But perhaps they are like to that frantic fellow Horatia•us, who, the day after the public plays were ended, would clap ⟨p. 45⟩his hands in the Theatre, & when his friends came running, and demanded the reason of his acclamations, seeing that no body acted; he answered, that he saw Actors, though they could not. These men surely see some strange things in Aristotle's Theatre, and do applaud them, which we cannot discern. But what if I can show, that they themselves do not understand him but being blinded with a self-conceit of Aristotle's worth, as men distempered with some malady, do with that ⟨p. 46⟩frantic fellow imagine, that they see that, which they do not. And what if I prove unto you that Cicero, Diogenes, Laertius, and Alexander Aphrodisaeus himself do interpret Aristotle, as I do? What if I show those notable Champions and Lights of the Christian Church both the Greek and Latin Doctors, do not only so expound, but also confute Aristotle? What refuge have they then? I know not what answer they will make to Cicero, Laertius, and Alexander; unless perhaps they will say ⟨p. 47⟩that credit is not to be given to examples; at least wise, that the places cited, are but probable, not true. And me thinks I smell what they will say of Christian Writers. They will not (except I be much mistaken) deny, that those things, which so worthy men have wrote against Aristotle are true, and yet they will deny that Aristotle cried. How then can it be possible, that in this very point they write truly that Aristotle erred, & yet (say they) Aristotle erred not? You shall hear: there is a twofold ⟨p. 48⟩Truth; a Philosophical Truth, and a Theological Truth. Aristotle was in an error according to a Theological Truth, and in that sense he is blame worthy; but Aristotle erred not in a Philosophical Truth, for in that sense he could not be mistaken without doubt, for he is a miracle of Nature. What is this I hear? A Philosophical Truth? and a Theological Truth? This is pulling in pieces, not distinguishing. Now indeed, I nothing marvel at those men, who use to scoff and deride the simple Truth, when ⟨p. 49⟩[…] can hatch two Truths for one; as drunken men use to see two Lanterns for one; and Plautinus found two Masters for one Messeinus, and mad Pentheus beheld two Suns for one. They have so well profited in the Art of wrangling, that they have quite forgotten how to dispute.
But perhaps they are like to that franticke fellow Horatia•us, who, the day after the publique playes were ended, would clap ⟨p. 45⟩his hands in the Theater, & when his friends came running, and demanded the reason of his acclamations, seeing that no body acted; hee answered, that hee saw Actours, though they could not. These men surely see some strange things in Aristotles Theater, and doe applaud them, which wee cannot discern. But what if I can shew, that they themselves do not understand him but being blinded with a self-conceit of Aristotles worth, as men distempered with some malady, doe with that ⟨p. 46⟩franticke fellow imagine, that they see that, which they do not. And what if I proove unto you that Cicero, Diogenes, Laertius, and Alexander Aphrodisaeus himselfe do interpret Aristotle, as I do? What if I shew those notable Champions and Lights of the Christian Church both the Greek and Latine Doctors, doe not onely so expound, but also confute Aristotle? What refuge have they then? I know not what answer they wil make to Cicero, Laertius, and Alexander; unlesse perhaps they will say ⟨p. 47⟩that credit is not to be given to examples; at least wise, that the places cited, are but probable, not true. And mee thinkes I smell what they will say of Christian Writers. They wil not (except I be much mistaken) deny, that those things, which so worthy men have wrote against Aristotle are true, and yet they will deny that Aristotle cried. How then can it be possible, that in this very point they write truly that Aristotle erred, & yet (say they) Aristotle erred not? You shall heare: there is a twofold ⟨p. 48⟩Truth; a Philosophicall Truth, and a Theologicall Truth. Aristotle was in an error according to a Theologicall Truth, and in that sense he is blame worthy; but Aristotle erred not in a Philosophicall Truth, for in that sense hee could not bee mistaken without doubt, for hee is a miracle of Nature. What is this I heare? A Philosophicall Truth? and a Theologicall Truth? This is pulling in pieces, not distinguishing. Now indeed, I nothing marvell at those men, who use to scoffe and deride the simple Truth, when ⟨p. 49⟩〈…〉 can hatch two Truths for one; as drunken men use to see two Lanthorns for one; and Plautinus found two Masters for one Messeinus, and mad Pentheus beheld two Suns for one. They have so well profited in the Art of wrangling, that they have quite forgotten how to dispute.
