Eu. The Cup pleads for the Cause of the Wine. For it is a common Thing, if Persons get a Fever or the Head-ach by over drinking, to lay it upon the Wine, when they have brought it upon themselves by their Excess.
Soph. Mine speaks Greek. [Greek: En oinô alêtheia.] In Wine there's Truth (when Wine is in the Wit is out.)
Eu. This gives us to understand that it is not safe for Priests or Privy-Counsellors to give themselves so to Wine, because Wine commonly brings that to the Mouth that lay conceal'd in the Heart.
Soph. In old Time among the Egyptians it was unlawful for their Priests to drink any Wine at all, and yet in those Days there was no auricular Confession.
Eu. It is now become lawful for all Persons to drink Wine, but how expedient it is I know not. What Book is that, Eulalius, you take out of your Pocket? It seems to be a very neat one, it is all over gilded.
Eulal. It is more valuable for the Inside than the Out. It is St. Paul's Epistles, that I always carry about me, as my beloved Entertainment, which I take out now upon the Occasion of something you said, which minds me of a Place that I have beat my Brains about a long Time, and I am not come to a full Satisfaction in yet. It is in the 6th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, All Things are lawful for me, but all Things are not expedient; all Things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the Power of any. In the first Place (if we will believe the Stoicks) nothing can be profitable to us, that is not honest: How comes Paul then to distinguish betwixt that which is lawful, and that which is expedient? It is not lawful to whore, or get drunk, how then are all Things lawful? But if Paul speaks of some particular Things only, which he would have to be lawful, I can't guess by the Tenor of the Place, which those particular Things are. From that which follows, it may be gather'd, that he there speaks of the Choice of Meats. For some abstain from Things offer'd to Idols, and others from Meats forbidden by Moses's Law. In the 8th Chapter he treats of Things offer'd to Idols, and in the 10th Chapter explaining the Meaning of this Place, says, All Things are lawful for me, but all Things are not expedient; all Things are lawful for me, but all Things edify not. Let no Man seek his own, but every Man the Things of another. Whatsoever is sold in the Shambles, eat ye. And that which St. Paul subjoins, agrees with what he said before: Meats for the Belly, and the Belly for Meats; but God shall destroy both it and them. Now that which has Respect to the Judaical Choice of Meats, is in the Close of the 10th Chapter. Give none Offence, neither to the Jews nor the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God; even as I please all Men in all Things, not seeking my own Profit, but the Profit of many, that they may be sav'd. Where in that he saith to the Gentiles, he seems to have Respect to Things offer'd to Idols; and where he speaketh to the Jews he seems to refer to the Choice of Meats; what he says to the Church of God appertains to the Weak, collected out of both Sorts. It was lawful, it seems, to eat of all Meats whatsoever, and all Things that are Clean to the Clean. But the Question remaining is, Whether it be expedient or no? The Liberty of the Gospel makes all Things lawful; but Charity has always a Regard to my Neighbour's Good, and therefore often abstains from Things lawful, rather chasing to condescend to what is for another's Advantage, than to make Use of its own Liberty. But now here arises a double Difficulty; first, that here is nothing that either precedes or follows in the Context that agrees with this Sense. For he chides the Corinthians for being Seditious, Fornicators, Adulterers, and given to go to Law before wicked Judges. Now what Coherence is there with this to say, All Things are lawful for me, but all Things are not expedient? And in the following Matter, he returns to the Case of Incontinence, which he had also repeated before, only leaving out the Charge of Contention: But the Body, says he, is not for Fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the Body. But however, this Scruple may be solv'd too, because a little before, in the Catalogue of Sins, he had made Mention of Idolatry. Be not deceived, neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers; now the Eating of Things offer'd to Idols is a certain Kind of Idolatry, and therefore he immediately subjoins, Meat is for the Belly, and the Belly for Meat. Intimating, that in a Case of Necessity, and for a Season, a Man may eat any Thing, unless Charity towards his Neighbour shall dissuade it: But that Uncleanness is in all Persons, and at all Times to be detested. It is Matter of Necessity that we eat, but that Necessity shall be taken away at the Resurrection of the Dead. But if we are lustful, that proceeds from Wickedness. But there is another Scruple that I can't tell how to solve, or how to reconcile to that Passage: But I will not be brought under the Power of any. For he says, he has the Power of all Things, and yet he will not be brought under the Power of any one. If he may be said to be under another Man's Power, that abstains for Fear of offending, it is what he speaks of himself in the ninth Chapter, For though I be free from all Men, yet have made myself Servant to all, that I may gain all. St. Ambrose stumbling, I suppose, at this Scruple, takes this to be the Apostle's genuine Sense for the better Understanding of what he says in the 9th Chapter, where he claims to himself the Power of doing that which the rest of the