nature make nothyng in vaine, and that is vainlye and rashlye doone by moe things which may bee doone by fewer. For admit that GOD had created moe in num­ber, those worldes shoulde differ in number onely, and not in kinde or likenesse. What neede hee then to create one maner of thing so often? To conclude, whē the selfe same Scripture oftentymes addeth the Greek article [...], when it speaketh of the world, the auctoritie of S. Iohn in the 1. chap. and 10. verse witnesseth, that there are not many, but one onely, and that a certeine one. For the article whiche is ioyned vnto it, doeth si­gnifie a certeine and sure thing. But if wee graunte that there bee manie worldes, euen by the very same reason wee must confesse, that they are in number in­finite. I let passe those absurdities whiche notwith­standing doe necessarily followe, to wit, that neuer al­most wee should haue any Eclipses of the Sunne or Moone. Yea, wee should neuer haue night, since one Sunne or another of one of the other worlds, should either rise vnto vs when ours goeth downe, or else should shine in the middes of Heauen, when ours is shadowed, and in the Eclipse.

But why did not God make manye worldes?

Truely, not by reason of any impotencie, or lacke of power: since that hee is omnipotente. Not that hys senses were exhausted in the framinge of so huge a mole, or his strength weried: for hee made althinge with his woord onely, as it appeareth in the 33. Psalme. Not also that it happened so for wante of matter, as the Peripatetikes suppose, for that all the matter that [Page] was prepared was spent in makinge of the bodie of so great a frame. For hee that coulde firste make thys so great a worlde of nothing, coulde, if hee had lusted, haue prepared matter for him selfe to make infinite o­ther worlds of. But this is onely the cause that ther were not many worldes made, bycause God woulde not: for hee made whatsoeuer hee woulde, Psalme 115. and 3. verse. But why hee would not, it may bee, the cause is not knowne to vs, notwithstandinge it can­not bee an vniust cause: hee himselfe sawe that thys worlde was an argument great ynough vnto vs, to set foorth the cōmendation and renoume of his won­derfull mercye and iustice, who knoweth all thynge: and therefore hee created this one onely.

The xii. Chapter. VVhether this worlde bee finite.

BUT is this worlde finite, as some doe dispute?

It is not onely one, but it is also finite, and hath boundes.

Howe prooue you that?

Bycause that is finite, whose extreame partes may plainely and perfectly bee shewed, but the Scripture hath appointed heauen and earth to bee the extreame partes and endes of this worlde, whereof Heauen is the farthest, and the earth the nearest, as it appea­reth in the 20 chap. of Exo. & 11. verse: and Genesis the 2. chapter and 2. verse, and also in other places. Wher­fore, truely it cannot bee doubted, but that it is finite. Moreouer, what difference shoulde there bee noted to bee beetweene the Creator and the Creature, if, as [Page 28] hee is infinite, and without measure, the creature al­so shoulde bee infinite, diffuse, and without measure. Finally, there shoulde bee two infinites appoynted, which by no meanes can bee indeede, or bee defended.

The xiii. Chapter. whether this worlde bee sphericall and rounde.

I Remember althinges which you haue he­therto confirmed, to wit, that this world is substantiall, not a shadowe: that it is one, not many: and finally, that it is a certeine finite masse & comprehension and not infinite: and thereunto adde also the residue.

First, this is wount to bee demaunded, what is the forme of this worlde, and specially of this body, with in the compasse whereof all these thinges are contey­ned: for that some will haue it to bee sphericall or rounde, as Aristotle: othersome of the facion and like­nesse of the figure Icosaidron rownde compassinge with a greate manye of Angles or Corners heere and there in the top, as Plato: Others, plaine and flat, like a skin stretched foorth abroode, as S. Basill: others giue it other formes, and those also diuerse, as the Greeke writer Cleomides reporteth in his title of y ^e con­templation of circles.

Is there any of those opinions true?

God he knoweth. Wee, who in no place of his woord doe reade these matters plainely determined (vnlesse parhaps some man will alleag that which is written in Iob the 22. Chapter, and 14. verse: and there is men­tion also made of the sphere of the earth in Isay the 40. [Page] chapter and 22. verse: and in S. Iames the 3. chapter and 6. verse, to the ende hee might prooue that thys worlde, and also the outmost heauen, are rounde like a circle or a wheele) doe oftentimes fall & are drawne into contrarie opinions. Uerily, that the worlde is rounde, it seemeth vnto mee much the more probable, by that which is written, as I haue saide in Iob the the 20. chapter, and 14. verse: and in Eccles. the 24. chapter, and 8. verse: both for that it is the most beu­tifull and widest forme of all other, by whiche it was needefull that a compasse which shoulde conteyne in the bosome thereof so many thinges, shoulde bee fra­med: also for that the principall, and as it were the partes of the whole in respecte of this worlde as are heauen, water, & earth, are by our senses themselues perceiued to bee sphericall and rounde, vnto whiche it is credible that the compasse of the whole worlde is semblable. Howe bee it, I can affirme nothinge cer­teinly therof, since although wee admit that this part whiche is neerest vnto vs, & the lowermost of the cir­cūference of the high heauen which wee beehold, and which enuironeth althing, be bending, holow, & round notwithstandinge it maye bee imagined that the far­thermoste and highermoste parte of the same circū ­ference is of some other forme: and I knowe ther bee some that haue saide that the vttermoste and farther­most part of heauen is shaped like a bell.

But in the Prophecic of Isay, it is said, that heauen is stretched foorthe, and sprede abroade like a webbe or a curteine, Isay the 40. chapter, and 22. verse: where­vnto also accordeth that which is written in the 104. Psalme, and 2. verse, wherfore, it is like to a plaine, whi­che [Page 29] fourme is quite contrarie to a circle. For a circle turneth about alwayes in his owne rowmeth.

Uerily, both the places which you haue alleaged, de­clareth not the forme, but the vttermost top or ende of world, which therfore is said by God so to be stretched abroad and to couer the earth, both that men may the more commodiously dwell vnder it, as it were vnder a most beutifull and wide rough (whereof it commeth that wee French men call all such couerings, heauen, and in our countrey language, vn ciell) and also to the intente that this is a veile beeinge sprede beefore mens eies, they maye bee restrayned from the ouercu­rious and deepe entring into and searchinge after the secretes and misteries of God.

But since y ^e same holy Scripture hath plainly distin­guished the higher place frō the lower in this worlde, as in Isay the 55. chapter, the 9. and 10. verses, it can­not then seeme to bee sphericall or round. For in a cir­cle no part can bee called high or lowe, forasmuch as all lines which are drawne from the center to the cir­cumference are equall, and the circumference it selfe which way soeuer it stande, is alwaye vpwarde and in the higher place.

Of this wee will speake afterwarde, and that more at large. But nowe to set downe so much as shall bee sufficient to take all doubt out of your minde, vnder­stande thus much: That by the rules of the mathe­maticians there bee indeede, and are noted these po­sitions of the higher and lower place, and that they are indeede distinguished one from an other. For the middle of the circle which they call the center, is the lower place and downewarde: and the circumference [Page] (which is the vpper line, which beeinge hollowe, and meetyng togither, conteineth the whole rounde space within the circle) is the higher place, and vpwarde: so that in that these positions and kindes of places and differences are found in the world, you may conclude that which you would, to wit, that the whole receite of this worlde is not sphericall and rounde.

The xiiii. Chapter. Whether the worlde haue one onely soule,

NOW, forasmuch as this world is but one onely, and since it is finite, is it gouerned by some one speciallsoule onely, whiche is dis­persed throughout euerie parte thereof, as it were in the members, as wee see the soule to bee in a mans bodie?

That this whole world hath a soule, and y ^t one one­ly, certain Philosophers of noble fame haue long since bene of opinion▪ as Aristotle, & certayne other: whose opinion hath hee folowed who wrote in this maner.

But this is not so much a solemne sentēce or saying, as it is a great errour, as S. Augustine teacheth in his booke against Felicia Aria▪ the 12. Chapter.

Why so?

Bicause those bodies which are conteined within the [Page 30] gouenrment of one spirite, and one soule, are all one, & not diuided (as is the bodie of euery one of vs) & not separate one from an other as a flocke: and not one touching or neere ioyning to an other, as are the fin­gers of a mans hande, & houses that stande one close to an other. As for the parts of this bodie, which wee call the worlde, they are not onely distinguished one frō an other, but separated also & diuided frō thēselues by distāce of space. For euery sheepe, euery horse, euery tree, euery particulare mā is a part of this world: yet are they so deuided by place & mole of body, and by cir­cumscription of distance, that it cannot bee saide, that all and euerye one of these haue one soule onely. For what would come to passe, if it were imagined that in deed there were one onely soule, and spirite in all these thinges? For sooth this absurditie: That the soule, which is a certein simple nature and altogither spiri­tuall, were to be diuided as bodily things are, and not by imagination onely. Neither can this inconueniēce bee auoyded, seeinge that those thinges in which that onely and singulare soule is conteined are in truth separate and diuided by place, and determined euerye one of them by circumscription of their owne bodye. Moreouer, it shoulde folowe that all the partes of the world had life, as the Sunne, the moone, the starres, the heauē it selfe, yea & all y ^e celestial bodies which not­w ^tstanding S. Augustine moste plainely denieth in hys booke against Priscillia the 8. 9. Chapters: & that thys opinion of S. Augustine against the Mamches is true, the effect prooueth. For who woulde euer affirme, that the starres had lyfe or reason? Finally, since of the partes of the worlde, some bee mortall, as brute beastes: [Page] and certeine immortall, as men: howe can it bee that this singulare and one onely soule of the whole world, can admit in it selfe qualities and conditions so con­trarie and repugnaunt one to an other, that it shoulde bee one parte of it mortall, and another immortall? specially beeing it selfe singulare, one, and simple: not double, and compounded. Moreouer, amonge such thinges as die, someperyshe verie soone, as wormes, and flies: some continue verie long, as Ceder trees, the Crowe, and the Heart: by this reckonyng it cum­meth to passe, that this soule of the world, which not­withstanding in these mens opinion is onely one, and in number singulare and a lone, may bee called part­ly dead, and partly a liue. All which how foolish, false, and repugnant they bee, you see.

I see indeede, and I agree with you, in that you doe moste truely deny that there is one onely soule, and that in number singulare, of this whole world.

Yea, farther, beesides the reasons aboue recited, wee will lastly alleage this one out of holy Scripture, as the strongest of them al. To wit, that by this meanes, the goodnes and wisedome of God, who giueth vnto euery thing, and ingraffeth within them their proper and distincte vertues, is not only obscured, but vtter­ly extinguished, and plucked out of mennes mindes: whiles wee attribute these vertues, the administrati­on and gouernment of those thinges, not vnto GOD hymselfe, but vnto a certaine other nature and soule, contrarie to that whiche wee are taught too beeleeue and confesse, Psalme. 147. and 15. and 16. verses: To the Ephesians the 3. chapter verse 20. and Iob the viii. chapter the 5. verse.

[Page 31]

If then, there bee not one certeine soule of this whole vniuersalitie, as you teache, truely the opinion of the Stoikes, Platonikes, and of certeine other Philosophers: and likewise of the Priscillianist Heretikes is ouerthro­wen: who say, that this worlde is a liuyng creature: and indued with will and reason.

You gather wel: For their opinion is altogether foo­lish, and vnreasonable. For, since that is only a liuyng creature, and so to bee called, whose partes and mem­bers are not conteined only in one continuall compas of the bodie, but also gouerned by one spirite: verely this worlde is not a liuyng creature. For the mēbers thereof are disioyned, and separate. As for the aucto­ritie of the Stoikes, and other Philosophers which you named erewhile, it should mooue vs verie little, had not S. Augustine sometyme written, that hee doubted whether this worlde were a liuyng creature or not: whiche thyng as hee would not deny, so durst hee not affirme: whose doubt notwithstandyng we ought not to followe, or allowe of.

The xv. Chapter. That this world was made in tyme, and is not eternall.

BUt I aske you this question, whether this world beegan sometime to bee: or whether it were alwayes, and bee e­ternall?

Many argumentes doe prooue, that the world once beegan to bee: among whiche all, Philo in his booke De Mundo, of the worlde, hath gathered fiue speciall ones. We wil declare ours [Page] and those whiche bee most Christian.

Whiche be they?

These foure. First the voyce and auctoritie of the di­uine Scripture, whiche speaketh in this maner: In the beeginnyng God made heauen and earth: Genesis the 1. chapter and 1. verse. The second reason is certeine: For if the world were coeternall with GOD, it selfe also were God: for eternitie is not only proper to diuine nature, but also the most it selfe substance therof, and the prin­cipall part, and definition: Exodus the 2. chapt. and 14. verse. Reuelat. the 1. chap. and 8. verse. The thirde, that forasmuch as this world shall haue an ende, and eue­ry thing hath meanes whereby it doth consist, it follo­weth necessarily that it had a beeginnyng of beeyng. For although, that bee truely sayde, not whatsoeuer had a beeginnyng shall haue an ende (forasmuche as there bee many thinges made, which through the sin­gulare benefite of God, are not subiect to death and corruption, as Angels, and the soules of men whiche are immor­tall) notwithstandyng it is moste certeinly affirmed, that, whatsoeuer shall haue an ende, the same also had beeginnyng of beeing. Which Rule is so generall, that it admitteth no exception. Finally, the fourth is this, that not onely the causes of the creation of the worlde are set downe, and also the certeine tyme noted, but al­so for the preseruation of the perpetuall memory ther­of, there are certeine spaces of tyme prescribed, as the order of weekes doe plainly teache: and also the space of fiftie yeares, which is called by the Hebrues the yere of Iubile, whiche God hymself commaunded to bee ob­serue: whereby wee might easely knowe and vnder­stande, how many ages are past since the first beegin­ning [Page 32] of the world.

Concerning that auctority whiche you alleage out of the Scripture, and the 1. chapter of Genesis some doe o­therwise interprete it. They graunte, that all these things indeede were made in the beeginnyng, but not in tyme. For the meaning and signification of a bee­ginnyng, or of this woord principium, is manifolde, and in that place, they saye, it must not bee vnderstoode of the beeginning of tyme.

The signification of a beeginnyng, or of this woord principium, is threefold. For it respecteth either the time either the thing & the causes, or else y ^e order. The be­ginnynge of time, in those things which are brought forth in a certein time, is y ^t moment of an houre either wherein they are conceiued, or are brought foorth in­to the world. Those thinges haue onely the beegin­nyng of tyme, which are doone in tyme. That which is called the beginning of a thing, and is taken for the cause in those thinges which are of one age and time, is that relation and affection, whereby one thyng is the cause of the beeing of another. So, if wee make a conference beetweene the day and the night, wee saye that the Sun is the beeginning of the daye and light, although both of them do appeere vnto vs at one mo­ment. Sutch a beeginning, a diuerse or certeine time doth not establish. Finally, a beeginnyng in respect of order, is called that which ministreth the beeginnyng of numbryng, in sutch thinges as are disposed in one order, as for example: The father is the beginning a­mong the three persons in trinitie, which are one god: y ^• magistrate is one amōg many of like auctoritie, w ^t whō in telling we do begin: like as we do w ^t our cheif Magistrate or Judge in this our Citie of Geneua.

[Page]

In this respect then, they woulde haue God to bee the beginninge of this worlde, as beeinge the cause and woorkeman therof, as hee that is first numbred, is called the beginninge.

Marke howe absurde this is. Firste, what shall bee the sence and meaning of this saying, In the beeginnyng God made heauen and earth, if so be they wil thus expound it, God in the beeginnyng, that is to saye, God in God crea­ted heauen and earth? Moreouer, why saide hee, did create, which woorde doth not onely determine a beginning of beeing, but also the force of woorking, and a deter­minate beeginning of time is therein manifestly com­prehended and included. Beesides, will wee, nill wee: by this reason we shal fall into that damnable heresie of the Hermogenians, who make the woorke to bee eter­nall with the woorkeman, and so wee muste needes make moe Gods than one. Of which errour, me thin­keth I shoulde speake sumwhat more at large, were it not, that Tertullian, longe science, had vtterly ouer­throwne it in a whole woorke, yea, the Scripture it selfe doth manifestly expounde this sayinge of Moses, of the beeginning of time, Prouerbes, the 8. Chap. and verses 25. 27. and 28. Hee vseth also the same woords and the same comparison, whē hee speaketh of the be­ginninge of the worlde, wherein there muste needes bee vnderstood a beginning and moment of tyme, and of beeing. Neither can that which S. Paule repeateth so often, speakinge of the beginning of the world, bee vnderstoode of the laying of the foundations thereof to the Ephesi. the 1. Chapter, and 4. verse, and, wheras in an other place he calleth certain tymes seculare, the 2. to Timothie, the 2. Chapter and 9. verse: to Titus the 1. [Page 33] Chapter, and 2. verse: vnlesse that wee confesse that all these thinges had a certeine time of beginning, and beeing. What are these eternall and seculare tymes, what ugnifieth this woord [...], is there not vnderstod therby a laying of the foundacions in time: and doth hee not terme those times seculare, whiche passed away, and must bee numbred from the moment and pricke of time, wherein all these thinges began to bee made? In which point Sainet Augustine agréeth with vs, in his booke againste the Priscillianists, the 6. chapter. To bee shorte, howe shoulde the ages of those auncient men Adam, Enoch, Noah, & also the time of the vniuersall flood, bee knowne how far distant it is since the beeginninge of the woorlde, if there were no beeginning of time in which the world was made? In so much, as I meruaile what shoulde mooue cer­taine Ecclesiasticall writers, to doubt thereof: and specially S. Augustine, a man so much exercised in the scriptures: as namely in his booke of Genesis vpon the letter: althoughe also afterwarde hee bee altogither variable in defending the same, and manye times di­uerse and dissentinge from him selfe.

But ther bee some, that obiect two auctorities which are repugnaunt to your opinion: whereof the first is that which is written in the 18. chapter, and 5. verse of Ecclesi. GOD made althing at once, wherevnto I praye you to answere first.

It shall bee an easie matter so to doe. For if I lyste, I coulde aunswere that, which as I suppose, wee haue already agreed vpon, that the auctoritie of this booke is farre to bee remooued and separated, from the Di­uine & canonicall Scriptures. And therefore it proo­ueth [Page] nothing. Howbeit, I had rather say that that is true, which is confirmed by the woordes of the texte, and that the place is corruptly translated in this ma­ner, God made all thinge at once, for the meaninge of the aucthours woordes is this: Hee that liueth for euer, made all thinges togither: hee saith, altogither. Wherfore wee are taught, to acknowledge one onely aucthour and creatuor of all thinges, as Ireneus sayth in the 4. booke and 21. chapter: it is not there affirmed that all thin­ges that are created had there beeing beeginninge, or were all made in one moment, or y ^t they were frō euer­lasting, or without beeginning of time. This is ther­fore the signification of this woorde, Pariter, togither, to wit, that the power to create all thinges, is giuen to one, and not to many. For the same booke in the 16. Chapter, and 25. verse, setteth downe, howe that cre­ated things were disposed and made in certein order, and time, Howbeit, I am not ignorant, howe much the signification and readinge of this onely woorde, Pariter togither, did oftentimes trouble S. Augustine in the 5. booke, and 3. Chap: and also in his 6. booke, and 6. Chapter of Genesis vpon the letter▪ and also ma­ny other of the Fathers. Thus haue you mine an­swere to your firste obiection, to wyt, that for at once, you must vnderstande, togyther. Nowe tell me your other aucthoritie.

They alleage also, that whiche is written in S. Iohns Gospell, the 1. chapter, and 1. verse, In the beginnyng was the woord. Now if you think that this woord, beginnyng, is to bee referred to time, then must you most impious­ly affirme, that the woord, or the Sun of God, which is signified thereby, had his beeginning in some time, [Page 34] and is not eternall.

Truely, wee should bee hardly vrged by so great au­ctoritie of the Scripture, vnlesse the matter it selfe, whereof wee intreate, did minister vnto vs the dissol­uing, and exposition of this difficultie. Wee haue al­readie declared, howe that the signification of this woord, principium, or beeginnyng, is sundrie, wherfore, it ought too bee taken accordyng to the reason and na­ture of the thyng whereof wee dispute. And you see, how S. Iohn plainly saith, that this woord, or Sunne of GOD, was not created in the beginning, but that it was in the beeginning, when God created all thin­ges: so that S. Iohn setteth this his, In the beginnyng was, against the saying of Moses, and creation of all things, where the Scripture speaketh thus, In the beginnyng God created heauen: and not thus, in the beginning was heauen. And moreouer, S. Iohn teacheth, that the same woord of God, is also the same God. And that woord, sayeth hee, was God. But that whiche is God, can haue no beeginning of tyme. Wherfore, the same is most falsly expounded and vnderstoode of time and beeginnyng of existencie in Christ. And therefore this woord, Bee­ginnyng, hath another signification in that place: too wit, that, by whiche S. Iohn excludeth all beeginnyng of time, to the ende that so far as our mindes are able by thinkyng too looke backe, and to stretche foorthe themselues, wee may not withstanding beeleue moste assuredly, that beefore, that woorde and Sunne of GOD, had beeing, and had a distinct substance from the Father. By whiche meanes of speaking, eternitie is accustomably signified in the Scriptures, as it ap­peareth in the 8. of the Prouerbes. And also by the selfe [Page] same testimonie of S. Iohn it is declared, how that all these thinges were made and brought foorthe in the beeginning of tyme: for they were not in the beegin­ning as was the woorde, but they were made, for as­much as they were not in the beeginning.

