hereafter) pleaseth it you to aske or hope for life eternall of your Poetique ridi∣culous Stage-goddes? No at no hand. GOD forbid such sacriligious madnesse! Will you expect them of those goddes whome these presentations do please and appease, though their crimes bee the thinges presented: I thinke no man so brain∣lessly sottish. Therefore neither your fabulous diuinity nor your politique can giue you euerlasting life. For the first soweth the goddes turpitude, and the la∣ter by fauouring it, moweth it. The first spread lies, the later collect them. The first hanteth the deities with outragious fixions, & the later imputeth these fixi∣ons to the honour of the deities. The first makes songs of the goddes lasciuious pranks, and the later sings them on the gods feast daies. The first recordeth the wickednesses of the goddes, and the later loueth the rehearsall of those recordes. The first either shameth the goddes, or fayneth of them: The later either wit∣nesseth the truth or delighteth in the fixion. Both are filthy and both are damnable. But the fabulous professeth turpitude openly, and the politique maketh that turpitude her ornament. Is there any hope of life eternall where the temporall suffers such pollution? Or doth wicked company and actes of dis∣honest men pollute our liues, and not the society of those false-adorned, and filthyly adored fiendes? If their faultes be true, how vile are they worshipped? If false, how wicked the worshippers? But some ignorant person may gather from this discourse that it is the poeticall fixions only and Stage-presentments that are derogatory from the Deities glory, but not the Doctrine of the Priests, at any hand; that is pure and holy. Is it so? No, if it were, they would neuer haue giuen order to erect playes for the goddes honour, nor the goddes would neuer haue demaunded it. But the Priestes feared not to present such thinges as the goddes honours in the Theaters, when as they hadde practised the like in the Temples. Lastly our said Author indeauoring to make Politike Diui∣nity of a third nature from the naturall and fabulous, maketh it rather to bee produced from them both, then seuerall from eyther. For hee saith that the Poets write not so much as the people obserue, and the Phylosophers write too much for them to obserue: both wt notwithstanding they do so eschew that they extract no small part of their ciuill religion from either of them: Where∣fore wee will write of such thinges as the Poetique and the politique diuinities do communicate: Indeed we should acknowledge a greater share from the Phy∣losophers, yet som we must thank the Poets for. Yet in anotherplace of the gods generations, hee saith the people rather followed the Poets then the Phyloso∣phers, for he teacheth what should be don, there what was done: that the Philo∣sophers wrote for vse, the Poets for delight: and therfore the poesies that the peo∣ple must not follow, describe the gods crimes, yet delight both gods and men: for the Poets (as he said) write for delight, and not for vse, yet write such thinges as the gods effect, and the people present them with.
L. VIVES.
GIuing (a) the ciuill] The Coleine readeth Perfundas [which wee translate.] Varro's re∣proches of the fabulous gods must needes light in part vpon the politique goddes, who deriue from the other, and indeed are the very same.