Apostles (either true or false) did, of receiving a Maintenance from them to whom he preach'd the Gospel. But he forbore this, although he might have done it, as a Thing expedient among the Corinthians, whom he reprov'd for so many and enormous Iniquities. And moreover, he that receives, is in some Degree in the Power of him from whom he receives, and suffers some Kind of Abatement in his Authority. For he that takes, cannot so freely reprove his Benefactor; and he that gives will not so easily take a Reprehension from him that he has obliged. And in this did the Apostle Paul abstain from that which was lawful, for the Credit of his apostolical Liberty, which in this Case he would not have to be rendered obnoxious to any one, that he might with the greater Freedom and Authority reprehend their Vices. Indeed, I like this Explication of St. Ambrose very well. But yet, if any Body had rather apply this Passage to Meats, St. Paul's, Saying, but I will not be brought under the Power of any, may be taken in this Sense: Although I may sometimes abstain from Meats offered to Idols, or forbidden by the Mosaical Law, out of Regard to the Salvation of my Brothers Souls, and the Furtherance of the Gospel; yet my Mind is free, well knowing that it is lawful to eat all Manner of Meats, according to the Necessity of the Body. But there were some false Apostles, who went about to persuade them, that some Meats, were in themselves, by their own Nature unclean, and were to be forborn, not upon Occasion only, but at all Times; and that as strict as Adultery or Murder. Now those that were thus misled, were reduced under another's Power, and fell from their Gospel Liberty. Theophylact (as I remember) is the only Man that advances an Opinion different from all these. It is lawful, says he, to eat all Sorts of Meats; but it is not expedient to eat to Excess; for from Luxury comes Lust. There is no Impiety, indeed, in this Sense; but it does not seem to me to be the genuine Sense of the Place. I have acquainted you with my Scruples, it will become your Charity to set me to Rights.
Eu. Your Discourse is, indeed, answerable to your Name, and one that knows how to propound Questions as you do, has no Need of any Body to answer them but himself. For you have so proposed your Doubts, as to put one quite out of doubt, altho' St. Paul, in that Epistle, (proposing to handle many Things at once) passes often from one Argument to another, repeating what he had intermitted.
Ch. If I were not afraid, that by my Loquacity I should divert you from eating your Dinners, and did think it were lawful to intermix any Thing out of profane Authors with sacred Discourses, I would venture to propose something that I read to Day; not so much with Perplexity, as with a singular Delight.
Eu. Whatsoever is pious, and conduces to good Manners, ought not to be called profane. The first Place must indeed be given to the Authority of the Scriptures; but nevertheless, I sometimes find some Things said or written by the Antients; nay, even by the Heathens; nay, by the Poets themselves, so chastly, so holily, and so divinely, that I cannot persuade myself, but that when they wrote them, they were divinely inspired; and perhaps the Spirit of Christ diffuses itself farther than we imagine; and that there are more Saints than we have in our Catalogue. To confess freely among Friends, I can't read Tully of Old Age, of Friendship, his Offices, or his Tusculan Questions, without kissing the Book, and Veneration for that divine Soul. And on the contrary, when I read some of our modern Authors, treating of Politics, Oeconomics and Ethics, good God! how cold they are in Comparison of these? Nay, how do they seem to be insensible of what they write themselves? So that I had rather lose Scotus and twenty more such as he, than one Cicero or Plutarch. Not that I am wholly against them neither; but because, by the reading of the one, I find myself become better; whereas, I rise from the other, I know not how coldly affected to Virtue, but most violently inclin'd to Cavil and Contention; therefore never fear to propose it, whatsoever it is.
Ch. Although all Tully's Books of Philosophy seem to breathe out something divine; yet that Treatise of Old Age, that he wrote in old Age, seems to me to be according to the Greek Proverb; the Song of the dying Swan. I was reading it to Day, and these Words pleasing me above the rest, I got 'em by Heart: Should it please God to give me a Grant to begin my Life again from my very Cradle, and once more to run over the Course of my Years I have lived, I would not upon any Terms accept of it: Nor would I, having in a Manner finished my Race, run it over again from the starting Place to the Goal: For what Pleasure has this Life in it? nay, rather, what Pain has it not? But if there were not, there would be undoubtedly in it Satiety or Trouble. I am not for bewailing my past Life as a great many, and learned Men too, have done, nor do I repent that I have liv'd; because, I have liv'd so, that I am satisfy'd I have not liv'd in vain. And when I leave this Life, I leave it as an Inn, and not as a Place of Abode. For Nature has given us our Bodies as an Inn to lodge in, and not to dwell in. O! glorious Day will that be, when I shall leave this Rabble-rout and Defilements of the World behind me, to go to that Society and World of Spirits! Thus far out of Cato. What could be spoken more divinely by a Christian? I wish all the Discourses of our Monks, even with their holy Virgins, were such as the Dialogue of this aged Pagan, with the Pagan Youths of his Time.