The xvi. Chapter. That the worlde came of it selfe.

NOw, since you haue prooued, that the worlde had a beeginning of beeing, I praye you declare, whether it came of it selfe, or of some other.

I suppose, there is no man, though hee bee but slenderly learned in the Scri­ptures, that doubteth concernyng this poinct, to wit, that the worlde came not of it selfe but of another, to wit, of God. For if it came of it selfe, it should also bee immortall and eternall, and not made in tyme. For it were then of abilitie to minister force vnto it selfe, to endure perpetually, and it should also haue alwayes bene. And besides this, it should bee a God. For what soeuer is of it self, and hath life & substance must needs be god. Forasmuch as y ^e Creatour differeth frō y ^e cre­ature in y ^t respect especially, in y ^t the Creatour is, and subsisteth by his own power and vertue: and the crea­tures onely by his power and assistance. Worthily therfore S. Augustine in his Enchiridion, No man, saith hee, can bee of hymself. The omnipotencie of the Creator, and the vertue of hym that is omnipotent and possesseth all thyng, is the cause of euery creatures subsisting. Whosoeuer therefore, shall deny this, to wit, that this world was made by the wil and power of God, but will contende that it had the force and vertue in it selfe of beeing, plainly repugneth a­gainst [Page 35] the whole sacred Scriptures. For there is no thing almost better knowne, or more oftner inculca­ted into our eares, than that God is the maker and creatour of this world, and that all thinges were fa­shioned & brought foorth by his hande, will, & power. And that I may not traueill in the gathering togi­ther of these testimonies, I will here recite vnto you: twayne for all, the one in the Psalme 104. and 29. verse, If thou hyde thy face, they are troubled: if thou take away their breath, they die, and returne vnto their dust: if thou send foorth thy spirite, they are created, and thou renuest the face of the earth. the other in Isay the 45. chap. and 18. verse: For thus sayth the Lorde, that created heauen, God hymself, that formed the earth, and made it, hee that prepared it, hee created it not in vayne: hee formed it to bee inhabited. And therefore the auncient Fathers commonlie termed the worlde, a woorke perfectlie wrought.

The xvii. Chapter. Of the causes of the worlde, and first of the cause efficient thereof, which is God: not Angels, nor Diuells.

WHiche bee the causes of this world?

There bee foure, first the efficient or produ­cing cause, the materiall, formall, and finall.

Can you declare them seuerally vnto mee?

I will.

Tell mee then, whiche is the efficient cause?

God, and hee onely.

Haue you anye reason, wherby you can prooue thys your so short resolution?

Yea, I haue. And first Moses proueth, that it was God y ^• made this world, Genesis y ^• 1. chap. In the beginning God [Page] made heauen & earth. And Dauid also cōfirmeth same in y ^• 33. Psalme, and 6. verse: By the woorde of the Lorde were the heauens made, and all the hoste of them by the breath of his mouth. For hee spake, and it was doone: hee commaunded, and it stoode. Likewise Isay in the 44. chap. And Iob the 12. chap. And finally both the newe and old Testament. The same also did Anaxagoras the Philosopher signifie sum what obscurely, hauing before receiued it by some auncient tradition, who called the mynde; that is to saye, God, the Creatour of all thinges: who, although hee were therefore laughed at by the other naturall Philoso­phers of his tyme, yet he helde the true opinion. How­beeit, the Marcionites, and after them the Manichees, doe vrge farther. They say, that this world wherin there is sutch disturbance and disorder among thinges, is vnworthy to bee called or counted Gods woork. For, what confusion, what calamitie, what perturbacion is there seene in this worlde, and in all these thinges, where wicked men doe rule, good men are vexed, the Summer sometyme is colde, the Haruest greeuous, and daungerous, and sutch other like accidentes doe happen? And therfore, if wee say that God made these things, God is not the auctour of order in the world, but of greate confusion.

But what is your opinion hereof?

They iudge amisse, for God is the creatour and pro­ducyng cause of all those thinges, and substaunces, wherof the world consisteth: and not of the confusion and disorder whiche now is, and afterward came vp­pon them: for that is the effect of mans transgression, and a great part of that vanitie, wherunto in the bee­ginnyng through Adam, all thinges were subiect: Ro­manes [Page 36] the 8. chap. Therefore it is not caused by GOD, neither ingraffed by hym, nor proceedyng from hym. For hee created all thinges first, good, and in good or­der, and subiect to no disorder, confusion, or deformi­tie. So Romulus builded the Citie of Rome, & not those seditions, which many hundred yeres after his death, sprang vp at Rome through y ^• ambition of men. Wher­fore, against the Marcionites and Manichees, we ought to distinguishe and deuide the thinges themselues, their nature and substance, from the deformitie whiche af­terward hapned and came vpon them. For the Hea­then Philosophers themselues, as Thales for example, haue called this worlde: a beutifull woorke, and counted it woorthy of God, agreate deale better than those Hereti­kes haue doone.

Proceede then with that which you began.

It was God therfore, that created and fourmed this worlde: what GOD? Forsooth hee which is one in substance, and three in person, to wit, the Father, the Sunne, and the holy Ghost: and so is it to bee vnder­stoode that God made the world, to wit, that it is the woorke of them all three indifferently: and not either the Fathers, or the Sunnes, or the holy Ghosts spe­cially or principally: the woorkes also of the whole Trinitie are vndiuided, althoughe the woorkeman­ship of either of the persons, is distinct in the self same woorke.

Declare this which you spake, more plainely.

Meses teacheth in the 1. of the Genesis, that the Father wrought in the creation of the worlde, and also the woord, that is to say, the Sunne, & like wise the holy ghost. The father createth by his wil: the woord, or y ^• [Page] Sunne createth by woorkinge and bringing foorth: and the holy Ghost treateth by implāting of strength and nature, and by giuing of motion and life, whiche is in euery thinge for the bringinge foorth and pre­seruation therof. And therfore S. Ihon in the 1. chap. and 3. and 14. verses, when hee had declared that all thinges were made by the woorde, hee saieth after­warde, that the same was the Sunne of God. Wher­fore, the Sunne is, and is also rightly called the cre­atour of the world. And y ^e holy Ghost giueth strength to liue, and to mooue, and also susteineth, both that they may exist and liue, & also continue & bee preser­ued. Wherefore hee also in the creation of the world, woorthily challengeth vnto himselfe some parte of so woorthie a woorke, which also by Isay in the 40. chap. and 7. verse: and the 41. chapter, 29. verse, are plain­lyascribed and attributed vnto him.

There bee othersome, that doe otherwise interprete this which you saye, and by this name, VVoorde, and also y ^e holy Ghost, do not vnderstand certain substances, or any thinge existing of themselues: but suppose ra­ther that thereby the meane is taught, by which this worlde was made, to wit, not that by anye engin or frame, not by ironwoorkes, not by any handie crafte so hugie a mole was framed and brought foorth: but onely by the commaundement and the word of Gods will, that is to saye, onely by the declaring and pub­lishing of Gods decree, which of it selfe is of sufficient power and efficacie.

I doe not deney, but that those thinges which vnto vs of their owne nature are misticall and incompre­hensible, are opened and declared by suche parables: set [Page 37] and set foorth in such wordes & metaphores, as by vs they may bee vnderstoode. To wit, that the eternall Sunne of God, is called the woorde: and the holie Ghost which is that diuine person, & substancial ver­tue subsistinge by it selfe, and proceeding from the Fa­ther and the Sunne, and is distinct, notwithstāding is called a spirite. But forasmuch as the scripture in an other place teacheth, that, that woorde is not a certain sound or declaratiō of Gods will, & a certeine common enuntiane or spoken woord, & that the spi­rite is not a power and vertue infused into thinges, but that hee is God, and the verie same that is called the dweller in our hartes, Iohn the 1. chap. the 3. verse: and the 1. to the Corinth. the 6. Chapter, the 19. verse, both which persōs, since it is taught in the scriptures in sundrie places, that they wrought with the Father in the creation of the worlde, howe can it bee doub­ted but that our opinion is right and true.

Foorth then, declare whether God created all these thyngs alone?

Yea, alone.

How prooue you that?

Out of the 44. Chapter. and 24. verse of Isay, I am the Lorde that made althinges, that spread out the heauens alone, and stretched out the earth by my selfe. And Iob, the 41. Chapter, the 2. and 3. verse: and to bee short, this is the gene­rall doctrine of the scriptures. The same is also con­firmed by reason. For hee is alone which calleth those things that are not, and brought them foorth into the lyght, and finally hee alone is the aucthor and Father of all thinges.

But with what and howe manie armies of gaynsai­ers [Page] are you nowe compassed about?

I am not ignorant of that. For I shall bee uexed al­most with innumerable rables of Heretikes, & Hea­then Philosophers: but Gods woord shall sufficient­ly defende mee, and his holy trueth shall stande for me against them all.

Tell mee then, what were those heretikes opinions, or rather errours in that point?

I will gather them togither out of Ireneus, cheifly out of the 1. and 2. booke. Some of the Heretikes will haue it, that this worlde was first thought vpon and conceiued in minde by one God, and procreated and made by another, as certaine of the Valentinians and Carpocratians do affirme. Othersome, by a certain other nature and farre differinge vertue than which ought to bee called a God, and which gouerneth althing, by whom they suppose this worlde to haue beene made as Corinthus held opinion: whom at sumtime they ter­med Hystera, a belly or a wombe: & at another Demiur­gus, a pronouncer of lawes: & doe distinguish him from the same whome they will haue to bee the true God, & call Propator. Some again, thinke that the world was made by angels only, and not by God, as the Simonians, and Menandrians: so many are the wandrings awry, whē a man hath once departed out of the right way.

What say the Philosophers?

They holde opinion, that the worlde was made by their deuils, whiche they call Angels, and make them to differ from the greate God in whole kinde, as doe the Platonikes. As for Epicurus, who sayeth that thys world came by chaunce, I accoumpt hym not among the number of Philosophers: and as for the opinions [Page 38] of the other, I haue no leasure now to rehearse them.

What haue you nowe to alleage, against so greate a power of your aduersaries?

The woord of GOD, and the reason also whiche is confirmed by the same Philosophers. The woord of God, that forasmuch as it is the proper and peculiare attribute or title beelongyng to GOD onely to bee a creatour, the same cannot agree with Angels, or any other thing: My glory will I not giue to another, saieth the Lord. &c. Isay chap. 42. verse 8. and chap. 45. verse. 12. Moreo­uer we should make so many seuerall Gods, as there bee Angels, creatours. For who so createth, the same also giueth and susteineth life, and his woorke depen­deth altogether of hym, and of hym it hath it only bee­ing. Wherefore, the Angels also shalbee life giuers, and susteiners, & Goddes, and Iehouah, that is to saye, giuers of existence. Whiche thing, how mutch it repu­gneth against Scripture, it may bee vnderstoode out of the 45. chap. and 18. verse of Isay: Whereupon also S. Augustine in his 3. booke, and 8. chapter of the Tri­nitie, woorthily and truely denieth with vs, that nei­ther the diuels, nor Magicians are able to create one.

Can you alleage any reason, or opinion to be liked of, that is defended by any of the Philosophers?

Yea, this one, to wit, The nature of beeginnings, loueth singu­laritie. And therfore Aristotle reciteth and commendeth the woorthie opinion of Homer:

‘It is not good that many rule, Let one our ruler bee.’

who vsing likewise y ^e same argument in his 12. booke of Metaphysikes, affirmeth that there is one chief & most excellent God among the residue, who is King & so­uereigne aboue them al. The same opinion hath S. [Page] Augustine also embraced in his first booke of marriage, the 9. chapter: and vndoubtedly experience it self tea­cheth, that it is a most true saying. Thus can hee also make small thinges, that made the greate: and the same God that made high thinges, bringeth foorthe and fourmeth the lowe things also, for hee is almigh­tie, as Father Ireneus, saieth, in his 2. booke, and 44. chap. so that it is not onely not necessarie that there should bee many creatours of this world appointed, but it is also against the nature of beginninges, and the omnipotencie of God, that there should bee more than one.

The. xviii. Chapter. That the world, and all thinges that are therein, were made by God of nothyng, and not onely decked foorth, or set in order, or brought foorth out of a certeine disordred heape or matter whiche was extant beefore.

BUt after what maner, or in what sense doe you saye, that God is the producent and efficient cause of this world?

In respect that hee hath not onely giuen power and beutie vnto thinges, but first hath brought foorth and made them out of nothinge, hauing no matter preexisting or going beefore, which is properly called to create.

Is there anye notablenesse or excellencie in the signi­fication of that woorde, which may bee reputed pecu­liare and proper to the power of God?

Yea mary. For by that meanes GOD is verie farre separated from all sortes of other woorkmen, and al­so from all other kindes of causes, as are parents, and [Page 40] seruants, or else the naturall powers.

How so?

For that no woorkman bee hee neuer so mightie and skilfull, is able to make anye thyng vnlesse hee haue stuffe ministred vnto him: for if he haue no stuffe, hee is able to make nothing. Take away yron from the Smith, timber from the Carpendour, yearne from the Weauer, what other good can they doe but stand still gaping in their shoppes? For euerie Arte and oc­cupation requireth naturally to haue some stuffe pre­pared for it, wheruppon afterwarde it woorketh, and bringeth foorth sundrie fourmes. Yea, not the causes themselues, and powers whiche are termed naturall, and are proper to euery thing, are able to bring foorth any thing without conuenient matter and stuffe a­lotted vnto them. For, if a man searche throughly the greatest and whole vertues of the natures of all thin­ges, notwithstandyng hee shall finde that to bee true which is generally spokē by y ^e natural Philosophers. Nothyng is made of nothyng. Who euer reaped Wheate or Barly without sowing? who euer saw trees growe without planting, settinge, or springing from some berrie, or kernell, or hearbes and flowers without seede or slippe? But hee that is the true creatour, hee maketh his matter and stuffe in whiche and of which hee woorketh, of nothing, hee hath it not alreadie pre­pared, or ministred from some other place. But to saie that the matter was coeternall with God himselfe, or existing of it selfe, and to deny that it was firste made and brought foorth by God out of nothing, is not the part of Christians, but plainly of the Hermogenian here­tikes. So that there is a moste large distinction bee­tweene [Page] creation, and engendring. Those thinges are created, whiche are made of no substanciall or materi­all beeginnyng. Those are engendred or made, not whiche are made out of nothing, but out of a former substance and matter. Wherefore, neither good An­gels nor bad, nor diuelles, bee, or ought to bee called creatours, mutch lesse men: for it is onely proper to God to create, whiche these places following doe con­firme, to wit, S. Augustine in his 3. booke of the Tri­nitie, the 8. chap. Isay the 45. chapt. Iob the 26. chapt the 33 Psalme, Actes the 17. chap. and 24. verse. Yet am I not ignorant notwithstandyng, what othersome doe dispute against this, that the power of creating may also bee giuen vnto creatures.

But there be many thinges that doe withstand your opinion.

What bee they?

First that whiche your selfe alleaged, and is a moste certeine position among the naturall Philosophers, and confirmed in all mens iudgementes by continual experience: Nothyng is made of nothyng. How then should God haue made al these thinges, if so bee that hee had no matter prepared to his hand, that is to say, if hee had nothing to make them of?

Truely this is an olde obiection, and often repeated by Heathen men, in expoundyng whereof, Iustine the Martyr, or whosoeuer he was else that answered the obiections of the Ethnikes, hee tooke great paines ther­in which difficultie mee thinkes I can easilye resolue. First in that the insinite & incomprehensible omnipo­tencie of God the creatour is not only a misse, but per­uersly called to the lawes of nature, which was made [Page 40] and created. For what is that other, than to go about to make the creature equall to the Creatour? But as the Lorde witnesseth, that his thoughtes doe differ farre from ours, so likewise is the force & power farre discrepant from ours, and farre excelling the strength and vertue of this nature, Iob the 10. chapter, and 45. verse. Now if a man woulde thus conclude: At this present, and since the tyme that the Lorde appointed this order, that nothing shoulde bee made of nothing, there is nowe nothing made without matter readye and prepared beefore. Wherefore in the beeginning, and before that God had ordeined these lawes, it toke place then, neither coulde anye thinge bee made other wise. Your selfe perceiue how much they are deceiued that doe so conclude. As, for example, if a man would thus dispute, that in the beeginning the first trees, at the same verie instant wherin God made them, could not bring foorthe their fruites, bicause y ^• now adaies they bee not so forwarde, but neede longer time to beare and ripen them: if a man, I say, shoulde reason thus, euerie body woulde laughe him to skorne: and woulde perceiue that hys sayinge were falfe, out of Isay the 46. chapter, and▪ 8. verse: and not onely out of the first Chapter of Moyses. For whoso were of that opinion, were deceiued through great ignorance and confusion of diuerse tymes, and conditions, which a­monge thinges are to bee distinguished. And euen so, they, who as you say, doe obiect against the first cre­ation of thinges, That Nothing is made of nothing, bycause that nowe nothing is made of nothing, hee disputeth of most different, and vnlike times, and conditions, To wit, from the nature whiche was to bee created [Page] and not yet tied by any law, vnto the nature created & which is now reuoked & constrained by sure & certein lawes. Which kynde of conclusion S. Augustine also laugheth at in his booke 2. booke against Pelagia, the 25. Chapter. Thus haue you my answere vnto that most common and vsuall argument of the Philoso­phers. What is the seconde argument, which you say may be brought against vs?

The aucthoritie which they alleage out of the xi. cha. and 18. verse of the booke of VVisedome: For vnto thyne almightie hande that made the worlde out of a rude and vnfourmed matter, there lacked no strength to sende a multitude of beares, or of fierce Lions amonge them. Ergo the worlde was made of rude and vnformed matter, and not of nothyng. To which opinion Sainct Augustine seemeth to agree in the 3. booke, the 5. and 6. Chapters, of the Trinitie. For hee sayth that There is a certaine common matter consis­ting in the causes of the worlde,

Indeede, this which you doe aleage, hath seemed vn­to some to bee a verie forceable argument. And ther­fore y ^e materiar heretikes, which are called also y ^e Her­mogenians, doe chiefly staye themselues vppon that, a­gainst whom Tertullian hath writen manye noble and learned woorkes. And that I may saye nothinge of the aucthoritie of that booke, lyke as I sayde beefore: notwithstanding I will answere this which is most true, that it is there taught and beleeued, y ^t the same rude and vnformed matter out of which it is said the worlde was made, was first created by GOD of no­thing, & not out of any other matter wrought or sup­plied, (for so shoulde wee runne foorth infinitely) nei­there existinge of it selfe, for then shoulde it bee verye [Page 41] God. But whosoeuer he was that wrote that booke, hee wrote in such manner, out of the opinion whiche was then receiued and knowne amonge the Hebrue Rabbines, and was afterward alowed of and embraced of all, to wit, that heauen and earth (which two are saide in the 1. of Genesis to haue beene created the firste daye) were as it were the first matter of Gods woor­kes which were created afterwarde, whiche God by his mightie vertue prepared vnto him self and cast to­gither, ministred first rudely whereby afterwarde hee might finishe and forme the residue of that so greate a woorke. And as touching Sainct Augustine, they that alleage him against vs, do altogither wreast hys auc­tority. For S. Augustine intreateth not there of the first matter of thys whole worlde, as though hee would haue it to bee one: or feigned or imagined it to bee coeternall with God: but hee speaketh of the seconde matter, through which as in thinges nowe alreadye created, one thinge sprunge of an other by the com­maundement of GOD, as out of the earth trees and beastes, and as at thys daye also they are made and doe proceede. There was foresowne saith hee, eeuen in those thinges, the matter of such thinges as arose and sprung out of them: the 3. booke of Genesis vppon the letter, the 14. chapter, and the 2. booke, the 15. chapter, and the 1. booke, the 14. and 15. Chapter: and the 5. booke, the 5. chap.

Thirdly they saye, that y ^t is not the proper and natu­rall force and signification of this woorde, Create, For in the 43. chap. and 13. verse of Isay, the Lorde calleth himselfe the creatour of Israell, which people notwith­standinge are knowne to haue beene borne of seede. And againe, in in the 65. Chapter, and 18. verse of the [Page] same Prophet, he saith. Beeholde, I create Hierusalem: Whi­che place whether it bee vnderstoode of the citizens or of the citie it selfe, it is certayne that God made ney­ther of them without seede, or matter, but the men of the one, and the Citie of the other. For this woorde Barah is vsed in both places, so that I am of opinion, that wee ought not to sticke to religiously or percisely to the interpretation of one poore woorde. Likewise they alleage this saying of the same Prophete: Bee­holde, I create a newe heauen, and a newe earth: When as in­deede the Lorde will onely renue these bodyes which nowe are heauen and earth, and not make thē again of nothing.

