officii capaces et curiosi_, they had too good a conceit of themselves, and that marred all; of their worth, valour, skill, art, learning, judgment, eloquence, their good parts; all their geese are swans, and that manifestly proves them to be no better than fools.  In former times they had but seven wise men, now you can scarce find so many fools.  Thales sent the golden tripos, which the fishermen found, and the oracle commanded to be [429] “given to the wisest, to Bias, Bias to Solon,” &c.  If such a thing were now found, we should all fight for it, as the three goddesses did for the golden apple, we are so wise:  we have women politicians, children metaphysicians; every silly fellow can square a circle, make perpetual motions, find the philosopher’s stone, interpret Apocalypses, make new Theories, a new system of the world, new Logic, new Philosophy, &c. Nostra utique regio, saith [430]Petronius, “our country is so full of deified spirits, divine souls, that you may sooner find a God than a man amongst us,” we think so well of ourselves, and that is an ample testimony of much folly.

My second argument is grounded upon the like place of Scripture, which though before mentioned in effect, yet for some reasons is to be repeated (and by Plato’s good leave, I may do it, [431][Greek:  dis to kalon raethen ouden blaptei]) “Fools” (saith David) “by reason of their transgressions.” &c.  Psal. cvii. 17.  Hence Musculus infers all transgressors must needs be fools.  So we read Rom. ii., “Tribulation and anguish on the soul of every man that doeth evil;” but all do evil.  And Isaiah, lxv. 14, “My servant shall sing for joy, and [432]ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and vexation of mind.”  ’Tis ratified by the common consent of all philosophers.  “Dishonesty” (saith Cardan) “is nothing else but folly and madness.” [433] Probus quis nobiscum vivit?  Show me an honest man, Nemo malus qui non stultus, ‘tis Fabius’ aphorism to the same end.  If none honest, none wise, then all fools.  And well may they be so accounted:  for who will account him otherwise, Qui iter adornat in occidentem, quum properaret in orientem? that goes backward all his life, westward, when he is bound to the east? or hold him a wise man (saith [434]Musculus) “that prefers momentary pleasures to eternity, that spends his master’s goods in his absence, forthwith to be condemned for it?” Nequicquam sapit qui sibi non sapit, who will say that a sick man is wise, that eats and drinks to overthrow the temperature of his body?  Can you account him wise or discreet that would willingly have his health, and yet will do nothing that should procure or continue it? [435]Theodoret, out of Plotinus the Platonist, “holds it a ridiculous thing for a man to live after his own laws, to do that which is offensive to God, and yet to hope that he should save him:  and when he voluntarily neglects his own safety, and contemns the means, to think to be delivered by another:”  who will say these men are wise?