It is writen in Isay as you say. But these places doe plainly confirme mine opinion, much lesse confute it. For the woorde, create, is taken Metaphorically, and wrested a litle from the proper significatiō, wher­by the power of God may appeare the greater & more excellent in restoringe his people, and holy Citie bee­sides al hope, and other thinges beesides all ordinarie meanes. For lyke as the thinges that are created, are beesides the course of nature made of nothinge, so likewise bycause the Lord promiseth that hee will re­store and renue his people and Citie, hee vseth pro­perly the woorde of creating, for that this which the Lord will woorke, is, as it were, a new creation, and a certayne won̄derfull bringing foorth and generati­on out of nothinge. Althoughe I will not deney, but that the signification of this word Barah is oftētimes translated and vsed more largely: as when it is sayd: Create a cleane hart within mee, O God, the 51. Psalme, and 12. verse: and againe, The seat of the frowarde createth iniquitie: [Page 42] Psalme. 94. and 20. verse. Of this sayinge and opinion of Sainct Augustine, that I maye saye so much by the licence of so woorthy a man, I doe not well alowe. Who in his first booke against the aduersaries of the lawe and the Prophetes, the 23 chap, writeth thus: And when there is anye difference made beetweene makinge and creatinge, this maye bee the oddes beetwene those two woordes as I sayde, that that is made which beefore was not at all, and that created which is ordeyned of sumthinge that was beefore. Hee distinguished those two woordes, Make, and Creat, toto subtily whiche oftentimes are vsed one for an other.

How then should it bee?

Thus the Scripture plainly defineth, to wit, that God is the creatour of the world, that is to say, of all thinges that are, who made, framed & brought foorth them all out of nothing, and not out of any matter preexisting or made to his hande, or whiche is coeter­nall with God himself, or ministred vnto him by some other woorking God, as the Manichees doe suppose. For that opinion induceth two Goddes: and in ma­king twayne, it leaueth none. For either there is no God, or there is but one. Finally, as saith S. Ambrose, God should bee onely the diuiser of the figure, and not the maker of Nature: and hee had founde and receiued more than hee had made, if there had bin any matter readie to his hande.

But there bee some that saie, that this matter is signified in the scripture by this woorde Tohu: where vpon afterward the Grecians, and the Philosophers who re­ceiued those thinges first of the Hebrues, and of the Phe­nicians neere borderers to the Hebrues: whiche thei haue written concernyng the beeginnyng of the worlde: [Page] thei deuised this woorde Hyle, by a small alteration of certein letters made according to the vse and proprie­tie of their tongue. For this woorde Hyle, saiethei, sig­nifieth among the Grecians, as muche as a rude heape, vnformed, and as it were a certein moiste and wate­rishe yearth, or quagmire, or dregges, out of whiche many thinges are engendred, through the force of the heate whiche commeth vnto it. From the whiche woorde Hyle, is the woorde Hilys deriued, which signi­fieth dregges and froath, that is to saye, a dirtie and moyst earth, out of whiche many thinges doe growe in the Sea.

I doubted not, but those that goe about to defend the same errour of theirs, concerning a firste matter pre­existing, as though it were verie necessarie, and they that haue throughly receiued the same, doe deuise ma­ny suche foolishe fantasies. But how small or none at all the affinity of these two woordes is, Tohu and Hyle, in writing of the Letters, or rather how farre this is from the trueth, your selfe doe see, and it shall not bee needefull to seeke farther: forasmuch as God is open­ly called the creatour of heauen and earth.

Yea, God is termed Gos [...]he Io [...]ser, that is to say, the ma­ker and the fourmer, as it is written in Isay, the 66. chapt. and 10. verse: and Iob the 35. chap. and 10. verse: and Isay the 54. chap. & 8. verse: as also in the 90. Psalme, the 2. verse.

That was doone not rashly nor in vaine, but to the intent to take awaye sutch errours, as the spirite of God foresawe would grow afterward amongst men. For there are twoo errours among men, concernyng the beeginning of all thinges, beesides the errour of [Page 43] the materiare heretikes. For some thinke, that first and alwaies there was existing a certein whole mas­se, and that rude and confused, whiche was the heape of all the principall partes and thinges of the worlde whiche now are existing and fourmed, but then disor­derly mingled togither, which they call Chaos, And this opinion Hesiodus folowed in his Theogonia, whiche Ouid describeth in his Metamorphosis in these wordes.

This muche therefore they doe attribute vnto God, that hee is the distinguisher, trimmer, and setter foorth of this so confused a Chaos, mole and heape: and not the creatour of it in time, giuinge vnto it the first meanes of beeinge. And therefore the Poet sayde There was, as it were, from euerlasting: and not the same Chaos was made and created by God. And for this cause they doe not call God the Creatour of the world, but onely the beutifier, and as Sainct Ambrose sayeth, the deuiser of the shape and fourme thereof: as though hee hadde giuen a certeine comlinesse and order vnto thinges that existed before, and which had of themselues their owne proper strength and nature, whiche hee accom­plished by a certaine wise and apt distinction of them, and by separating & distributing of euery part into it owne conuenient place. Othersome there bee that doe [Page] attribute more vnto GOD. For they holde opinion, that the matter was a great mole from eternitie, ma­ry but matter onely, and not that althinges were en­cluded and comprehended within it (whiche the firste sorte doe also holde,) but that it was rude and vnsha­pen. Which matter, for that it was great, GOD ta­king it in hande, diuided it into smale peaces: and, as hee is a moste wise and cunninge woorkeman, faci­oned it into sundrye fourmes. And so endued euerye parte thereof with hys owne & proper fourme, which wee see them nowe rertaine. Euen so out of one and the selfesame barre of yron cut into sundry pieces, the Smith frameth & forgeth a key, an hammer, a sawe, fetters, and many other thinges seruinge to sundrie purposes, whereof they tearme God Demiurgus, and not the creatour or maker. Howbeit the scripture at­tributeth all this vnto God. To wyt, both that they bee thinges, and also haue the same force, power, na­ture, and fourme, which wee see to bee in them. And finally, in that they are situate in such place, and di­stinguished in sutch order as wee doe beeholde: that they decke foorth this mole in such cumly sorte as in hugenesse & beutie we do perceiue they do, and in such maner as ther is no man able sufficiently to expresse. Wherefore, the Scripture saith, that God doeth not onely Barah, that is to say, create. And in the Greeke tongue K [...]zin or Poem, but also Gascha, which is to say, woorke. And in Greeke also to doe some woorke, or Demiurgin: and also Iarsar, that is to say, to bring things into a cumly order, which in the Greeke tongue is cal­led [...]smi [...]: and that all things which are in this world & which are seene do take their beeginning from God [Page 44] to bee thinges at all, and to bee suche maner thinges as they are: wee muste so determine moste certeinely with ourselues, vnderstande so, and confesse the same, beeing thereto constrained by the force of truth.

Haue you any proofes to confirme this your opinion by?

Yea truely, & that especially out of these places of holy scripture: Isay the 42. chapter and 5. verse: the 43. chapter the 1. and 7. verses: the 45. chapter, the 12. & 18. verses: Likewise, Iob the 26. chapter, and 13. verse the 25. chapter & 10. verse: wher the onely and felfe­same God is termed by so many and diuerse names.

The xix. Chapter. Of the ende for which God created and made this worlde.

WHat cause mooued God specially to make this worlde, hee himselfe lacking nothing, and dwelling in that euerlastinge felicitie, vnto which there can bee no encrease of fe­licitie & immortalitie added, by meanes of al this gret woorke?

Euen his mere goodnes, that is to saye, his moste lo­uing good will to communicate the same his felicitie vnto certeine thinges, so farre foorth as the nature of those thinges whiche hee created, was able to receiue the same. Wherefore, hee created Angels in heauen, and men vpon the earth, to the intent hee might make them, after a sort, companions and partakers of his felicitie, beeing hymself most good, moste louing, moste perfect, and also in himselfe and through himself most [Page] perfectly and wholy blessed.

How proue you this?

Both by auctoritie, and reason. And auctoritie is that whiche is cheifly taken out of the Scriptures: as the the 36. Psalme, the 5. verse: Lord, thy mercy stretcheth vnto the heauens. Psalme 33. the 5. verse: The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord. Psalme 34, the 9. verse: See how good the Lord is, and in the 103. Psalme, the 17. verse: The mercie of the Lord indu­reth from one age vnto another. And in the 111. Psalme, and 4. verse. But specially in the 136. Psalme, throughout, and in the Psalme 145. and 9. verse: The Lorde is good to all, and his mercies are ouer all his woorkes. And next out of the Fa­thers. For S. Augustine in his 1. booke of Genesis vpon the letter, the 8. chapter: and also is his Enchiridion the 9. booke, sayeth plainly, that the only goodnes of God was the cause, wherefore God made all these things. The same is likewise affirmed by Ireneus in his third boooke, the 45. and 46. chapters: and also by Fulgentius in his booke de fide ad Petr. the 3. chapt. And if you will also commend Heathen writers in this respect, you haue Plato in Timeo a most graue auctour among them, who beeing led by a naturall light, and the testimonie of his owne conscience, wrote in this maner, whiche Cicero hath expressed is his booke de vniuersitate: Let vs thā seeke out the cause which mooued hym that made these thinges, to beegin a new originall and frame of thinges. Hee was good: And hee that is good enuieth no man. And therefore some say thus: God knew, and would haue his felicitie to bee communicated to o­thers. For although that the diuine goodnes is, and was in God most fully and most perfectly without al these thinges, as it appeareth in the 60. Psalme, and is also kepte vndefiled: Notwithstandyng these things which are [Page 45] created are manifestatiue, as they speake in the scholes, & do declare the excellencie of Gods goodnes, that is to saye, they shewe that the same goodnes is altogether agreeable vnto God. This muche say they.

I haue heard the auctorities, declare now the rea­sons.

Forasmuche as there proceedeth nothyng from vs men, neither from the blessed and elect Angels, wher­by God may be more established in respect of his eter­nitie: or more blessed in respect of his state and condi­cion, as it is written in the 16. Psalme, and 2. verse (for it is not possible that any thing should bee added vnto hym, who of himself is altogether perfect) truely ther was no neede that draue him to make these thinges, but only this one cause, to wit, his owne louing good will. Wherefore, like as it is writen in the 3. chapter to Titus, the 4. verse, that the mere goodnes of GOD was the cause of mans saluation: so was it also the cause of mans creation. And if it were the cause of men, doubtlesse it was also the cause of the creation of all other thinges.

The xx. Chapter. This world, cannot bee called the Sunne of God.

I Do wel vnderstand so much as you haue hetherto sayd of God, who is the efficient cause of thys world, not as a woorkeman onely, or a discriber, or painter, or trimmer vp: but rather as a creator, and a bringer foorth of it out of nothyng. Tell mee now this one thing more, whether in respect of these causes this [Page] world may bee called the Sunne of God?

You renue an old question, which S. Augustine plain­ly discusseth in his Enchiridion, the 38. and 39. chapters. Truely if we will speake properly and to vnderstan­dyng, this world neither can nor ought bee called the Sun of God. First, bicause it is not made of the sub­stance of GOD. For they that are properly called a mans children or sunnes, are beegotten of the fathers seede and substance. Moreouer, whatsoeuer is said to spring and come of another, ought not by and by to be called the sunne of that from whiche it springeth. For Lice doe breede out of a mannes fleshe, yet are thei not called the sunnes of men, or of their fleshe. To cōclude since the comparison and respecte of GOD vnto the worlde, is rather like the woorkeman to the woorke, than like the Father to the Sunne, truely the worlde may bee termed the woorke and perfected labour of God, but by no meanes called his Sunne.

The. xxi. Chapter. What God created first, to bee the matter for thinges that were created afterward.

HEtherto you haue discoursed of the efficiēt cause, now saye sumwhat concernyng the materiall cause of the world.

What matter can I name vnto you, since there was none at all, as I haue sufficiently disputed and proued beefore? as this woord, Create, declareth, if you haue regarde to it owne proper signification. Neither do I thinke it woorth the traueill to confute the opinions of the Philosopers, who haue almoste e­uerie one of them stūbled at this block: or else to con­uince [Page 46] the heresie of the Hermogenians, who reuoked that errour, whiche was nowe long since extinguished in the Churche of God, out of the scooles and opinions of the Stoikes: and chose rather to learne how the world beegan, at the handes of naturall Philosophers than of true Christians, and out of Gods woord. Al whose argumentes, Tertullian hath confuted in a noble and profitable woorke, whiche is now abroade in mens handes, and is most worthie to bee read.

I doe not require after that which was not, but this rather, whether that among those thinges whiche God created of nothing, there were any thing dispo­sed, prepared, and brought foorth, that afterward ser­ued the turne, and stoode in steede in the creation of other things, out of which God did afterward facion and fourme al thinges else that remained to be made?

You mooue mee to enter into a difficult question, which consisteth both of like number of weightie rea­sons, and of auctorities of graue writers. For among the learned auctours, some thinke that Heauen and earth, of whiche in the 1. chapt. of Genesis, and 1. verse it is writen, In the beginnyng God made heauen and earth, were made by God of nothyng: howbeit, first, and before all thinges, to the intent that they might be the prepared matter of all other thinges that were to be afterward created. And therfore, they say, that God did nothyng the other daies following, but onely distinguysh this matter and masse which was first confusedly brought foorth, and conteined in it the seedes of all other thin­ges into the proper kindes and elementes, and that e­uerie thing should be trimmed foorth in it owne kind, and gouerned by it owne lawe. Other dooe suppose [Page] otherwise, that these thinges were only set downe in the beginning, as it were, in maner of a preface or sup­position of some discourse that should ensue, to the end that the summe of the whole matter following might be the better vnderstoode, and the boundes of so great a frame as the world is, bee drawne foorth. In like maner, cunning Carpenters when they are about to build some goodly and large house, they firste drawe out a platfourme in certeine proportions and lines, conteining the fourme of the whole woork that shal­bee, to the intent, they may point out and place the o­ther roomthes of the buildyng within that circuite, & so conteine themselues within those limites. Thus, say they, heauen and earth are proposed by Moses, and that in the beeginning of his Narration, to the ende, wee might vnderstande what limites the discription following, and the whole woorke should haue: Like as he also repeateth again those limites after the nar­ration of the creation, & concludeth the whole woorke whiche hee set foorth, after the same manner. Genesis the 2. chapter, and 1. verse. Wherefore, In the beginnyng God created heauen and earth, that is to saye, firste of all the summe of all Gods woorkes is layd beefore vs to bee thought on. Moreouer, Ireneus in his 2. booke, the 10. 11. and 16. chapters, sheweth that GOD is not like men, as not hauing neede of any matter that hee had created or prepared before hand, to finish or make his other woorkes of.

Howe then, doe you thinke otherwise?

Truely, the interpretation and opinion of the fyrste sorte seemeth vnto mee the more probable, which hold that the heauen and earth (in suche maner as thei are [Page 47] there spoken of) were firste created by GOD of no­thing, howbeit as it were, a rude matter of the whole woorke and bewtie that shoulde folowe, out of which God by his mightie power brought foorth all the re­sidue. Although almightie God lacked no matter to create firste heauen and earth with all, neither yet to bring forthe the woorkes of the other daies, like as at this day also he needeth not the seede of man to bryng foorth men of, if hee lust to doe otherwise: notwith­standing in these questions wee must not enquire how much hee was able to doe, sayeth S. Augustine in his 2. booke de Ge­nesi, but rather what y ^e course of nature in things will suffer, and what his pleasure is, and what hee hath reuealed vnto vs by his woorde. Neither doth this mine opinion want iust and sufficient confirmation, either of the auctoritie of men, or of reason. And as for auctoritie there is none against mee, seeing bothe Philo Iudaeus, and the Rabbines commonly, and the best learned of the Hebrues doe so expounde that place of Moses: yea, S. Augustine also oftentimes, as in the 5. booke de Ge nesi ad Literam, the 3. and 5. chapters: and the 1. booke, the 5. chapter. S. Ambrose likewise in Examero, and S. Chrysostome, and S. Basile, with others.

But can you confirme your opinion by any reason?

Yea, by twaine. And the first is, that this exposition doth very well agree with Moses woordes, and order: and againe, that it seemeth to be plainly confirmed by this woord Beeginning, and the signification therof. For a beeginning is sayd in comparison of other thinges. And therefore, to the intent hee might shewe how all other thinges were made afterwarde out of those twayne, Moses plainly vseth this preface, to wit, that [Page] the same heauen, and the same earth were created in the beeginning, that is to saye, beefore all the other woorkes that God made, and also to the vse of all the other, that is to saie, from whence afterward the resi­due were taken, and as it were, made. The very foot­steppes, as it were, of whiche opinion, howbeeit the trueth beeyng now and then manifestly intercepted, do appeare to be exstant in Hesiodus in his Theogonia, and Ouid also in that place of the firste booke of his Meta­morphosis, which is so well knowne: Beefore the Sea and Earth, &c. This reason also may bee alleaged, that the thing itself, and specially the earth, is thus described vnto vs, and is called by Moses Tohu and Bohu: whereby it appeareth that there was a certein Masse, stuffe, and matter prepared by GOD, for the world that should afterwarde bee made, whiche was then firste onely, and not prepared from euerlasting. Yea, it can­not bee denied but that at that tyme there was some confusion euen in heauen, when as the heauenly and earthly substances were not as yet distinguished & se­parated one from another, whiche at length was brought too passe. And that also there was no beutie, nor brightnes as yet in heauen, neither was there a­ny light shining therein. Howbeeit that confusion was greater vpon the earth. And therefore in respect thereof it was called Tohu and Bohu.

The xxii. Chapter. [Page 48] The matter of Earthly thinges of what sorte it was and how commodiously by God prepared,

TEll mee then I praye you, what these wor­des Tohu and Bohu doe signifie?

First, they signifie some vnformed, rude, & confused thing, but yet apt and disposed to admitte and receiue fourme and shape. And therefore the scripture vseth this kinde of speache, when it will signifie some vnpolished and vndigested thyng, as it appeareth in Isay, the 34. chapter, and 11. verse: and the 40. chapter. and 17. verse. Wherefore, such was the shape of the earth at that time, as for the most part the Poete Ouid expresseth in these woordes.

Moreouer, as ther are two chiefe kindes of althings, one heauenly, the other earthly: euen so at the begin­ninge God created two sortes of matter, God I say, who knewe well ynough of what and how manifolde natures the thinges should bee that hee would make, and did thē make but preparation for them. For hea­uen was prepared, as a perfect and heauenly matter, of the heauenly partes of the worlde. And the earth of the earthly, which earth at that time moiste, wet, & moorishe, ouer which the water was spread abroad for this cause, as it is writen in the 104. Psalme and 6. verse. that there shoulde bee then onely one bodye ex­tant, consisting of two elementes. And as for heauen, Moses tarieth lesse time in the declaration therof, what manner a thinge it was at that time, for that it was [Page] a thing better formed and compounded. But in discri­binge the state of the earth, hee vseth moe woordes. For hee calleth that first and material earth. Tohu and Bohu, that is to say, a certeine confused masse: such an one as wee must needes imagine it to haue been, if a man will in minde take from it that bewtie and order which the Lorde added vnto it afterwarde.

What, therefore, doeth this worde Tohu signifie in the Scriptures.

That which wee call emptie and desolate, to wit, that wherefore there is no vse & commoditie, neither brin­geth fruite, nor yeldeth profit: and to bee shorte, that is woorth nothinge. Whereby it commeth to passe, that this woorde is many tymes translated for No­thing: as in Iob the 26. chapter, and the 7. verse: and in Isay the 24. Chapter, the 10. and 40. verses, a litle be­fore the ende. Wherefore, the force and signification of this woorde Tohu, excludeth that commoditie whiche at this present wee receiue out of the earth.

But what signifieth Bohu?

The same amonge the Hebrues that wee call vn­shapen and vnformed: and that is vnshapen, from whiche all distinction, order, apte and conuenient pla­cing of the partes is absent, and that which represen­teth to the beholders nothing but confusion and hor­rour: and yet notwithstanding, this wanted not all forme, as hauing a name, and beeing called the earth. And thus is it taken in Isay the 29. Chapter, and 21. verse.

You tell mee of a merucilous strainge beginnyng and matter, whiche GOD made for the creatyng of the worlde.

[Page 49]

And suche maner of thyng it was needefull it should bee, bothe that wee might the better thereby vnder­stande the mighty power of our great and good God, who, as S. Paule saieth in the 2. to the Corinthians, the 4, chapiter, and 5. verse, hath brought forthe so wonder­full a beautie, and light, and cōmoditie out of so great confusion and darkenesse of all thinges: and also that that thing whiche was first ordeined to bee as it were the matter, receiuer, and mother of sundrie fourmes, ought to bee suche a maner of thing. Although I con­fesse that the earth had it owne proper fourme from the verie first moment of the creation thereof, but yet suche an one, in respect whereof wee take it for a mat­ter vnto other thinges that might afterward receiue other fourmes. And therefore you see how fairely and plainly this matter, this earth (as it is declared) is prepared and disposed, to receiue afterward the four­mes of thinges in it.

¶ The .xxiii. Chapter. Why the deapthes of waters couered this matter, and yearth.

WHy so?

Bicause it is saied, that at that tyme the deapthes and Pooles of waters were mingled with the same earth.

This encreaseth the horrible shewe of that so greate a confusion.

You saie true: but Gods power thereby is the more declared. Howbeit, this co [...]unixtion of the water and earth togither, was verie necessarie vnto this that wee speake of, to wit, that the earth should bee a good, [Page] commodious, and well prepared matter for all earth­ly thinges, whiche it pleased God should rise out of it.

Expounde your owne woordes more plainly.

It behooued, that the seede and matter of all thinges should bee apte to bee fourmed, pliant, and tractable, whiche in the earth could not bee without moisture. Wherefore, the earth whiche of it owne nature is a drie and hard thing, not cleauyng togither, and not apt to bee drawne forthe in length or breadth, vnlesse it bee made suche, and tempered with some moisture that maie mollisie it and binde it togither: had water ioyned with it. And therefore that huge multitude of waters, whiche is called the deapthes, was created, and comprehended in the same body, vnder whiche the earth vnshapen was concluded, and laye hid. Wher­by it appeareth that this whole masse was a greater Chaos, & more difficult to bee manifested: out of whiche notwithstandyng God hath brought forthe so greate beautie, order, brightnesse, comelinesse, yea and that moste comely. All whiche thinges I would in long di­scourse prooue too haue been of necessitie in the firste matter, yea, and that by the auctoritie of the Pro­phane Philisophers them selues, vnlesse the place of scripture did confirme it plainly enough.

How?

Moses saieth, and darknesse was vppon the deapthes, and the Spi­rite of God mooued vppon the waters, Genesis the first chapter, and 2. verse: so that wee are enforced to defende twoo poinctes, whiche make for my side, againste the opini­ons of all the Philosophers. The firste is, that the matter of all the woorkes whiche God made after­warde, was not any small thyng, or imagination in [Page 50] mynde, rather than in mole of bodie comprehensible: but that it was that huge mole and globe, whiche be­yng afterwarde diuided into partes, conteined this earth whiche wee goe vppon, and the great sea whi­che wee sayle vpon. They imagine of the first matter, as if it were some thin and flittring shadow, and alto­gither without forme, which can not bee. For a thing that existeth can not bee without all forme: and what soeuer is without fourme, is nothing, and therefore is not at all. Of whiche it is thus written in the boke against the foundations and groundes of the Mani­chees Epistles, the 29. chapter: A certeine vnshapen mat­ter without fourme, without qualitie, without measure, without number, without weight, without order and distinction, a certaine confused thinge, I wote not what, and wholy without all qualitie: Whereof it commeth, that certaine Greeke Doctours doe call it [...], that is to saye, without qualitie. But Sainct Augustine mocketh at this opinion. The second is, that there cannot be one first matter cōmune vnto all thin­ges visible, held and established, but there muste bee diuerse, to wit, one of heauenly things, which is hea­uen: the other of earthly thinges, which are the earth and the water, whiche is both comprehended with it in one body, and created also at the same time to soften the earth: which three thinges were first made of no­thinge.

But what are those deapthes, and pooles?

Euen the same plainly which afterward is called the sea but y ^• Grecians terme it Abyssus, & the Hebrues Tehom. And it is called Abyssus, the deapthes, bycause so great Pooles & collections togither of waters, are without bottome so farre as may bee knowne, felte, or vnder­stoode, [Page] so wide and deepe they are. But it is called Tehom bycause it is mooued with an horrible noyse, and terrible roaring, insomuch as it swelleth and eb­beth, and floweth of it owne nature, and neuer stan­deth still.

But this is the question, whether those deapthes and moles of water, were mingled with the earth within, in the veines and hollowe passeges there of, or onely abidinge vpon the vppermost face of the earth: if you say that it couered onely the vppermost face, the mole of the earth beeing so big as it is, could not by meanes thereof wax soft: but if it were mingled with the earth, you shall both make the Chaos more horrible, and bet­ter conceiue the melting and softeninge of that harde nature, and element. For as I suppose, you doe not agree with those who are of opinion, that those deap­thes of waters were only a thinand rare cloud whi­che couered the earth, whereof Sainct Augustine ma­keth reporte.

Indeede I doe not agree with them: neither doe I doubt but that by anye of both those meanes whiche you haue declared, the Chaos maye bee showed and thought to bee great and horrible, whether the deap­thes of water bee mingled with the earth, or onelye abiding vpon the vppermost part of it. Neither can it bee doubted, but that y ^• body of the earth being ouer­flowen and compassed with so many, & so great wa­ters, was then sufficiently infused and soked. Not­withstanding, to the ende I maye declare, what see­meth to mee may bee determined in this question out of the woorde of God, I will alleage that whiche is written in the 104. Psal. and 6. verse, where speaking [Page 51] of the earth, it saith thus: Thou coueredst it with the pooles, like as with a garment: so that euery part of the deapthes and waters, were not mingled with euery part of the earth, as they supose, but the whole mole of waters compassed the whole body of the earth, and flected v­pon the vppermost face therof. As afterward it came to passe in the diluge in the tyme of Noe. Of which opi­nion this is also a reason, that when the Spirite of God, and the darkenesse lay vpon that vnshapē mole, it is not written that they laye vpon the earth it selfe but vppon the vpper parte of the waters and pooles, so that it plainely apeareth that the earth was inclu­ded & couered with those deapthes & pooles. More­ouer, when as the thirde daye the deapthes were se­parated from the earth, the waters were onely gathe­red togither frō that compassyng & spreading abroad vpon the earth, but is not saide that the waters were wron̄g out of the earth, as out of a spunge, which thē was also needefull to haue beene done.

The. xxiiii. Chapter. Why there was darknesse vpon the face of the same mole, and matter.

BUt why was there darkenesse vppon the face of the same confused mole, and matter?

Uerely, to the intent that the infinite ver­tue, wisedome, and power of the true God might thereby the more plainly appeere, who out of so confused a male, and so many impediments concur­ring, hath so soone, and by his so greate force brought foorth so beautifull an order of all thinges, yea, when [Page] there was no meane at all existing, but rather the cō ­trarie, to distinguishe and set foorth the same with all: as S. Paule sheweth in the 2. too the Corinthians, the 4. chapter, and 6. verse: for all thinges are wount to bee distinguished in the light. Wherfore, beesides the con­fusion of the mole, darkenesse also was an impedimēt vnto God. How then did God woorke, and distin­guishe these thinges, when there was darkenesse? Doubtlesse by his greate and almightie power. For the darkenesse specially augmenteth the horrour of so greate a confusion, and doth cause that the distin­guishing and diuiding of these thinges seemeth to bee a woorke altogether impossible. For, if so bee that vn­to that which is confused and intricate, darkenesse al­so bee added, all hope and meanes of opening and clee­ring the same is taken away: that whosoeuer shall di­uise in his minde the meanes whiche the Lord toooke first in hande to create & distinguish this world by, the same may cause it not onely to seeme to bee a woorke full of difficulty, but also of great impossibilitie. And whosoeuer shall behold the beautie and fourme of the world, as it is now distingushed, will iudge that this woorke was framed and made of principles and par­tes very wel digested and ordered, and that there was light first beefore there was any other thing made.

Is there any iniury doone vnto God, who being most wise, most good, most perfect, most beautifull, is sayde notwithstanding too haue created this first matter so confused, who both could, and as it seemeth; ought, e­uen in the very beeginning and at the firste moment haue made it distinct and beautifull?

Uerely the Manichees were deceiued in thinking so vn­aduisedly, [Page 52] and marking so fondly. Yea, and the Valenti­nians also their Patriarkes for this cause were decei­ued. For, beeing led by their owne wicked thoughtes in this kinde of argument, they sayd, that this world, and the first beginning therof, were the matter, fruite, and effect of a certein foule imperfection & ignorance in God, and not the woorke of a wise God or woork­man, whiche can not bee read without horrour and trembling. Against whom, Father Ireneus writeth clo­quently and sharply in his 2. booke, and 3. chap. But now that I may answere, and alleage that which be­longeth to this question: I say, that the Lorde, who made all thinges to the intent hee might make the rit­ches of his glorie and power knowne, would special­ly reueale hymself in creatyng the world by this mea­nes and maner, and by vsing the same to that purpo­se. Wherefore, like as it was the parte of a moste wise God, to finde out and choose the way that he thought most conuenient to reueale himselfe: so is it likewise our duetie too allowe, reuerence, and adore the same that hee hath chosen. For faithe ought to bee the rule and leader of our mindes to vnderstande these woor­kes of God by, whiche vnlesse wee followe, wee shall conceiue nothing holsomly or profitably in all this whole woorke of God, bee it neuer so wide and beau­tifull. For as it is writen in the 11. chapt. and 3. verse to the Hebrues: By faith we vnderstand that the world was made. And therefore wee ought not to followe the reason of our owne braines in defining these matters.

But doth not this mention whiche is made of darke­nesse, which was spread ouer the first matter, cōfirme Aristotles opinion concerning priuation, whiche hee [Page] maketh to bee the thirde beeginning of all naturall thinges, in his 1. booke of Physikes?

Fye, awaye with this Priuation, as a dreame or do­tage, in respect of a beeginning of the world. For how can a Priuation, whiche is nothing, bee called the cause of a thing? as though a man would defend that fyre were the cause of cold. Moreouer, Aristotles Pri­uatiō sticketh fast infused in the matter: but the dark­nesse whereof Moses speaketh, was without the bodie of the matter, and brought no commoditie to the ta­king of a fourme, which Aristotles priuation doth: yea, the darkenesse rather tooke away al hope of receiuing fourme, so that Aristotles opinion is quite repugnant to Moses.

The xxv. Chapcer. Why the spirite of God was vpon this mole, and matter.

YOu haue discoursed of the firste matter of this world, and of the woūderful confusion therof, or as I may call it, troubling togi­ther: declare now why Moses speaketh of the spirite of God.

For many causes, specially for three. Firste, that the creation of the world might bee vnderstoode, not on­ly to bee the woorke of the Father, and of the Sunne, but also of the holy ghost, who is likewise in person di­stinct from them twaine. Howbeit, if wee consider more narrowly of the woord, The spirit of GOD, noteth vnto vs in that place not the third person in Trinitie, whiche is infinite, and comprehended in no place, but onely a certein effect, and power, and presence which reuealed and manifested it selfe there. But it is cōmon [Page 53] in the scripture, that the giftes and tokens of the ho­ly Ghoste, are taken for the holy Ghoste himselfe, and when they are recited, hee likewise is vnderstoode to bee there by his owne special meanes, as appeareth in the 3. chap. of S. Matthewe, because wee cannot know hym any other way than through those his effectes, and giftes. Whererefore, the Spirite of God, had also his owne proper function and office, openly and di­stinctly in the creation of this world. Secondly. that wee might know by what power and spirite that first mole, whiche was so greate, was at the beeginning susteined and helde vp. Truely not of it self, neither by the waters that were round about it, neither by the darknesse that was vppon it, whiche rather couered that firste matter whiche was now a growing, as it were in a wombe, and made it an vntimely fruite: but by the almightie spirite of God, whiche susteineth and quickneth all thinges by his diuine power, by whom that huge and vnprofitable mole of earth and water, subsisted, flourished, was quickned, was susteined, was reteined, and as I may saye, made aliue: to the ende wee should ascribe all these thinges, and their vertues, onely to the glorie of God.

How prooue you that?

For that all thynges at this present, doe subsiste and are susteined by the spirite of God: although now thei haue gotten their peculiare force and nature, and yet were not destitute thereof at that tyme, as it is writ­ten in the 146. Psalme, and 5. verse: and the 139. and 7. verse: Likewise in the 1. to Timothe, the 6. Chapter, and 13. verse: and Actes the 1. chapter, the 28. verse.

What is the third reason?

[Page]

To the ende it might bee the better declared by what meanes, moouing, and proceeding all thinges were by God drawne foorth, and framed out of that firste matter and mole. Euen as wee see at this day, that the firste See [...]es of thinges, after that once they bee sowne, by Gods power are not onely susteined, but al­so nourished, quickned, and made warme, and so doe burgein, and sendfoorth that bodie which naturally they conteined with in thē: so was it in y ^• first matter of all thinges, so that the same Spirite by his power did susteine and nourishe the first seedes of thinges, and now also continually mooueth the same: howbeit, that same action was then more manifestly declared, in that there was not as yet any ordinarie vertue of engendring or bringing foorth, engraffed into things by the word of God: for that was giuen afterwarde. And therefore the spirite of GOD manifested himself mightily in those thinges, and nourished that mole. Whiche thing Moses also teacheth plainly, in that kind of phrase which hee vseth.

Expounde your saying more euidently.

Moses woordes do not onely signifie this, which I say, but plainely declare it.

What woordes bee they?

These that folowe, and the spirite of God mooued itselfe vp­pon the top of the waters.

What is the meaning of those woordes?

To wit, that the Spirite of God had giuen a lyuely force vnto that greate mole, not onely by whiche it should exist, susteine, and as it were beare vp it selfe: but also that it ingraffed, engendred, & raised vp in it a [...]ert [...]u [...]e vertue, where by it should afterwarde waxe [Page 54] hot, as it were, to conceiue, and to bringe foorth. For the Hebrue woorde Merachephet signifieth, both those thinges, not onely, I saye, to susteine and mooue, but also to nourish, as birdes do nourish their yoūg ous: & also to giue force to wax warme, & to moue it self: Deu­teron the 32. chapter, and 11. verse: which Sainet Paule seemeth to translate, to cherish, to y ^• Ephesians y ^• 5. chap­ter, and 29. verse. Likewyse, as the same Spirite of GOD is sayde in the 139. and 7. verse, to woorke, and to bee sent foorth, to the intent that at thys pre­sent also things may bee ingēdered, & brought foorth. Who, if hee shoulde cease or bee taken away, nothing would grow, although the seedes of thē were sowne, and men labored and toyled all that they coulde, but woulde lye choaked within the bowels of the earth, & wombes of their mothers.

But why is the action and woorking of that spirite, discribed, as it were, by a certaine wagging and moo­uing of himselfe, and breathing foorth of a winde?

Bicause the signification of the presence and action of the Holy Ghost, is expressed by thys moouing, & brea­thing: like as in an other place, the Doue was the sig­nification of the presence of the same holy spirite, Ma­thew the 3. chapter and 16. verse. In an other place al­so the firie tongues, were seales and signes of his o­peration and giftes▪ Actes the 1. Chapter. And in an other place also blowinge and breathinge out of the mouth: Ihon the 20. Chapter, and 22. verse: Although the same Spirite of God, which is GOD also, is not a winde indeede, howbeeit his woorking is signified and noted by this misterie of moouing, & breathing: for hee is a quickninge Spirite: and lyfe is specially [Page] knowne by wagginge and moouinge, and discerned from death, which is an euerlasting and senselesse qui­etnes of all thinges. So that it is sufficiently decla­red by that kinde of the misterie, to what end the spirit of God was present, and also what hee did, to wit, hee gaue force vnto thinges.

But why did that spirite remaine vppon the vpper­most face of the waters, for asmuch as Moses sayde not, that the water was created beefore: and hee mighte also haue lyen in the middes of this mole, and so haue warmed and susteyned the whole masse within as it were leauen, or a fire?

That y ^e water was created by God at one time with the first earth, Moses declareth sufficiently, when he ad­deth by and by, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deapths, that is to saye, vpon the mole of waters. And these woordes doe declare, that both those elements made but the mole of one bodye, whiche truely at the firste was disordred, & consisted of them twaine togither & herein ther can consist no doubt. But why that force and spirite of GOD, did specially appeare in the top of the waters, that is to say, of the whole mole, and not in the bottom or middes, the reason is this: not that it did not pearce also vnto the very deapthes, but susteined onely the vppermost face of the mole (for the Spirite of God reached at that time euen vnto Hell. Psalme 139. the 5. verse. & filled also with his power, and went throughout euery parte of this mole, were it ne­uer so secret & hiddē) but forasmuch as it pleased God that all these thinges shoulde so bee extant and doone, to the ende his power shoulde bee manifest, open and easie to bee knowne, not hid and couered▪ it was be­houefull [Page 55] that his misterie and tokens should appeare and showe themselues in the vppermoste parte and openly, not in the bottome of the whole mole, or in the middest thereof, that is to saye, in secrete and out of fight. Moreouer, it was necessarie that the same spirite shoulde compasse and nourish the whole mole, and not one parte onely: whiche came to passe by the houering and moouing of the same Spirite about the whole mole.

Why doth hee call them earth, water, and heauen, whiche were not yet distinct by that name, or separa­ted by their proper natures? for they were so called the daies followyng, after that these thinges were di­uided one from another.

As for heauen, God had made it at that time, and it was called heauen, but the Etymon and cause of the name is vnderstoode by the latter woorkes, whiche was the stretching foorth, and the woorkmanship of the second day. And thus are thei termed heauen and earth by anticipation, leste if these bodies were signi­fied by no names, the thinge it self could not bee decla­red. Beesides this, inasmuch as these thinges are also afterward called by their owne proper names, it is a signe, that there is none other substance added vntoo them, but the same reteined which was in them, when as yet they were confused: but onely beautie added, whereby they were dinstinguished from other thin­ges of diuerse kindes, and also made more beautifull in themselues.

What? doe you allowe and renue the opinion of A­naxagoras, who thincketh, that in the beeginninge all things were mingled togither, and that euery thing [Page] was made one of an other, and termeth the firste be­ginninge of all thinges, but a distinction and separa­tion out of a certain confused heape, wherin they were beefore?

No not so: for I doe not saye, that within the same, mole of earth, whereof I doe now dispute, there were hidden and buried trees alreadye framed, men four­med, or cattell and beastes shapen, and that they were couered and infoulded within certeine plightes and fouldes, and so were extant, as Anaxagoras thought: but Moses confuteth this, who sheweth, y ^t those things which were brought forth the daies following, were made, and not onely seuered, neither taken and sepa­rated, as it were, out of a certeine heape, and stoare­house of all thinges. Howebeeit, I maye truely saye with Sainct Augustine, that the seedes of all thinges were at the first, yea, and that throughly infused into that first matter: which seedes were not diuerse from the substance of the earth, and yet laye hidden within the bowels thereof: but the earth beeing made apt by the woorde and woorking of the Spirite, did after­warde bringe foorth those thinges, which it pleased God shoulde bee in the worlde. To conclude, howe shoulde wee bringe in this Anaxagoras confusion, since wee reade so playnely in the holy Scripture, that the matter of heauenly thinges is diuerse and separated, from the matter of earthly thinges? And, as I sup­pose, that heauen which as it is written, God made the fyrst daye when he made the earth, was the mat­ter of all heauenly thinges.

The xxvi. Chapter. [Page 56] Of the matter of heauenly thinges that are visible.

BUT what shall wee thynke of that fyrst Heauen, whiche was the matter of hea­uenly thinges?

That it was not this place, whiche is called the aire, or this open spreadyng a­broade, whiche was created the seconde daie, Genesis the 1. chapter, and 8. verse: but rather that the matter of heauenly thynges was by God prepared, whiche by a generall name is called heauen.

What maner of thyng was that heauen, whiche you call the matter of heauenly thynges?

Uerely, firste it was obscure and darcke, although it were made of a moste subtile and fine substaunce, but vnshapen and disorder, not trimme to sight, nor sepa­rated by space or distaunce of place, from the mole of earth and water: as it appeareth in the 1. Chapter of Genesis, and 6. verse, but was as yet neere vnto it, and touched it.

What, was it needfull also, that the heauenly matter should bee stieped in the water, as the earthly was, to the ende that the heauēly bodies should afterward bee made thereof?

Fie for shame. Wee read not that those heauenly bo­dies, to wit, the Sunne, the Moone, the starres, and all that whiche is called the region of heauen, whiche God hath placed aboue the elementes, were so made out of heauen, as the earthly were made out of the earth. For like as it is said in the 1. chap. and 11. verse of Genesis, Let the earth bring foorth euery greene hearbe that bea­reth seede, and let the water bring foorth fish, the 1. chap. of Genesis, and 20. verse: so is it not likewise written and co­maunded [Page] by God, let heauen bring foorth the Sunne and the Moone: but onely thus, Let there bee lightes in the face of the open heauen. Genesis the 1. chapter, and 14. verse. Whereby it sufficiently appeareth, that the firste Heauen, was not in suche manner the matter of hea­uenly things, as it were a certein plentiful and frute­full Father of them: neither that the matter of hea­uenly thinges was so ordeined, as the earth was ap­pointed by GOD too bee the matter, and mother of earthly thinges.

Why would the Lorde haue thinges so diuersly to bee made out of those matters, and that heauenly thin­ges should not bee made out of heauen, as well as the earthly are out of the earth?

Not onely for this cause, that like as they were made by hym of diuerse matter, and differing in kinde (al­though they bee all partakers of bodie) so likewise it beehooued them to declare their vse, and execute their duetie in diuerse maner, too the ende, their difference might bee vnderstoode and perceiued: but also that God might reueale vntoo vs the better, his mightie power, and also his manifolde wisedome in so greate varietie of bringing foorth thinges. So likewise in the framing of man onely, God hath vsed one meane in creating his bodie, and another his soule, and by those meanes continually createth and maketh them, notwithstanding that hee is able to make them both by one meane.

The. xxvii. Chapter. [Page 57] What is the fourme of the worlde.

HEthertoo concernyng the matter of the worlde, saie sumwhat now, if you can, tou­chyng the fourme thereof.

I will doe so.

What therefore, is the fourme of this so greate a woorke?

There cannot bee one onely, and that substantiall, thereof assigned. For as I haue shewed beefore, it is not possible that there should bee one onely, and parti­culare soule of all the worlde, whiche beeyng dispersed throughout euerie parte of the bodie thereof, should wag, stirre, and mooue this so hugie frame and mole: whatsheuer the Aristotelians and Platonikes doe suppose. Likewise, S. Augustine in his 7. booke de Genesiad Lite­ram, and 12. chapter, doeth iustly deney, that GOD is the soule of this worlde, as of some liuing creature, forasmuche as hee dwelleth aboue the bodie of the worlde, and aboue euery Spirite, and stretcheth bee­yonde the endes of the whole worlde. But God hath giuen vnto euery kinde, his proper nature and forme▪ whiche are disputed of in speciall treatises, which are written of euery kinde of thyng. As for roundenesse, whiche some attribute to the worlde, as the naturall fourme thereof: it ought not too bee counted or called the inward or essentiall forme of the worlde, but one­ly the outward and accidentall.

But, dooeth not the Scripture attribute vnto the world partes, and differences of situation, as it were to a liuyng creature, and countries, and regions also distinct one from another?

It doeth so indeede, but notwithstanding it prooueth [Page] not, that there is but one and theself same fourme, spi­rite and soule beelongyng to this worlde, and that it is a liuyng creature.

Why so?

For, forasmuche as there bee three kindes of bodies, and ioynynges in composition: one simple and conti­nuall, as a man: the seconde ioyned and touchyng one another, as an whole house: the third disioyned, as a flocke: it is truely saied, that euery kinde of bodie, as it were, a certeine whole thyng, hath euermore some partes, into whiche it is deuided, and also sundrie dif­ferences of place and situation, whiche may bee noted in it: howbeeit, euery kinde of bodie is not gouerned by one soule onely, or one Spirite, or one fourme: but that onely whiche wee termed beefore, simple and con­tinuall, as euery one of vs, for example.

The xxviii. Of the partes of the world, and first of the Ethereall, and E­lementare region.

WHiche then bee the principall partes of the world, whereof the scripture maketh men­tion?

They are of sundrie kindes. For some bee integral, which are the partes constituting the whole world, whiche wee terme substanciall: othersome di­stinguishing it onely, and limited by reason of certeine vses, and commodities.

Whiche are the integrall, and constituting partes of the world?

There are briefly twayne, for the most part proposed by the Scripture, to wit, the heauen and earth: as it [Page 58] appeareth to the Colossians the 1. chapter and 16. verse: and Genesis the 1. chap. and 2. verse: and Isay the 1. chap. and 1. verse, and in other places almost infinite: al­though in Genesis the 49. cha. and 25. verse, heauen and the deapthes bee also reckned.

What did the Scripture then conteine vnder the name of heauen?

All that region of this world, whiche is called by the Philosophers Ethereall, and conteineth the celestiall and vnengendred bodies, which continue, and are not chaunged since the first day of their creation, as sayth S. Peter, 2. of Peter, the 3. chapter, and 4. verse.

And what vnder the name of the earth?

Not onelye this bodye, and element whiche wee properly call the earth, but also that whole region of this world, whiche by the Philosophers is termed Elementare, which conteineth in it such bodies as are engendred, and are continually subiect to alteration.

Doe these twoo regions differ?

Yea, very much both in name and effect. In name, for that the first is called heauen, and this latter parte of the worlde is tearmed by the name of the elementes, yea and that by the scripture. For S. Peter in the 2. Epistle, the 3. Chapter, the 10. and 14. verses, distin­guisheth these words, Heauen, and y ^• Elementes. In effect, for that this endureth and continueth in the old state: the other is dayly chaunged, and at one time is engendred, and at an other tyme perisheth. The first, God hath reserued to himselfe, the other hee hath gi­uen to the vse of man: Psalme 115. and 16. verse. The first, as wee are taught, shall perishe at the latter day but with sinale noyse, and a lyght flashe of flame, for [Page] that it consisteth of a fine and subtill nature: but the other shall burne with great heat, and bee dissolued with mightie rage of fyre, eeuen in such sorte, as looke how it hapeneth in our earthly & material fire whē it flameth, the stickes crack, & smoke, & sende foorth a va­pour, which proceedeth from the moyst partes therof: so it is saide that the elementes shall glowe with heat, and melt, for that they are of an hard, thick and clam­mie nature, and not pure and cleane. This difference also may bee obserued betwene the two partes of the worlde, that the thinges which are in the first, are the efficient & principall causes, of those thinges that are engendred in y ^e other. But the thinges that are in the second & elemētare part of the world, are the materiall causes of those thinges whiche are heare engendred. Wherefore they be in the things, & doe constitute and make their substance: which vse and functiō y ^e woord, element, when it is properly taken doth signifie.

How farre doth eche of these regions extend, & which bee the farthest endes and boundes of them both?

I will nowe touche them in fewe woordes, and at an other tyme perhapes declare them more at large. Some determine the ethereall and heauenly region, from the highest heauen vnto the circle of the Moone. And the elementare, from that place whiche is vnder this circle & sphere, vnto the lowest center of the earth. Howbeit, othersome suppose rather, that the Moone belongeth to the elementare and earthly region of the woorlde: concerning which varictie of mens opiniōs, reade Plutarches booke of the face whiche appeareth in the globe of the Moone. Howbeit, I haue alwayes thought the first opinion to bee truest.

[Page 59]

What thincke you then, of that generall diuision of thinges, whereby all thinges that are in this worlde are diuided, not into two partes, but into foure gene­rall kindes, to wit, of thinges that are in heauen, vp­pon the earth, vnder the earth, and in the sea, as it is to bee seene in the Reuelat. the 5. chapter and 13. verse? And Sainct Paule likewise, hath plainly distinguished three kindes of things to wit, of heauen, of the earth, and of vnder the earth: To the Philip. the 2. chapter, and 20. verse.

Those generall diuisiōs of things wherof you spake, and whatsoeuer other there bee, may easily bee reuo­ked vnto these two generall kindes of thinges which I proposed. For that which is called the earthly and elementare Region, comprehendeth all thinges that are vpon the earth, and in the earth, & in the waters: yea, those things also that are called things vnder the earth: whiche for the most part are none other in the Scripture, than the things that are in the sea, as it a­peareth by the interpretatiō which God himself made in the 20. chap. of Exodus, and 4. verse. And the ethereall region conteineth all things that are called heauenly.

The xxix. Chapter. Of the East, West, North, and South partes of the worlde.

DIscourse now of that kinde of partes, whi che you termed distinguishing, and not con­stituting partes of the worlde.

These bee foure in number, called thus in the Hebrue tongue. Quedem, Iamin, Tsaphon, Negeb, or Iamita: and amonge vs thus: East, West, North, and South, all whiche Sainet Augustine thinketh to bee [Page] comprehended, and signified by this woorde Adam: applying the Hebrue woorde to the Greeke.

But what was the cause and reason of fyrst deuising these names?

It is not needefull to seeke out the causes and reasōs of the Greeke and Latine woords, For they are com­monly knowne. And as for the Hebrue woords, this I thinke, is the reason of them. The East is called Quedem, bicause it is the firste or foremost parte of the worlde. The west Iamin, which signifieth the sea, by­cause in the West part of the worlde lieth y ^e great sea which is called Mare Mediteraneum, the midlande sea. The North Tsaphon, for that, that part of the worlde was hid and vnknowne to the Hebrues, in respect of the regions of the earth, and of the people with whō they had no trafycque nor dealinge, bicause of the dis­tance of place beetweene them. So that the case stoode contrarie with them and vs nowe, who day­ly beholde the North stare and poale. And as for the South, it is alwaies hidden from vs. The South is called by them Negeb, bycause that quarter of the worlde is drie barrein, and burnt with the perpetuall heate and skorching of the Sunne: or it may bee cal­led Iamin the firste sillable beeing long, that thereby it may differ from the fyrst Iamin, whiche hath the fyrste syllable shorte, bycause that when wee looke into the East. y ^• South is on our right hand, & not on our left.

Where doth the scripture make mentiō of these foure quarters of the worlde?

Almost in infinite places, of whiche wee will alledge these few. Genesis, the 13. chap. and 14. verse: and the 28. chap., & 14. verse: Psal. 107. and 3. verse: Isay y ^• 47. chap. [Page 60] and 5. and 6. verses: Psal. the 75. and 7. verse

Why do you call these onely distinguishing partes?

Bicause wee obserue them, onely for the vse and com­moditie of men.

For what commoditie?

Specially for foure, whereof two do appertain to the publike and common vse of all men and other twoo do concerne the priuate commodity of euery place and countrey.

Declare this more at large.

This distinction of the quarters of the worlde was necessarie for the vse of man, for two causes. The first to the ende that the nations and people of this world might be distinguished one frō another: wherof we say some dwel East, some west, some north, & some south. Moreouer, to obserue the course of the Sūne (whose benefit al nations do enioye) who rising in y ^e East, go­eth by y ^e south, vntill at length he cōmeth into y ^e West. And finally, to declare the force & originall of the win­des: all which cannot possibly bee vnderstood and ob­serued, vnlesse these foure quarters of the worlde bee distinguished. And as touching priuat vse also, it was necessarie that they should bee distinct. First, to the en­tent that the limites and situation of euery kingdom, people, and countrie, may be discribed. And also that it might bee signified and set foorth, where the boundes and endes are of the houses, fendes and places of eue­ry territorie, and so thereby in the ende all strife and contention bee taken from among priuate men, con­cerning the boundes of their landes.

I vnderstād what you say. But what are these regiōs distinct by nature, or rather are they fantasied by the [Page] opiniō of men, so y ^t euerie priuate people, or man, may wheresoeuer hee will, make East, West, North and South? For that region of heauen and earth which is called by the Hebrues Tsaphon, that is to say, hidden, and by vs the North: the same is oftentimes vnto vs wide, playne and open to bee seen, like as that region of Heauen whiche was vnknowen too the Jewes, is vnto all the Northren people. And contrariwise, the Southren Region of Heauen, and the Poale of the worlde whiche was seen of them, is hidden from vs as is also the Starre called Canopus, with suche other. Moreouer, that parte of the worlde whiche is on the right hand to vs, is oftentimes on the lefte hand to o­thers. whereof came that whiche Virgill spake of the Articke Poale:

And that saying also of the Poet Lucane:

with other suche like to that purport.

No truely. For these quarters of the world bee by na­ture determined, forasmuche as it can not bee Easte but where the Sunne riseth: neither West, but where hee goeth downe. Neither North, or South bee ap­pointed, but in plaine contrarie partes of the worlde: the Northe, where the Northren people dwell, and South in the contrarie part. And although wee doc here vse these woordes, the rising and setting of the Sunne, generally and strictly, and not for anie one precise part or point in heauen (for the Sunne riseth mone place in the Winter, & in another in y ^• Spring, [Page 61] and in another in Summer) notwithstanding hee ri­seth alwaies in one certein place of the world, neither doth he passe y ^• determinate bounds which the Lorde hath appointed vnto hym, too keepe his course in throughout the whole yere. Wherefore, this distinc­tion of the partes of the world, consisteth not in the o­pinion of men, or at euerie mans pleasure, but is defi­ned and limited by nature, true separation, and expe­rience.

Concerning those fiue quarters and zones, which the Astronomers doe describe in heauen, and vppon the earth, of whiche Virgill hath writen thus:

Fiue zones there bee whiche Heauen whole deuide: and that whiche followeth:

And twayne are drenched deepe in snow: wherof the one lieth to the Northren Poale, the other to the Southren, & as for the middie ones: betweene them both he placed, And with iust temperature of heate and cold hee interlaced, and therefore are called habitable: tell mee what is your opinion?

Although the scripture doe not so plainly distinguishe them, yet it calleth one of them Arets, and the earth: the other Tebet, and the habitable worlde. Isay, the 33. chapter, 1. verse: and the 38. and 11. verse: wherby it is declared, that certeine Regions of this worlde are more commodiously and commonly inhabited, foras­much as wee dauy see that the extreame force of cold and heate are many tymes intollerable vntoo men. Psalme 149. the 17. verse: and Psalme 91. and 6. verse: and Psalme 121. and 6. verse. Wherefore, experience tea [...]th [Page] this to bee true, neither doe I thinke that this parti­tion is too vee reiected, for that it serueth too some vse: howbeit these places beeing searched out by the newe nauigations vndertaken by men of our age, may bee the more commodiously knowne.

¶ The. xxx. Chapter. Where these positions are to bee found, high, low, beefore, behind, on the right hand, and on the left.

DIscourse nowe concernyng the sun­drie differences of situations and pla­ces, whiche are noted and marked in this worlde.

Thei are in number sixe. and thei are taken from those three dimensions, whiche properly beelong vnto bodies. To wit, high, lowe, beefore, beehinde, on the right hande, on the left.

How so?

For that is proper vnto euery naturall bodie too bee long, broad, deepe or thicke. As for those deliniations whiche are plaine and flat, thei are not bodies, but su­perficies, that is to saie, vppermoste faces: and there­fore one of those three dimensions is noted and taken by a right line. But there bee twoo extreme partes or endes of euery streight line. Wherefore there bee sixe extreame partes or endes of those three dimensions or streight lines, whiche doe distinguishe and make so many sundrie differences of place or situation. And in lengthe, wee terme one ende highe, another lowe. In breadth, wee place those, on the right hande, and on the lefte hande. In deapthe or thicknesse, beefore, and [Page 62] beehinde. Howbeeit these twoo latter differences can not bee obserued in euery kinde of bodie, but onely in that whiche is called the bodie of a liuyng Creature, and is endued with sense.

How commeth this about, that you recken onely thre dimensions of a bodie, and S. Paule reciteth fower, to wit, length, breadth, height and deapth: to the Ephesians the 3. chapter, and 18. verse: likewise in Iob the 11. cha­piter, and 8. and 9. verses, the same are recited.

You saie truely. Howbeeit these twoo, deapthe and heighth, are indeede, and subiect all one, and in reason onely distinguished.

Declare this more at large.

Like as it is the very same waie, saith Aristotl [...], which leadeth from Athenes to Thebes, and from Thebes to A­thenes: and like as in one and the self same ladder and staiers, indeede and in respecte of the subiecte, the go­yng vp, and the goyng doune is all one: the goyng vp, if a man climbe from the lowest step to the higstest: the goyng doune, if hee descende from the highest step too the lowest. So in verie deede are highth and deapth: but it is then called highth, when a man looketh vp from the lowest to the highest: and deapth when hee looketh doune from the top to the bottome, so that we vse but one kinde for bothe these dimensiōs. And thus it commeth to passe, that there bee onely sixe differen­ces of place, and not eight.

Maie there then, or ought any regions in this world bee called, on the right hande, on the lefte hande, firste, last, high, or lowe?

Uerely, if I should stande to declare, how diuerse the opinions of men bee, touchyng this poincte onely▪ I [Page] should not onely bee wearisome, but also farre passe the boundes of mine argument, whiche I haue taken in hande. For Astronomers doe otherwise, and in o­ther places appointe them, and Southsaiers other­wise, and Historicians otherwise. To bee short, eeuen in that verie pointe, sundrie nations are of sundrie o­pinions: as for example the Egiptians, who will haue the East to bee the forepart of the worlde: the West the hinder parte: The North, the right side: and the South the left, as Plutarche writeth in Iside, contrarie vntoo that whiche Nature, and common course of all thynges doeth admit. The Easte is the right side of the worlde, saieth Aristotle, and the Weste the lefte: for the worlde mooueth eeuen like a man that bee­ginneth at the right hande to set forthe vpon his iour­ney, on whose right side then is the Northe, and the South parte of the worlde on his lefte. Varro in his 6. booke de lingua Latina, is of an other opiniō, to wit, that the East is on the lefte hande, the Weste on the right, the Southe right beefore, and the Northe beehinde. But the Scripture saieth otherwise.

What saieth the Scripture?

It constantly calleth the Easte the fore parte of the world: the West, the hinder: the South the right side: and the North the left.

How prooue you that?

First, out of that place of Iob, whiche is in the 23. cha­piter, 8. and 9. verses: and bicause it followeth ne­cessarily, that if you make the East the foremoste part of the worlde, that then the Northe multe bee on the left hande: and the South on the right it plainly ap­peareth vnto him, whosoeuer shall looke into y ^e East. [Page 63] And likewise Dionisius. Halicarnasseus teacheth, that the same is necessarily gathered.

Why doeth the Scripture make the Easte to bee the face and foremoste part of the worlde?

Bicause, like as our senses, specially our eyes and countenance, are placed in the face and foremoste part of the man: so dooeth the light first rise vnto vs from that part of the worlde. Whereby it commeth to passe, that al men turne their countenances thither: yea the brute beastes also of the fielde, who in the mornynges as thei feede in the Medowes, doe turne themselues towardes the risyng of the Sunne, for light. Thus, by verie instinct of Nature, all thynges doe acknow­ledge and confesse that this parte of the worlde, is as it were, the face, eyes, and fore part of the worlde.

Me thinkes, that these thyngs in the worlde are di­stinguished rather in respect of vs, than of Nature.

Truely, the worlde is distinguished indeede, specially in respecte of vs. For in a circle properly, and of it self, nothyng can bee saied to bee on the right hande, no­thyng on the left, nothyng beefore, nothyng beehinde, forasmuche as all partes of the circumference, in that kinde of figure, are equally placed. And therefore Ar­nobius saieth well in his 4. booke: The worlde of it owne na­ture, hath neither right hande, neither left: neither high regions, nei­ther lowe: neither beefore, neither beehinde. For whatsoeuer is roūd hath neither beginning, neither ending. And therfore when we say, this countrie is on the right hande, this on the left: we speake it not in respecte of the worlde, but of the place where wee ourselues are situate and dwel [...]yng. This farre Arnobius. Whereby it ap­peareth, how foolishe and without grounde that opi­nion of the auncient Hetruscane Southsaiers is, who [Page] iudged, that lefte hande lightnyng, lefte hand birde fli­yng, lette hande signes of heauen, are of nature more fortunate, than those whiche appeared in any other parte of the worlde. For that whiche is on the lefte hande to mee, maie bee on the right hande to you, be­cause these differences of place and situation, are chaunged by the diuerse respecte and reason of men.

What, doth the Scripture also note high, and low in the worlde?

Yea, plainely.

Where?

In the 11. chapte of Iob, the 8. and 9. verses: and Exo­due, the 20. chapter, and 4. verse.

Is there then, some place of the world high and some lowe?

The whole region of heauē is called high and aboue: and the earth lowe and beneath.

How proue you that?

Out of the aboue recited places of Iob, & Exodus: wher­vnto also you may adde if you please the 6. verse of the 10. chapter to the Romaines: and Deut. the 5. chapter, and 8. verse, and almost infinite other like places, as Isay the 44. chapter, and 23. verse: and Prouerbes the 25. chapter, and 1. verse.

But tell mee, is it so of nature, or consisteth it onely in the opinion of men, that one parte of the worlde is high, and another lowe?

Of nature surely: for those thinges that are lyght do naturally tende vpwarde, and goe towardes heauen: and the thinges that are heauie downwarde, and to­wardes the earth. Moreouer, if we consider the order of thinges, God hath thus appointed, that those hig­her [Page 64] thinges shall woorke vpoon these lower. For hea­uen woorketh vppon these earthly thinges, and wee perceiue the influences and effectes thereof diuersely, and either it bringeth foorthe, or distroyeth manye things vpon the earth, as it were, with to much rain, or drought. Wherefore, Heauen, both by nature of the place, and also situation, is higher than the earth. Howbeit, concerning this poinet S. Augustine graue­ly disputeth in the 83. booke, and 29. question. For hee demaundeth this question, whether in this vniuersa­litie and world, which is conteined within a circulare fourme, sumthing may bee called high and sumthing lowe, seeinge all the partes thereof consist in equall si­tuation.

Concerning the circumferēce of a circle, perhaps this question may bee demaunded, which indeed was S. Augustines meaning, whether the one part thereof bee high & an other lowe: for in truth, in respect of them­selues, thei are al of equall situatiō. But touching the thinges themselues which are comprehended within the Circle, thys question is cleere, and out of doubte. For in euery circle the circumferēce is the vpper part therof, & the centre the lower: vnto which parte those thinges whiche come neerest of lowest: like as those highest y ^t are neerest to the circumference of the circle.

Which is the middle parte of the worlde?

The midest of the worlde may bee doubly considered, either in respect of substance, or of place. Whiche the great Philosopher Plutarche first obserued in his booke of the contrarietie of the Stoikes. The midds of the worlde in respect of substance is not some o [...]e certein body, but many, as y ^• aier, water, with other that [...]e [Page] partly of the nature of heauen, and partly of the earth. But the midds in respect of place, is the earth, as it is agreed vpon by those that holde opinion, that the compasse and capablenesse of the world is of a round and sphericall figure. For, as they affirme, the earth standeth in stead of a centre, in cōparison of the whole world. Touching which opinion, although they con­tende against it, which dency that there bee any Anti­podes, or dwellers on the otherside of the earth right a­gainst vs, as Lactantius and S. Augustine, good and al­lowed auctours haue doone: yet is it more true and credible that there are such Antipodes, & the rather, for that there can bee nothing alleaged out of the Scrip­tures, to confyrme the auctoritie of Lactantius and S. Augustine by: and also reason plainely prooueth it to bee true, to wit, the situation of countries, and the ele­uation of the Poales.

The. xxxi. Chapter. The cheif end of the creation of the world, is, the glory, and knowledge of God the creatour.

HEthertoo you haue declared the efficient, materiall, and formall cause of the world, it remaineth also that you say sumwhat of the fourth, whiche is the finall cause: con­cernyng whiche I demaunde this question of you, what is the finall cause of the creation of the worlde, as the scripture noteth?

You did well to adde that clause, as the Scripture noteth. For there is none among the Philosophers, except onely Plato and Trimegistus, that, although they woun­der [Page 65] at the worlde, doeth declare notwithstanding for what cause it was made, and what is the ende of the creating, or now subsisting thereof. No not Aristotle himself, although hee wroate about 30. sundry bookes more or lesse, concerning the nature of thinges, which bookes are extant at this day, and tossed in all mens handes.

Tell mee therefore, what is the ende of the creating, and conseruyng of the world?

To speake breifly, eeuen the euerlasting and immor­tall GOD himsef, for the acknowledging and setting foorth of whose glorie it was created.

How prooue you that?

Not onely for that Father Ireneus writeth so, in his 2, booke, and 64. chap. but bicause the spirite of God tea­cheth vs so. For firste, the holy Scripture sheweth plainlye, that all thinges were made for the glorie of the true GOD, who is reuealed vntoo vs in his woord: Prouerbes, the 16. chapter, and 16. verse: and also S. Paule sayeth in the 1. chapter to the Romanes, the 20. verse, that the knowledge of GOD is learned out of these created and visible thinges. For this world is a familiare, cōmon to all landes, people, & nations, a free and most beautifull looking glasse, wherin the power, wisedome and goodnes of God is layed foorth before vs to bee seen, beeholden and acknowledged, as it is abundantly declared in the 29. Psalme, the 1. 2. 3. 4. and 5. verses: whereunto you may adde that whiche is written in the booke of wisdome the 13. chapter, the 1. and 5, verses. Hereof cummeth that saying of Iob, in the 36. chapter, and 29. verse: Remember that thou doe magnifie hys woorke (hee meaneth Gods) whiche all men doe beehold and [Page] see, and man looketh vpon a farre of. And therefore Isay in the 44. chapter, and 23. verse, not onely inuiteth men, but all other creatures also to sing prayse vnto God. The like is also doone in the 147. Psalme.

But seeing that the glory of God, is the setting foorth of his vertues and excellencie, what vertues, or ex­ceading greatnes doth there appeare in the looking glasse of this world, wherein are seen such and so ma­ny confusions of all thinges?

There are obiect vnto our eies so infinite and innu­merable vertues, moreouer so noble and incompre­hensible excellencie and maiestie, that the eternall dei­tie of the almightie God, doth truely and manifestly shewfoorth it selfe in the beeholding and surueiyng of this world, as S. Paule sayeth. But that I may not runne through all, and that this disputation may at length drawe to an end, wee will reuoke and contract the ende of this worlde into the klowledge of three speciall vertues in God.

Whiche bee they?

Power, wisedome, goodnes.

Alleage vnto mee some example of these thinges.

First, the power of God appeareth wounderful great in creating this worlde, yea, plainely infinite, and far surmounting al capacitie and vnderstāding of mans witte. In that God hath made all these things of no­thing, so many in number, so big in Mo [...]e, and so wide in place. Which beeing all seuerally beholden and con­sidered, doe argue great power and force in the ma­ker: but beeing generally looked vpon, do declare that his power is incomprehensible and infinite. Thys power of God in creating the world, is proposed vnto [Page 66] vs to bee acknowledged and thought vpon, namely in the 19. Psalme, and also in the 145. And as for other places of the Scriptures and Prophetes, what shall I neede to goe about to recite them in this place?

Giue mee an example of Gods wisedome, in the crea­ting and contemplation of the woorkmanship of this world.

That may easely bee seene. First, in that hee hath pla­ced so many sundrie and diuerse partes, and so many seuerall kindes of thinges in one whole bodie: next, that hee hath giuen a peculiare and proper force and nature vnto euery kinde: Moreouer, that hee hath a­lotted to euery nature his owne proper place and me­tion: and to bee short, that hee assigneth not onely vn­to euery kind, but also vnto euery parte of euerie par­ticulare thing, it owne proper vse, ende, profit, and ef­fect. So that, that great wisedome of God hath not made, no not the least thing in vaine, whiche is truely the manifold wisedome, as S. Paule termeth it to the Ephesians the 3. chapter, and 10. verse. And therefore it is said in the 136. Psalme: and 5. verse, that hee made the heauens with vnsearchable vnderstanding and wis­dome. And when as the Prophet Dauid considered in his minde deepely the framing of this world, hee cried out, and sayd: Thy knowledge is to woonderfull and excellēt for mee, I can not attaine vnto it: Psalme 139. and 6. verse: where­vnto also that may bee added which is writen in the 39. chapter, and 26. verse of Ecclesiasticus. This our opi­nion also is confirmed in the 8. chapt. and 27. and 28. verses, and the residue following: and also the 21. cha. and 30. verse: and by this one thing moreouer, that whereas there bee certein thinges, yea, and men also, [Page] that are of diuerse and fundrie qualities and condi­cions, and of natures quite contrarie: they were to good purpose by the same wisedom of God, created in suche maner. For the Lord hath wisely, made a diffe­rence and distinction beetweene the ritchman and the poore: Prouerbes, the 22. chapter, and 2. verse. To bee short, those thinges whiche wee make none accoumpt of, and are indeede but small, as a Guat, a Woorme, and a Butterflie, in these notwithstanding appea­reth the wonderfull wisedome of God, insomuche as wee must needes acknowledge that to bee true which was spoken by Plinie an Heathen writer: Nature is neuer more whole in any thing then in the least.

What say you of the goodnes of God, doeth that ap­peere notably in the woorkemanship, and creatures of this world?

Yea, very mutch. And although the [...]ame bee moste­uident in y ^• redemption of mankinde, whiche was ac­complished by the death and passion of our Lord Ie­sus Christ: notwithstandyng it appeareth also vntoo vs to bee very excellent and incomprehensible, in the creation, constitution, and cōseruation of this world.

Declare howe?

First, this is a great goodnesse of God, that he would haue thinges to exist and bee, which were not beefore. Moreouer, in that hee gaue them lyfe and nature, to the intent they shoulde exist, whiche could not bee had from any other than him. Who onely is the fountayn of lyfe and afterward hath assigned vnto euery kinde of thing it owne proper & most conuenient foode, and and not assigned it once, but also prepareth, distribu­teth, and yeldeth it euery day. Finally, in that he dayly [Page 67] preserueth and defendeth all thinges that are: and be­ynge a good and mercifull father, of his owne greate bowntie hath not onely giuen them partes & mem­bers, wherby they may cōmodiously liue, but endewed them also with motion and sense. Whereby they may passe their life pleasantly, and willingly enioye it with a sweete delight. All which it were infinite to recken. And therefore it is well and truely sayd in the 33. Psal. and 5. verse, that the whole earth is full of his goodnesse. And againe, in the 145. Psal. and 7. verse, it is sayde, that the multitude of the goodnesse of God, springeth foorth from his wor­kes: For hee openeth his hande, and satisfied euery liuing thing vn­to fullnesse and pleasure. Whervnto that seemeth to apper­tayne which is written in the 147. and 148. Psal. and that may well bee concluded, which all the auncient & godly Fathers haue iudged & specially Tertullian hath oftētimes written, to wit, That God by the creatinge of thys world, is cognized, and by the preaching of his woord is recognized.

But there appeare manye confusions in this worlde, which doe obscure the light of this goodnes, wisedom and power of God.

Indeede they darken them somewhat, and sum while that they cannot plainely be seene of many: Howbeit they do not altogither obscure, or wholy take awaie y ^• appearing of those the vertues of God, which he hath imprinted in his woorkes. And moreouer, forasmuch as these confusions, as you terme them, are the effec­tes of his iust iudgement, if wee so consider of them as wee ought, surely they shall the more set foorth the power, and wisedome of God, and not obscure it.

The xxxii. Chapter. [Page] What knowledge of God may bee had, by the beeholdinge of this worlde.

BUT that knowledge of God which maye bee hadde by beeholding the worlde, and the visible creatures, is it sufficient of it selfe to get the perfect vnderstanding of him, or rather doeth it conteine and deliuer vnto vs certeine principles thereof which wee must more perfectly and at full afterward seeke and learne by some other mea­nes, to wit, out of the woorde of God which is writ­ten and reuealed vnto vs? For by the framinge and creation of the world wee cannot knowe that Christ is our Sauiour, and mediatour vnto God for vs.

You saye well. For Sainct Paule aunswereth in the Epistle to the Romanes, the 1. chapter, and 20. verse, that although the knowledge which is had by the worlde, bee trewe, yet is it not fully sufficient, that thereby wee may vnderstande anye thing concerning our sal­uation through Christ: but that it is in this respecte profitable, that therby wee are made vnaccusable. For it teacheth vs that God is our Creatour, but it is not able to enfourme vs y ^• he is also our redeemer thorow Christe: For wee are not able to atteine to that knowledge without the preachinge of the Gospell. Wherefore, wee must not begin with that knowledge of God, whereby wee vnderstande that hee is our sa­uiour, but rather that hee is our creatour, whereat wee must indeede beeginne, and consequently proceed vnto better and higher things. For the Heathen peo­ple & Philosophers, who chiefly folowed this know­ledge of Naturall thinges, neyther perceiued they [Page 68] the reason of mans saluation which is in Christ one­ly: neither were thei thēselues saued, bicause they lac­ked faith. It profiteth notwithstanding, and it mutch profiteth too, that wee seeke the true God, that hath created all these thinges: and when wee haue founde hym, that wee woorship hym and praye vnto hym, as farre as hee shall giue vs grace so to doe. This much at the leastwise hee wringeth from vs whether wee will or no: that he ought both to bee sought and wor­shipped, who hath first created, and now gouerneth al this world. Wherfore, if we neither seeke him, neither woorship hym, hee maketh vs vnexcusable.

But there bee many, that either haue not seene at all that way of finding out God: or when they were en­tred, haue not perceiued that glorie of God, whereof you spake: or else by how muche the more they haue profited in the knowledge of this world and naturall thinges, so muche the more securely and boldly haue they dispised God, like as in times past did the Epicurian Philosophers, and at this day also to many doe.

These are the greate imperfections and vices of men, whiche you speake of, and a sharpe accusation of the wonderfull frowardnes of mans nature, not the woorkmans fault, or want of the light of Gods glo­rie, whiche shineth most brightly in his woorkes. For that light shineth clearely enough in this world, and in sutch sorte as it cannot bee put out, and also is ea­sily seene whoso will lift vp his eyes vnto it, and looke vpon it. For God hath engrauen in the world greate and wonderfull tokens of his goodnes, power, and wisedome: hee layeth also beefore our eyes most ma­nifest testimonies, and documentes that may bee vn­derstoode, [Page] yea by the most ignorant persons. Whiche, whoso doeth not see, let hym accuse hym selfe, or his owne sluggishnes, and not the hardnes of the booke which God hath sayd before our eyes: or the difficul­tie of the style thereof: or the dimnesse of the looking­glasse, whiche indeede wee haue a most bright one in the contemplation of this worlde. For the 19. Psalme doth sufficiently remooue this slaunder from God and his woorkmanship, saiyng, that hee hath founded his trueth in the heauens. Psalme 89. and 3. verse. Who hath di­stinguished and depainted with liuely colours, the o­ther argumentes and tokens of his praise in them, as it were, by a certein ingrauyng. Therefore, in that men of olde times haue not seene so manifest signes of God, neither see at this day, neither doe profit by them towardes the atteining of the knowledge of God, it commeth by meanes of their owne fault, who by rea­son of their sinne haue lost the true light of their myn­des: whiche if it had continued in the firste state of it owne creation, truely then should they haue seen these signes not obscurely and fayntly, but acknowledged them plainly and perfectly, and confessed them too bee great and wonderfull.

How then commeth it to passe, that if this world bee the lookinglasse of so great vertues in God, and that so bright and so cleare, why in another place is man, and why also is Christ called the image of God, wher­in hee setteth himself downe beefore vs to bee seen, and knowne? It is in vaine that you tell vs of another lookinglasse, if this world bee so faire an one as you make it C [...]l [...]s [...]. the 1. chapter, and 15. verse.

If wee saye, that one thing may haue many images, [Page 69] and that in sundrie respectes, wee shall not graunt a­ny absurditie. So that, although these three bee called looking glasses, wherin God representeth himfelf, yet thei be so called, in diuerse respects, & with a large dif­ference. The worlde is not called the image of God, which notwithstanding, is verified of man, & Christe, for the world is onely the looking glasse of Gods ver­tues, as it is their subiect, that is to say, that wherein they do expresse and shew themselues by sundry mea­nes and effectes. And man is the image of God, and not onely the lookinge glasse of his power, but also of his nature after a manner, for man of all other crea­tures of the worlde commeth neerest to the nature of God, and caried the very fourme of him in the light of his minde and the vprightnes of his will, which was in him at his first creation. But Christ who is God manifested in the fleshe, who was without sinne, in whome the Godhead remained, who in his whole life and by al meanes shewed foorth the nature, similitude & fygure of God through his great power, wisedome, and clemencie, is in a farre more excellent respect the image of God than was the first man, althoughe hee were sounde and perfect. Wherefore, the world hath no such similitude and likelinesse with Christ, who is vnto vs not onely the ymage, and as it were the sha­dow of the goodnesse, Wisedome, and Power of God, but also the most bright, and selfesame representation of the fathers substance: Hebrues the 1. chapter and 3. verse. And therefore hee is not called onely the image, but also the liuely brightnesse of the Fathers glorye. And yet farther to the intent it may bee the better vn­derstoode, what, and how great the difference is wee [Page] must note, that the world and man are a notable, but yet a shadowed representation of those things which they do teach vs, cōcerning god. And Christ y ^e expresse and liuely fourme, in whose inward, natural, and sub­stanciall brightnesse, wee may most euidently behold the infinite power of God, and incomprehensible loue towardes vs men. Thus therefore, when wee thincke vppon God and beholde him in all other thin­ges, suche is our vanitie, that immediatly wee decay and come to naught: but when wee looke vppon him in Christ, wee are quieted and stayed most firmely and substantially. Wherefore there ought no comparison bee made betweene these, which differ in kinde, and manner of representation.

The xxxiii. Chapter. Two endes of the worlde, not chiefe.

BUT bee ther not also other finall causes of the worlde?

Yeas, there bee two but not chiefe.

What bee they.

The first is this, to wit, the vse of al men. For this worlde was created for mans sake, and man for GOD. The seconde is, for the Church or congre­gation. For the worlde was created to the entent it should bee an house and dwelling place prepared for the Church and congregation that should bee hereaf­ter where in it might remaine of it owne right, which congregation God woulde establishe there, and after­ward bring to heauen.

Howe prooue you this?

[Page 70]

First, out of the 8. Psalme. And secondly, by that which S. Paule writeth to the Romanes the 4. Chapter, and 13. verse.

The xxxiiii. Chapter. Of the meanes and engins whereby God raysed this so great a frame of the worlde: and first of the woorde of God which was the meanes whereby this worlde was created.

HEtherto you haue declared the causes of this worlde, nowe shewe the meanes and instrumentes wherby it was created. And when mention is made of the creation of the woorlde some do demaunde what wedges, what tooles and engins were occupied to the rearinge vp of so great a mole, and they thinke themselues not sa­tisfied vnlesse aunswere bee made vnto those doubtes of their minde.

Thei that seeke to know with what instruments this worlde was created, do verie foolyshly, forasmuch as this woorde, create, doth sufficiently declare, that all this whole woorke is plainly miraculous, and super­naturall. For God vsed no tooles nor engins as car­penters vse to doe, thereby to supplie the infirmitie of their strength. But all his framing and buildinge, and the woorkemanship of thys worlde, doeth dif­fer farre from all our meanes, and pollices.

Tell mee then what it was.

In declaringe the meanes by which this world was created, ther are foure things annexed, which we must not pretermit, and they perteine to the settinge foorth [Page] of Gods glory and omnipotencie: wherof the fyrst is this, that the worlde was created at the woorde and commaundement of God.

Howe prooue you that?

Behold a most manifest place of the Scripture, in the 33. Psalme. 9. verse, For hee spake and it was doone, hee com­maunded and it stoode fast: and in the 148. Psalme and 5. verse: Hee commaunded and they were created. Moreouer Moses in the first chapter of Genesis beefore the creation of euery thing, as they were made and created order­ly in euery daye, so doeth hee plainely shewe, that the woord and cōmaundement of God went alwayes be­fore: And the Lorde sayde, let it bee made, &c. Yea, the Stoikes haue saide that the woorde of God was the efficient cause of the whole nature of thinges, as Laertius wri­teth in his 7. booke in the life of Zeno.

But there bee twoo impedementes that it can not bee so.

Which bee they?

The fyrst is that which is written in the 45. Chapter and 12. verse of Isay: My handes haue stretched foorth the hea­uens. Ergo,God made not these things with his woord, but with his handes.

Uerily, this saiyng conteineth a most manifest Meta­phore, when hee attributeth handes vnto God and when in respect of the weakenesse of our vnderstan­ding. God is cōpared to an handie craftes man which woorketh with his owne hāds, the like wherof there are many authorities to be foūde in y ^• scriptures. And whereas this woorde of creating is vsed in the same place, it plainly calleth vs backe vnto that diuine and extraordinarie woorke of God, and to thinke vppon [Page 71] that meane onely which Moses hath recited.

The seconde impediment is, that wheras in another place in like kind of thinges, and semblable argument mention is made of the woorde of God, notwithstan­ding Gods secret will is ment thereby, whiche is not expressed in any woord, or commaundemēt, as in the 147. Psalme 15. and 18. verses, where he speaketh of Ice: Hee sendeth out his woorde, and melteth it.

You say well. Howbeit in Genesis, the verye text, & also Moses minde teatheth vs, that wee must say and thinke otherwise, where it is plainly writen that God spake and cōmaunded that to bee which was made. Wher­fore the only bare and secrete will of God is not there to bee vnderstood and taken, but that which is reuea­led by the prolation and vtteringe of some woorde of his, and commaundement. Which opinion of mine is confirmed by an interpretation which the Scripture it self maketh, noting y ^t this was doone by vttering of some woorde or voyce. For in the 33. Psalme, and 6. verse, after that it is declared that these things were made by the woorde of God, for true exposition sake it is added: & by the spirite of his mouth. For a voice is made by the breathing foorth of aire, which is doone by the mouth.

But by this meanes, feigning that God hath a tōgue, roofe of the mouth, and teeth, with out whiche instru­ments no voyce can bee vttered, you seeme to reuoke againe out of Hell the abominable errour of the An­tropomorphites.

God forbid that I should thinke so wickedly of the infinite and omnipotent maiestie of God. But like as the Lorde spake so as he might bee heard and vnder­stoode [Page] when hee gaue the law in mount Sinai, which no man can deney: as likewise when hee spake to Moses, & whē he gaue answere by Vrim & Thumim, y ^• Lord spake & vttered a voice in the hearing of the people, & yet not withstāding we must not feigne y ^• god hath a tongue, a mouth, a palate of the mouth, & teeth. So, in the be­ginning & creation of the world, when it is sayd that God spake, his diuine shape was not chaunged intoo an humane fourme: but it came to passe by a speciall prouidence and pollicie. For the Lord tooke vpon him for a tyme suche meanes as were necessarie for the bringing foorth a cleare and audible voice, wherof af­terward hee left the vse.

Doe you thinke then that the Lord spake plainly and distinctly?.

Yea verely. Howbeeit I am not ignorant what S. Augustine thinketh concerning this matter, in the 1. booke of Genesis ad literam, and 9. chapter.

But these things are referred to the Sunne, when it is sayd that the Lord created all thing by his woord, so that Christe is ment by the woorde, for by him all thinges were made. Coloss. the 1. chapter, and 16. verse.

I will not much contende herein, so that they will graunt mee, that as the Sunne is called the woorde so likewise that woorde was a signe and token of his presence, power, and person, and also of his woorking. Whiche doeth likewise distinguishe the Father from, the Sunne.

Why did God speake, & commaund them to be made?

Hee commaunded, to the intent that the thinges that were afterward made, might be knowne not to haue bin made by the Water, or Earth out of whiche they [Page 72] came, or the heauens, or, to bee short, by the vertue or power of any creature▪ but by the commaundement of the Lord onely, and the power of his woord. Wher­fore, let vs giue prayse vnto hym for all thinges that are created. And he spake, not that hee could not haue fourmed all thinges by the vertue and decree of his alonely will, who hadde already made Heauen and Earth without speaking of any word: but when as it pleased God to reueale & manifest himself outwardly by his works, hee vsed those meanes wherby hee wil­leth and commaundeth himselfe to bee most certeinly knowne, to wit, his woorde & voice. The summe and scope of this word, is Christ, y ^• euerlasting Sūne of y ^• euerlastīg father, who was afterward manifested in y ^• flesh: & therfore hereof they do rightly gather, y ^• Christ the Sunne of God, did woorke in the creation of the world. For ther is a threefold meane, & booke, wher­by God reuealeth himself vnto vs, to wit, the booke of creatures, y ^• boke of scripture, & the boke of life. That which is called y ^• booke of scripture, is far more sure, true, and plentifull thā the other two, & therfore God doth especially propose and commende the same vnto vs. And finally, to confirme myne opinion, I alledge that whiche Ireneus sayeth, That God created all thyng with his word, that is to saye, with his voice, in his seconde booke, and 5. chapter: and that also whiche is written by Tertullian in his 4. booke againste the Marciomtes in these woordes: Is it altogether incredible, how the power of the creatour should procure the remedie of one transgression with his woord, who by his word hath brought foorth so great a mole of the world? In whiche saiyng, doubtlesse the woord, is ta­ken for the voice: and in the 1. chapter, and 3. verse of [Page] the Epistle too the Hebrues, the Scripture vseth the woord [...].

The. xxxv. Chapter. Of the light, which was vsed at the creation of the world.

WHat say you, is secondly to be obserued and considered of in declaring the creation?

The light. For God made that as a neces­sarie thyng for the creatyng of his other woorkes.

Whyso.

Both that by appliyng, as it were, a Candle or other light, that confused mole might bee seen, and diuided into meete partes and members: and also bicause it was necessarie that some firie qualitie should bee ap­plied vnto that moyste matter, too warme it, and to make it frutefull. For all thinges that are in this infe­riour world, are engendred by a firie heate, as it were by a warme and woorking father. And therefore that first light was created, to bee the continuall and com­mon Nurse, and moother, and fountaine of the exter­nall and accidentall liuely heate, whiche God prepa­red as an instrument to bring foorth all other things withall. Not that God was not able to see all things that were in y ^e greate mole, who at this present behol­deth the most secret thinges, and obscurest darkenesse, and from whom there is nothing hid: not also that he needed that kind of meane, who of himself is Almigh­tie: but to the intent we might vnderstand how great wisedome it was that created these visible things, and what second causes of them hee appointed first, which [Page 73] now wee doe behold to woorke in them. And finally, how in the making of these visible thinges, hee vsed moste conueniently other thinges of the same kinde, which at this day are the naturall, and instrumentall, and chief, and principall causes of the engendryng of all thinges. For there are three thinges of them, too wit, moist earth, and that shining, bright, and liuely heate, which is appliable and conuenient for all thin­ges, in that all thinges haue that naturall heate in them. This is therefore, the second thing whiche I suppose needfull to bee considered in the meanes and maner of creating the world.

¶ The. xxxvi. Chapter. That God made this worlde without any payne or weari­somenesse vnto him.

WHat do you thirdly consider?

This forsooth, that GOD framed this so greate and huge a Mole of the worlde, without anye payne or wea­rysomnesse at all: that the Epicures neede not to feare leaste wee ascribe any greife and paine vnto God, in that men are not able to finishe the least woorke that they haue to doe, without some trauayle and wearinesse of bodye. And therefore it plainely appeareth hereby, howe greate the omnipotencie of God is, aboue the strēgth of man. This which I say, is cōfirmed by Isay in the 40. chapt. and 28. verse: and likewise by S. Augustine in hys 4. booke de Genesi ad Literam, and 8. chapter. In somuch that it is sayde, that all thinges that were created, were suddeinly brought foorthe, and appeared, as it [Page] were, in the twinckling of an eye, Psalme 33. & 9. chap. and Esdras the 4. booke the 6. chapter, and 48. verse: for nothing coulde withstande the pleasure and cōmaun­dement of God.

The xxxvii. Chapter. The worlde was created by partes, and not all at once.

WHat thinke you fourthly to bee obser­ued?

That this whole worlde was made by partes, and in six dayes, as Moses teacheth in the 1. chapter of Genesis: & as it appeareth also in the 4. booke of Esdras the 44. Chapter, and the nexte folowinge: and not made altogither at one instante. And to the entente it may bee the better borne in me­morie, what was made vppon euery daye, I my selfe made these verses folowing.

But why did not god create al things togither in one day, seeing hee is almightie?

Bicause hee is almightie, hee needed not time for the establishing of this worlde, as Sainct Ambrose saith [Page 74] in his 39. Epistle: neither came it to passe by reason of impotēcie, wearines, or weakenesse in God, y ^t he was six dayes in making it: but bicause he is most wise, by most wise & good reasō he would thus finish his wor­kes. For whatsoeuer is made, requireth some order in the making. And order requireth distinct time, and number. First therfore, god putteth vs in minde here­by, that hee wrought not confusedly, nor out of order: and so consequently, that wee must not meditate and thinke vpon his works lightly, and as it were a farre of in general: but in order, seuerally, and particularly of euery one. Hee sheweth moreouer, howe great di­ligence wee ought to vse in considering of them, seing that hee declareth that hee paused vppon the order of his woorks, by this distinctiō of the daies & labours. Beesides this, hee declareth that wee are not able suf­ficiently to comprehend his workes: the reason ther­of, and manner of creating them is such, and so gene­rall, that wee haue sufficient matter in them to thinke vpon and beeholde euery daye in the weeke, and so throughout the whole yeare. For what other thinge is a yeare, than a continuall repeating of one, and the selfe same weeke? For there was an whole day spent in the finishinge of euery part and worke. Moreouer, god wold not creat y ^e world at once, but by piece meale that is to say, in some space of time, for he ment imme­diatly after y ^e creatiō of the world, to declare the state, law, & naturall order which the things that hee had made should afterward folow, to wit, that, by which all thinges doe require a space of time for their beeing, that is to saye, are brought foorth in tyme: and are not perfectly growne in a moment, as wee see dayely. [Page] So those thinges that growe out of the earth, doe at this daye keepe this order, that they springe not sud­deynly, but by processe of time. So the woman is delyuered of hir child, after a certaine season: so seedes growe out of the earth: so trees bringe foorth their frutes: and there is nothing done suddenly, but won­derfull miraculously. Wherfore, that time of creation, was the fyrst lawe of thinges that shoulde afterward growe and bee ingendred.

And why did God at length, cease the seauenth day?

Bicause he would haue it so: for there can be no truer reason alleaged. For in that hee would haue it so, the reason is good, although to vs it bee vnknowne. For as touching those thinges whiche are disputed by S. Ambrose im his 39. Epistle: and also by S. Augustine in sundrie places, and likewise by certein others, and fi­nally by the Heathen Philosophers themselues, con­cernyng the dignitie of the seauenth number: I refer them to the Mathematicians, and specially to the Arith [...] ­meticians and Pithagorians.

The. xxxviii. chapter. Of the place wherein the world was made.

HEtherto you haue declared what y ^• worlde is, what is the cause therof, and what was the maner of making it. Adde hereunto al­so that which may bee demaunded concer­nyng the place, tyme, and state of this created world, so that at length wee may conclude this whole dispu­tation.

I will doe so: if you aske mee of them all in order.

[Page 75]

Firste therefore, I demaunde concerning the place wherin the worlde is made, what it was, and what maner one it was?

It must needes bee, that it was some voyde place, whiche the Grecians call Kenos, & the Hebrues Tohu, wher­in it should be created, and placed.

Why so?

For bicause if the place wherein the worlde, beeyng so greate a frame, was placed, had bin already full of bo­dies, there could not bee another body placed in a roomth that was full alreadie. For twoo bodies can­not bee togither in one place. Moreouer, this whiche I say, is plainly confirmed. The Hebrues say out of the 26. chapter of Iob, and 7. verse: He stretched foorth the North vpon the void place, &c. Although that before this worlde was made, GOD occupied that place wherein the world now standeth, & filled it with his power which is vnknowne to vs, and in an vnspeakable maner: as now also hee filleth althinges after they bee made by the vertue and meanes of his presence, maiestie, and power: whereof God is called Megonah, that is to say, that filleth all thinges: Deuteron. the 33. chapter, and 27. verse: notwithstanding in respect of this filling, which cummeth by the creation of thinges, verily the place wherin this world now standeth, was a certein voyd place.

How then, will you haue that there shalbee some void place in the world, against whiche thing Aristotle con­tendeth so mutch, and experience also?

To the ende that I may cut of all occasion of the vain errours of the Valentines, concernyng Bythus, whom Ire­neus aboundantly confuteth in his 2. booke, and 4. and [Page] 7. chapters, thus I say: That beefore the world was made, the place and space wherein it nowe standeth, was voyde: but since the worlde was made, that it is not voyd now, but full.

But doe you leaue nowe any voide place, within the compasse of the worlde?

Uerily if you call that onely ful, that is filled with this aire whiche wee drawe in and breath foorth, there bee many places too bee called voyd, For all that space of the worlde. whiche is aboue the Circle of the Moone (which some say is very large) is void. But if you call that full, whiche is replenished with some bodie and nature of it owne kinde, then maye I call no parte of this whole worlde voide, no not so muche as that whiche the Astronomers saye, is conteined within the Globe and space of the Heauens: but all full, and oc­cupied. Not onely bicause God made nothing in vain, for that is repugnant to his wisedome, but also for that the whole stretching foorth of the heauens, howe big soeuer it be, is an heauenly body. For ther is now no effect, no vse of a voide place in the nature of thin­ges, whiche is created: but there are seene daylie ma­ny, and most excellent vses in this pointe, I meane in that nature will haue all thinge to bee full. And that indeede ther is nothing voyd and emptie, both the vse of cupping glasses in Physicke, & also in the plucking vp of Welles and waters into high places by Pum­pes, and other deuises, sufficiently doe teache. Suche Philosophers therfore, as contend that there is some void place in this world, are not onely thēselues voide of wit and iudgment, but striue also moste manifestly against certeine experience, whom therefore I iudge [Page 76] not too bee esteemed of.

¶ The. xxxix. Chapter. Of the tyme wherein the worlde was made.

YOU haue spoken of the place, speake now also of the tyme, wherein this worlde was made.

That this worlde beegan sometyme to existe, and is not eternall, neither of like antiquitie with GOD, not onely the Maiestie of Gods holie woorde doeth testifie, but also the opinions of the moste auncient Philosophers doe declare. Whoe, as thei were nerer too the beegin­nyng of the worlde, so did thei learne the truthe more better of the Fathers, and reteined the same more freshly in memorie. For y ^t Plato in Timeo was of that o­pinion, and all the Stoikes also, their owne writynges do beare witnesse, yea, moreouer, this hath bin agreed vpon, by a generall consent of the moste auncient wri­ters, that the worlde had a beginnyng, whereof Linus the eldest Poete of all, who liued before Orpheus, wri­tyng of the creation of the worlde, beeginneth thus: A tyme there was when all thynges framed were togither once, as Diogenes Laertius reporteth.

There bee twoo speciall poinctes repugnant to your opinion, whereof the one is alledged by the Aristoteli­ans, and the other by the Epicurians.

What bee thei?

The first is this. Seeyng the worlde is rounde, and of a Sphericall fourme, there can neither beginnyng, nor endyng bee noted therein: whereby it commeth to passe, that when it mooueth it mooueth circularly or [Page] rounde, whiche motion also hath neither beeginnyng nor endyng, but is a continuall and perpetuall motiō: and is therefore eternall. Now, if the worldes motiō bee eternall the worlde also must needes bee eternall. Thus the Peripatetikes by the figure and motion of the world, doe conclude y ^• the world it self is also eternall.

Truely this is a verie slender argumente. For firste, who will graunt vnto them, that all the partes of the world doe mooue, by that circulare and sphericall mo­tion? seeyng that, as thei them selues doe write, nei­ther, the fire, neither the aier, neither the water, neither the earth dooe mooue by this motion, but by a right line and a pendent: to wit, the fire and aire vpwarde: the water and earth dounewarde. Moreouer, if wee deale thus liberally with them, to graunte, that the worlde is of a sphericall fourme and figure, who is a­ble to prooue notwithstandyng, that there can bee no beeginning of motion assigned, and obscrued therein? Seeyng it is not mooued of it self, but by an other, too wit the greate God, or, as thei terme it, by a certeine firste intelligence, or Angell. And whereas it is saied of a wheele, of a sphere, or of a circle, that the begin­nyng of the motion there of cannot bee assigned in this poincte of the circumference more than in another, it is true onely in respecte of the thing & the figure, and not if you respect the hande that turneth it, or the for­cyng of the cause that mooueth it, in respect whereof, the poinct is called the beeginnyng of moouyng in the sphere or circle, where hee beginneth to mooue it first, that turneth the circle, sphere, or wheele about. Wherfore, although the worlde can haue no beginnyng of moouyng, neither of it self, neither of it owne figure: [Page 77] notwithstandyng it hath of God who once beegan it, and turned it from a certeine poincte of the circumfe­rence, and a certeine place, to wit, from the East, con­tinually to mooue into the Weste, whether it turneth now daiely, beeyng by hym mooued, and not of it self. And although it bee vnknowne to vs nowe, whiche parte of the circumference of heauen God first moued (for you see how many, and diuerse thynges men dooe affirme, concernyng the greate yeere of the worlde, whiche is that state of the worlde, wherein Heauen and all thinges returne to their place, where thei wer first created) yet it is certein, that heauen began some­tyme to mooue, from some one prefixed poincte and part of the circumference.

The other repugnancie is this. Thei saie it is to ab­surde, to saie that God did not create this world from eternitie, and tyme euerlastyng. For after so many in­finite spaces of yeres paste, what should moue hym at length, that hee would Create the worlde? Thei de­maunde therefore, why GOD remained so long slug­gishe and idle, why hee slept so long, what he did then, why hee ceased from dooyng somethyng so long, why hee made not this noble and goodlie woorke sooner? These and suche like floutes, thei cast foorthe against the maiestie of God.

You doe alleage the argument of Velleius the Epicure: vnto whiche I will answere that which, as S. Au­gustine writeth, was spoken by a certein mery old man, a Christian. Who, beeyng likewise demaunded by suche kinde of men, what God did beefore hee created the worlde: answered: He made Hell, wherein hee might tor­mente perpetually suche curious fellowes, as doe demaunde suche [Page] questions. For what wickednesse is this, to go about to enter into suche secretes: what impudencie to creepe so farre? what blasphemie, to looke that God should rendre an accoumpt to vs of his doinges, and forepas­sed life, who must bee our iudge? what needed hee too haue created these thinges sooner, whiche hee neither hath neede of too his existence, neither thereby to liue in greater felicitie? For God hath in himself, and that from all eternitie, a most perfect, most happie, and most full state of nature, whiche is vnto himselfe sufficient for all thinges, and he hath neede of none other thing, neither of Angell, nor man: Psalme 16. and 2. ver. Nei­ther was GOD then idle, that the Epicures maye not mock, neither did hee sleepe in slouthfulnes beefore he made this world. But euen then, as also now, he was inwardly occupied in his woorkes, that is to say, hee was wonderfully delighted in the contemplation of hymself, hee enioyed then himself, and his perfect and vnspeakeable glorie: hee was busied in the most large and incomprehensible light of his substance and es­sence, as may easily bee vnderstoode out of the Prouer­bes, the 8. chapter, and 30. verse: and Iohn, the 17. chapt. and 4. verse: and likewise out of Irenaeus, the 4. booke, and 28. chapter.

This I vnderstande: declare nowe what time thys worlde was created?

Doe you demaund this, either of the day, or of y ^• Mo­neth, or of the Yeere?

Mary, of euery one of them seuerally.

Concerning the day, mee thinkes this much may bee sayd, that the beginning and first daye of y ^e creation of the worlde, was that day which wee Christians doe [Page 78] nowe call Sundaye, and which the Jewes called the first daye of the Sabbathes, and not that which wee commonly call Munday.

Howe so?

Bicause it is euidente, that the Lorde wrought sixe whole dayes togither, before the Sabbath & seuenth daye. And amonge the Hebrues, in olde time, that was the Sabbath and seuenth daye which wee nowe call Satterdaye, whiche is the next daye, beefore Sun­daye, and next after Fridaye. For Christians, to the entente that they woulde not retaine the auncient ce­remoneis of the Jewes, but deuoutly to honour the resurrection of our Lorde Jesus Christ, wherby ther began a new state of the Church, in stead of the Sab­bath, they chose the next daye following to rest on, as it appeareth in the 20. Chapter of the Actes: the 1. to the Corinthians, the 16. chapter: and the first Chapter of the Reuclation: and also it is extant in the Ecclesiasticall historie: which day they called the Lords day, or Sun­daye. But, if you woulde number sixe dayes beefore the Sabbath daye, you muste begin vpon Sundaye, not vpon Mundaye: and so shall you haue sixe daies, after which followeth the Sabbath, which is the sea­uenth: Thus: First Sunday, then Munday. Tues­daye, Wedensday, Thurseday, Fryday, after which followeth the Seauenth, whiche are the Sabbath dayes. So that the Lorde began his woorke of cre­ating the worlde, vpon Sunday: which is confirmed to bee true, by a counsell holdē in Iudaea, as Eus [...]bius wri­teth in the 5. booke of his historie, and the 23. and 25. Chapters,

But in what Moneth seemeth it vnto you, that the [Page] worlde was made.

I will vtter, in this poinct that whiche seemeth vnto mee most likely, and I craue pardon herein, that no man thinke mee to bee curious: notwithstanding I muste needes vtter my minde, for that this question is demaunded by many. Uerily, it semeth vnto mee, that the worlde was created in that moneth which is called by the Hebrues Tisri, and is answereable partly vnto our moneth of August, and partly to Septem­ber: for doubtles it began after the Autumnal or Har­uast equinoctium. So that I doe nothinge agree vnto those, that write & suppose that the world was made in the Moneth of March, and in the Springe.

Can you confirme your opinion by any reason?

Yea, and that by diuerse. And not onely this, that in the time of Autumne or Haruast, the earth is most apt to receiue the seedes of good fruites, as of Wheat, and Barly, and such like. For at that time, it seemeth most meete and fit to conceiue, as in the Springe to bring­foorth fruite: and in Summer to yelde them vp: and as for winter, then the earth digesteth and concocteth the seedes that are cōmitted vnto hir, and embracing them in y ^e middes of hir bosome, frameth & nourisheth them, as a mother doeth hir young, whiche, notwith­standing, shee bringeth foorth in the spring tune, when they bee sumwhat growne: and in Summer is quite del [...]uered of them, as beeinge then ripe and perfecte. Wherefore, the springe and Summer, doe seeme ra­ther to bee as it were midwiues to the earth, than to minister vnto it any force, or vertue to bringe foorth: whiche vertue notwithstandinge Autumne yeeldeth vnto the earth, as beeing yet mindefull of the first cre­ation [Page 79] of all thinges, and of hir owne bringinge foorth of all manner commodities, reteininge vnto this pre­sent the force, effect, and power of the auncient com­maundement, which the Lorde enioyned at that time. So y ^• the Hebrues will haue it, that this moneth Tisri, shall not be so called of must or newe wine, but of iuce, wherof y ^e earth is full at that season. And these bee the two reasons of mine opinion. The fyrst, for that as the scripture teacheth in the 28. chapter, and 9. verse: and so folowinge of Leuiticus, this moneth hath beene alwayes, since the firste age of man, as farre as euer there can bee had any remembrance, the beeginninge of the yeare and first moneth. And therefore, in con­tractes and bargaines, in cōmon and priuate affaires, and to bee briefe, in supputation of the yeares and age of the worlde, which was done by the yeares of Iubilee, the yeare euer beegan in this moneth among the aun­tient Fathers in old time, and among the Jewes: and ended also in the same. So that y ^e yeares & age of A­dam, and the residue of the Fathers whiche liued both beefore the floude and since, are to bee reckened from this moneth. The seconde reason is this: For that the feast of Trumpettes which God commaunded to bee kept vpon the first daye of this moneth, seemeth to haue beene specially instituted by God, to the intente, that the remembraunce of the first originall and crea­tion of the worlde, whiche was doone vppon that day might bee holily preserued & continued in the Church. Truely, it was not in vaine, that y ^e Lord would haue that day kept holy, & so great honour & reuerēce attri­buted vnto these trumpettes & Instruments whiche wee reade, at that time, were so tossed & blowne. But [Page] by that great and pleasant sownd, hee ment to admo­nish and put in remēbraunce, men, & the whole world also, of their first natiuitie, which as by the special pro­uision of God, it fell vpon the firste daye of this mo­neth, so was it godlily and reuerently renued and re­membred in the Church, that the world might not bee ignorant of it owne byrth daye. Whereby also it came to passe, that God cōmaunded many feastes and holi­daies to bee kept in y ^e seauenth moneth, which moneth was called also Aetanim, that is to saye, the Moneth of strength or strong thinges. 1. Kinges, the 8. chap. and 2. verse. Yea, some saye also, that our Sauiour Christ was borne the same moneth, and not without some reason.

But it is saide in the 12. Chapter, and 1. verse of Ex­odus, that Nisan was the first moneth of the yeare, an­swering vnto our monethes of March and April, and falling in the Uernall or Springe equinoctium

You say well. But therevnto I answere two waies: First, that Nisan or March was not alwayes the bee­ginning of the yeere, but at length after that the chil­dren of Israell returned out of Egyt, in the remēbrance of so great a benefite, that is to say, for the conseruati­on of the memorie of the newe founding & restoaringe of that people. Moreouer, Nisan was not the beegin­ning of the yeere, for all things that were done among the people of God, but onely in respect of their holie & festiuall daies, and of the tabernacle. For the taberna­cle, as it had it owne peculiare reuolution, and diffe­ringe from the common: so had it also a proper begin­ninge of the yeere, not agreeing with the order of the Politike yeere: to the intent that men mighte knowe [Page 80] that there was a difference too bee put beetweene the Politike and Ecclesiastical gouernment, and that the reason of them both is diuerse, and their nature sepa­rate and distinct.

How many yeeres doe you now accoumpt, since the world was first made?

As some doe suppose, since the tyme that the worlde was made, vnto this present yeere 1578. wherin this booke was written, are about 5298. yeeres.

Howe doe you beegin this number, or by what mea­nes doe you gather it?

Euen by this short reckninge. Frō the creation of the world vnto the generall diluge, whiche happened in the daies of Noe, are numbred in the Historie of the ho­ly Scriptures 1656. yeeres. And from the diluge, vn­to the promise whiche God made firste vnto Abraham, and his departing vpon commaundment out of Vr, a Citie of the Chaldees, and Charris a citie of Mesopotamia, are 427. yeeres. And from that promise, vnto the de­parture of the children of Israell out of the land of Egypt, which was vnder Moses, are 430. yeeres, as it is writ­ten in the 12. chapter, and 40. verse of Exodus. And from the departure out of the land of Egypt, vnto the begin­ning of the building of Salomons temple, which was be­gun the fourth yeere of Salomons reigne, are 480. yeeres, as it appeareth the 1. Kinges, and 6. chap. And from that tyme, vnto the leading away of the Jewes into the captiuitie of Babylon, I meane that whiche beegan vnder King Ioachim, are about 167. yeres, or sumwhatlesse. In this captiuitie the people aboade the space of 70. yeeres, according as Ieremy the Prophet foretold them in the 25. chapter. And from the departure of the [Page] Jewes out of the captiuitic of Babylon, and from the day of the publication of Cyrus edict concerning the de­liueryng and sendyng home of the Jewes into their owne coūtrey, vnto the passion of Christ, are 70. weekes of yeeres, that is to saye, 490. yeeres, as the Prophet Daniell writeth: Daniell the 9. chapter. And from the passion of Christ vnto this our present tyme, are 1578. yeeres. So that if all these numbers be gathered too­gether into one summe, they make 5298. whiche is the distance of yeeres since the creation of the worlde: although the Rabbines of the Jewes do dissent from this summe of yeres. Howbeit, we follow the Scrip­tures herein, and also the best learned auctours that haue written most truely in this beehalf.

The. xl. Chapter. God created this world, good.

THese thinges now I doe vnderstand: pro­ceede therefore vnto other poinctes whiche you proposed, and promised to entreate of.

What other poinctes?

Declare now at the length, in what kinde of state and maner God made the world.

I can easily tell you that, and dispatche the whole matter in one woorde. The worlde was created a good world, not onely generally, but also euerie parte thereof. For after euerie dayes woorke, Moses addeth playnly and perfectly these woordes: And God saw that it was good: for so it is written in the 1. Chapter of Genesis.

What doth that goodnes comprehend and signifie?

Uerily, not holinesse of life and conuersation, neither [Page 81] vprightnes of conscience. For, most of the partes of the worlde haue neither sense, neither reason, nor con­science, without whiche there can bee no holinesse of life. Wherefore, this word, Good, seemeth vnto mee to signifie three things specially.

What bee they?

First, the perfection & integritie of the natures which God created, and of the whole worlde: secondly the beautie: thirdly the commoditie, I iudge to bee noted by that word. For, those thinges whiche are perfect, and whole: and likewise faire, and profitable: are cal­led good, and that by common custome of all men. Al­though S. Augustine in his booke de natura boni against the Manichees, besides the substance and essence of those three thinges, hath set doune these three thinges, as certeine vniuersall good thinges, too wit, measure, fourme, and ordre, of whiche he saieth thus: Therefore, where these three bee great, there bee great good thinges: where they bee small, there bee small good thinges: and where they bee not, there is no goodthing. Howbeit, I choose rather to fol­low mine owne opinion, and to keepe the effect and meaning of these wordes, and hee saw that they were good.

Expounde this more plainly.

This worlde, and all thinges that are created there­in, were euery one of them good, if wee consider of thē as thei were made by GOD at the beeginning, in re­specte of their owne nature. For thei had it then per­fecte and whole, that is to saie, in no parte failyng: at that tyme sounde and strong, and not as it is nowe, weake, sicke, and wounded. So that the Nature of Heauen and Earth was moste perfecte, and likewise of all Beastes and liuyng thynges, Hearbes, Trees, [Page] and other creatures of God: their strength also pliant and forcible, and not as thei bee now adaies, weake and imperfect, scarce able to susteine themselues, or to doe theyr duety and function, neyther alwaies able to dooe it. Moreouer, if wee consider the beautie of those thynges, and of the whole worlde as it was made at the firste, in respecte whereof, bothe the whole worlde was good, and euery one of his partes were good. For thei had in themselues a merueilous comelinesse of outward fourme and shape, and glistering beautie: thei were pleasant and delectable to beholde, and had due and conuenient proportion of all the partes and members in euery bodie: in respecte whereof, and also for that as yet there remaine many tokens of it, it is now at this daie called by the Grecians Kosmos, of the comelinesse thereof. Thei had also a wounderfull or­der in respecte of the whole worlde. For euery thyng was by GOD placed in conuenient and apte place moste wisely, and thei agreed among themselues with wounderfull concorde, and mutuall good will one to­ward another: and heauen was answerable too the earth, and the earth to heauen, so farre foorthe and at what tyme the one had neede to helpe the other. Whi­che now, discord through synne beyng dispersed amōg them, dooe seldome helpe one another, neither dooeth heauen yeilde raine in due season vnto the earth, nei­ther dooeth the earth sende vp erhalations and va­pours vnto heauen in conueniente tyme, and when neede requireth. To bee shorte, the profite also and commoditie of these thynges, as thei were by GOD created, was very greate, in respect wherof the whole worlde, and all his partes were called good. For the [Page 82] strength and powers of euery one of them were soūd, and of force to woorke and bryng forthe that, where­vnto God had ordeined them. Thei were frutefull, bi­cause they reteined as yet the power and blessynge, whiche GOD had giuen them, whole, and vndefiled: synne had not yet hindred, or diminished it: whiche po­wer is as it were now deade and buried, so that there appeareth not so muche as the least part thereof vnto vs, specially in this latter, and as it were, crooked old age of the worlde, whiche so greate and manifold gif­tes of God, should haue perpetually continued in all creatures, if man had not transgressed.

¶ The. xli. Chapter. What maner one this world is now at this present after sinne.

WHat maner one is this worlde nowe, since Adams trangression?

Euen such an one, as S. Paule describeth in one woorde, to wit, a creature now subiect vnto vanitie. And therefore it sigheth and groneth, looking for the restoaring of the sunnes of God: Roma­nes the 8. chapter, and 20. verse. So that this vanitie is contrarie too that goodnes, wherein thinges were first created.

How then, did mans transgression take away the es­sence and nature of thinges?

Not so, but it impaired the integritie and perfection of them. For sinne brought in three thinges with it especially, which are contrarie vnto those three aboue named commodities. To wit, weakenesse, as it were a sicknes in the naturall powers, disorder and disa­greement [Page] among thinges for lacke of order, and then when they are not fitly answerable one too another, there followeth barrennes in ingendring and brin­ging foorth of young, and fruites: the 4. of Esdras, the 5. chapter, and 52. verse. In so much, that the strength and plentifulnes of the earth, and of all other thinges decreaseth dayly, and are nothing nowe in respect as God first created them, whiche cummeth too passe by reason of mans trangression, as it may easily bee ga­thered out of the 4. chapter of Ieremie, and 24. and 25. verses. Finally, in respect hereof, this whole world is made, as it were, a confused mist, specially the inferi­our and elementare part thereof: Iob the 10. chap. and 21. and 22. verses: also mortall and transitorie, as it is writen in the Prouerbes, the 31. chapter, and 8. verse: and 2. of Peter, the 3. chapter, and 10. verse, so that it may one day perish and bee destroied.

Was not then this worlde mortall and transitorie. beefore mans transgression?

I can say nothyng concerning that point, bicause the Scripture herein teacheth mee not any thyng. How­beit this one thing I may affirme, that this world of it self and in respect that it was a creature, was sub­iect to alteration, vnlesse GOD did susteine, and pre­serue it. But whether God would alwaies haue preserued and susteined it, if man had not trangressed, I will not say. As for man, for whose sake this worlde was created, to bee as it were his dwelling house, al­though hee should haue bin immortall, as S. Augustine writeth after the booke of wisedome, in his booke De Agone Christiano: yet should they at length one after another haue binne translated into heauen into a bet­ter [Page 83] state. But whether there should alwaies haue bin some men in the worlde, and some should alwayes haue liued heere, I doe not know.

The xlii. Chapter. From whence poysons and hurtfull thinges sprang in the world.

NOw, if the worlde, and all the partes thereof were created so good at the first: from whence then sprang so ma­ny poysons, so many hurtfull things, and deadlye hearbes, so many Ser­pentes with the sight of their eyes on­ly pestiferous vntoo men?

By sinne and for the sinne of man, these so many Pla­gues, venimes, poysons, hurtful hearbes, and noysom beastes sprang vp, as the wordes of the Lorde doe de­clare in the booke of Moses, Genesis the 3. chapter, and 18. verse. For God made nothing at the beginnyng that was vnto any thing poyson, deadly, hurtfull, and dis­commodious. Wherfore, if thinges had continued in that nature wherein almightie God created them at the first, there should now be neither poysons, neither euill thinges. For it is not possible that any thing sa­uyng that which is good should bee made, or proceede from hym that is most good. Yea, there is nothyng at this day that is absolute and in all respectes poyson, but that whiche is hurtfull, as too man: is profitable and holsome to another, as to a Serpent.

I vnderstand you. But why will God haue poysons, noysom herbes, and hurtfull beastes to remaine now [Page] in the earth, since mans transgression?

There maye sundrie causes bee alleaged, but special­ly two, which S. August. bringeth forth in his 3. booke, and 17. chap. de Genesi ad Literam. The first cause why these doe continue, is for punishment and reuenge a­gainst Man. And therefore they doe all hurt Man, for whose offence sake they bee made poison. More­ouer, they bee profitable to prooue, tempt, and exercise Man, to the entent that hee maye acknowledge his owne infirmitie, & aske helpe of God. But this thirde reason may bee also alledged, that those hearbes whi­che bee hurtfull vnto man, as Hemlock, woulfbane, coloquintida, & such like, are the euil iuce of the earth, and as it were certeine excremētes which are needful too bee expelled, to the ende that the iuce of the other frutes of the earth maye remaine good and sincere, & holsome and commodious vnto vs.

If the thinges which God created first, were so good, (for Moses sayde not onely that they were good, but al­so that they were very good) what difference then is there beetweene God himfelfe, and his woorkes?

There is a threefolde, and that most large & wide dif­ference between them. To wit, that God of himself is most excellent, & vnchangeable good. But y ^e creatures are not so of thēselues, but of God: not excellently, but so far as their nature will suffer: not so vnchangeably good but that they might fall away from it. For that goodnesse coulde neuer haue decayed in them, & haue bene chaunged into vanitie, if so bee thei had bene vn­chaungeably good. Howbeit, to the ende wee shoulde not doubt y ^• they were good, Moses added this plainly. God sawe that they were good.

The xliii. Chapter. Why the thinges that were created, are playnly saide too bee good.

WHy did Moses adde these words expresty?

For two causes. To y ^e intent we should not lightly passe ouer these woordes of God, as many doe, as though they con­teined in them no excellencie, or nota­ble qualitie, whiche mighte mooue vs vnto admira­tion. For in deed they haue so in them, and the Lorde himselfe testifieth the same. And therefore, much lesse that wee ought to condemne, dispraise, and mocke at so excellent woorkes of God, bicause of the confusion and disorder which nowe is in them through Mans transgression, as did that blasphemous felowe Momus and the Mamchees, and Marcianite heretikes. For wee cannot so doe with out offeringe greate iniurie vnto God, and in so doeing, wee take the Lordes name in vaine. Wherefore, the Mamchees, are to bee condemned, and whosoeuer else doe contende that the creatures of themselues, and as God first made them, were e­uill. For that is most false, as it appeareth in the 1. to Timothie, the 4. Chapter, and 4. verse. Moreouer, this admonition and sayinge mooueth mee not to dispute this question whiche certaine curious felowes haue doone, to wit, whether God could haue created euery particulare thing, or the whole worlde better: or now coulde if neede were frame it in more absolute state, than hee first created it. For to seeke and searche this, what is it other, than to passe those bondes whiche the Spirite of God hath laide beefore vs, and to fo­lowe [Page] our owne wandringe mindes? For God made all things that hee created, very good. To conclude, this admonition is very profitable vnto vs in this re­spect, that wee doe not rashely abuse the creatures of God (which many tymes seeme vile vnto vs) intem­perately at our lust and pleasure, which y ^• holy Ghost himselfe pronounceth to bee so precious. Wherefore wee ought to vse them, soberly, modestly, and wisely.

But why was that saiyng, And the Lorde sawe that it was good, let passe in the woorke of some daies, as of the se­conde daie?

Bicause that daie conteineth onely the beginnyng of the whole woorke, whiche was made afterward, and not the consummation and finishyng thereof. And therefore that blessyng is deferred vnto the ende of the woorke.

¶ The. xliiii. Chapter. Whether in the first creation of all thinges, God made two Contraries.

BUt forasmuch as now you are in hand­ling the state of the world, wherin it was first made, tell mee I pray you, whether that opinion bee true, concerninge the thinges that were first created, whether God made two contraries, & the one to striue against an other? Thus they saye colde thinges and hotte, highe and lowe, white and blacke, greate and small were first created, to the ende that the force of things might bee preserued in a certaine temperament, by these contraries. This is written in Ecclesiasticus the 42. chapter, and 25. verse: and the 33. Chapter, & 15. [Page 85] verse. Whiche also S. Augustine in his 2. booke de Ciui­tate Dei, and 18 chapter: and Irenaeus in his 2. booke, and 43. chapter, doe followe.

It is true whiche you say. For God made not althin­ges at the firste of one qualitie, colour, and greatnes, neither of one kind and nature. But hee made some high some lowe, some moyst some drie, some warme some cold, the day to bee one thing and the night ano­ther. Yet God made nothing that was eeuill. But why hee created them in suche varietie, this is the cause: both for that the power and wisedome of God is thereby more apparant: and also the thinges them­selues by this repugnancie of contrarie vertues and natures, and mitigacion of them, may bee the more easely preserued. For what maner state of thinges would there haue bin, if all thinges had bin hoat? what numnesse, if all thinges had bin cold? what mi­serie, if all wayes there had bin darknes? what wea­risomnesse, if it had alwaies bin daye? And therefore when God had created the natures of this worlde, and of the thinges conteined therein, hee thought it conuenient to refresh and ease them with change and course, because they were bodies, or apperteinyng to bodies: and likewise to nourishe them with a certein mutuall knot and temperament, bicause they were di­uerse partes of one whole thyng: hee ingraffed also contrarie qualities in them, that the one should bee a let, bridle, and temperament to the other. And to bee short, to the intent there should bee chaunge and alte­ration in these thinges, that there might bee some dif­ferēce plainly perceiued beetweene the essence of them and of the angels, & also of God hymself, who needeth [Page] no sutch meanes for his preseruation. Euen so like­wise, a well gouerned citie consisteth of sundry orders and of diuerse fortes of men, ritche, poore, faire, foule, Subiectes, Magistrates, young, olde, Husbandmen, Souldiours, who are of diuerse states and vnlike callinges, and many tymes also of contrarie. Not­withstanding they bee necessarie for the preseruation of the mutuall safetie of the whole citie, wherby it bee­cummeth the more beautifull, the more plentifull and conuenient for the vse of this life. And therfore I will confirme this opinion with the moste excellent testi­monie of Tertullian, who in the 45. chapter of his Apolo­geticum, writeth thus: which reason made the vniuersalitie out of diuersitie, that all thinges might appeare togither from many sub­stances into an vnitie: out of voyd and sound: out of liuyng and vn­liuyng: out of comprehensible and incomprehensible: out of light and darknes, and out of life and death. Neither doe wee not­withstanding, fauour the errour of the Manichees, who hold opinion, that at the beeginning there were twoo Giauntes whiche afflicted mutually one another, one of the light, and another of darknes. There is one, and the same, and onely God, who made all thinges, and moste wisely instituted this contrarietie for the preseruation of the whole woorke.

But this varietie of things seemeth to bring in great discord, when it had bin more meete that this worlde beeing, as it were, a certein whole thing, should haue bin builded and compacted of partes freindly and lo­uingly agreeing one with another. Which thing, this contrarietie among creatures, doth seeme very mutch to withstande.

You gather not well. For this dissimulitude amonge [Page 86] thinges, and varietie of contrarie qualities and pro­perties, bringeth in no discorde, but rather causeth great concorde and agreement. Like as in mans bo­die, the diuersitie of the partes & members, and theyr force, action, moouinge, place and office, which ma­ny times are contrarie, declareth that there is greate agreement amonge the members, and is also necessa­rie for the life, gouerment, and defence of the whole body. The like truely is to bee seene in the world, for it is one bodie, and conteined within one compasse. And why the discorde of thinges so muth disagreeing is so friendly and agreeinge, and so consenting vnto it selfe, and also firme and durable, the great and in­comprehēsible wisedom of almighty God is the cause, who hath contempered all those thinges excellently one with another as they ought to bee, and hath made them of apt and conuenient weight, number, and measure, both in respect of themselues, and in comparison also of other thinges, as it is written in the booke of Wisdom the 11. chapter, and 21. verse▪ and S. Augustine afterwarde also declareth the same in his 4. booke de Genesi ad Literam. But what weight, number, and measure this is, or what is the proportiō of their mingling togither, by reason of whiche this world is so agreeing and meete one parte with another, and of all among themselues, although the Philosophers haue by disputation curiously vexed themselues here­in, and yet neither founde it out, neither declared it: God knoweth, and hee himselfe onely.

The. xlv. Chapter. [Page] In what sense it is sayd that God rested, after the creation of the world.

THere remaineth yet one thing, whiche I would demaund.

What is that?

Whether GOD haue ceassed altogither to create any thing since y ^e time y ^• hee made an ende of the world, seeing hee seemeth dayly to create mens soules out of nothing, and hee yet woorketh still, as Christe teacheth vs in the 5. chapter, and 17. verse of S. Iohn.

An easie matter to aunswere. For God is saide to ceasse, onely in respect of this worlde and the woorke which then hee had vndertaken to doe, that is to say, in comparison of an other, as S. Augustine answereth in his 4. booke de Genesi ad Literam. And not altogether & absolutely, as although God neither gouerned nowe this world which he made, neither were able to make any new thing more seeing there is nothyng made or doone now, but by his woorking. Whose most louing & tender prouidence, hath alwaies gouerned, & doeth now gouerne whatsoeuer he hath created. Whose in­finite power woorketh euery thing in euery thing, as S. Paule writeth to the Ephesians, the 1. chapter, and 23. verse. Finally, whose strength and vertue are neither impaired by weakenes through processe of time, wherby they are lesse able euery day to create many things, neither are they beecome slacker or slower in woor­kinge, Therefore the Lorde yet euery daye createth many newe thinges, to wit, the soules of men. How­beeit, all that his purposed woorke, and the fulnesse, and bewtie of this worlde, hee made moste perfectly, and finished most absolutely in euery poinct & part, in [Page 87] the space of those sixe dayes, & rested the seauenth day. God sanctified, sayth S. Augustine, no day of hys woorke, but onely the day of his rest, that it might bee vnderstoode that God is more blessed than his woorkes. For hee was delighted with none of his woorkes so much as with himselfe. So hee sanctified the daye of his rest, and not of his woorke. And nowe bycause wee are come to the day of Gods rest, let vs reste also in this place, and make an ende of this disputation whiche wee erewhile began. So much as may seeme can bee saide generally concernyng the creation of the world, and the first beeginning of all things apperteining vnto Christian Naturall Philosophie, wee haue heere for the most part declared. And wee giue thankes vnto God, for that hee hath gi­uen vs a minde and abilitie to write those things which wee haue heere declared.(:)