Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2016 11:07:21 GMT
CHAP. LII.
Of the Soul.
IF you desire to know any thing from them concern∣ing the Soul, there is far less of certainty among them. For Crates the Theban affirm'd, that there was no Soul, but that the Body was mov'd by Nature. Those who grant that there is a Soul, suppos'd it to be the most thin and subtile of all bodies, infus'd into this thick and earthy body. Others there be that affirm it to be of a fiery nature; of which number were Hip∣parchus and Leucippus, with whom the Stoicks for the most part agree, who define the Soul to be a hot Spirit, together with Democritus, who calls it a moveable and fierce Spirit, mix'd and infus'd into Atomes. Others said it was the Air, as Anaximines and Anaxagoras, Di∣ogenes the Cynick, and Critias; with whom Varro con∣curs, where he says, that The Soul is Air receiv'd into the Mouth, heated in the Lungs, temper'd in the Heart, and diffus'd over the whole Body. Others will have it of a watery substance, as Hippias. Others of an earthy substance, as Heliodorus and Pronopides; to whose opi∣nion Anaximander and Thales willingly agree, both fellow-Citizens with Thales. Others will have it to be a Spirit compos'd partly of Fire and partly of Air, as Boetes and Epicurus. Others, compos'd of Earth and water, as Zenophantes. Others, of earth and fire, as Parmenides. Others affirm'd the Soul to be the blood, as Empedocles and Circias. Some would have it be a thin Spirit diffus'd through the body, as Hippocrates the Physitian. Others, flesh exercis'd by the senses, as Asclepiades. But many others have been of opinion,
Page 134
that the Soul is not that little body, but a certain qua∣lity or complexion thereof infus'd through all the par∣ticles of the same; as Zeno the Cithick, and Dicearchus, defining the Soul to be the complexion of the four E∣lements: Cleanthes also, Antipater, and Possidonius, af∣firming the same to be a certain heat or complexion of heat, drew Calenus the Pergamenian into the same opinion. Others there are that uphold that the Soul is not that quality or complexion, but something resi∣ding in some part of the body, as the heart or brain, as it were in its proper point or center, and from thence governing the whole body. Amongst the number of these, are Chrysippus, Archelaus, and Heraclitus Ponticus, who thought the Soul to be Light. There are others who have thought more freely, believing the Soul to be a certain unfix'd Point, ty'd to no part of the Body, but separated from any determinated Situation, being totally present in every part of the Body; which whe∣ther it were begot by Complexion, or Created by God, yet was first hatch'd and form'd in the bosome of Matter: Of this Opinion were Zenophanes, Colophonius, Aristoxenus, and Asclepiades the Physitian, who held the Soul to be the Exercise of the Sences: and Cretolaus the Peripatetick, who call'd it the Fifth Essence; as also Thales, who held, That the Soul is an unquiet Na∣ture moving it self; and Zenocrates would have it to be a Number moving it self: whom the Aegyptians fol∣low, asserting the Soul to be a certain Force or Ver∣tue passing through all Bodies. The Caldaeaus were of Opinion, That it was a Force or Vertue without a determinate Form, but receiving all Forms that are External. So that they altogether agree, That the Soul is a certain Vertue fit to cause Motion; or that it is else a Sublime Harmony of all the Cor∣poreal Parts, depending however upon the Nature of the Body. The Footsteps of these Men are followed
Page 135
by that Daemoniack Aristotle, who by a new-invented Name of his own, calls the Soul Entelechia; that is to say, the Perfection of a Corporal Organ, Potential∣ly having life, from which the same Body receives the Principles of Understanding, Perceiving and Moving. And this is the most receiv'd, though most imp•rtinent Definition of a Soul, found out by that great Philo∣sopher; which doth not, however, declare or make manifest the Nature or Original, but only the Affecti∣ons of the Soul. There are others that soare some∣what higher than these men; who affirm the Soul to be a certain Divine Substance whole and indivi∣dual, diffus'd through the whole and every part of the Body, produc'd in such manner from the Incorpo∣real Author, as that it depends upon the force of the Agent, not on the Generative Faculty of the Matter. Of this Opinion were Zoroastes, Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Euminius, Hammonius, Plutarch, Porphyrius, Timaeus, Locrus, and Divine Plata himself, who defin'd the Soul to be an Essence moving it self, endu'd with Understanding. Eunomius the Bishop, consenting partly to Plato, partly to Aristotle, affirms the Soul to be an Incorporeal substance made in the Body; upon which definition he lay'd the Foundation of all his Opinions. Cicero, Seneca and Lactantius affirm, That it is impossi∣ble to define what the Soul should be. Thus it is apparent what great Contention there is among them touching the Essence of the Soul. Nor are the Con∣tentions and Variances less, or less Numerous than their Disputes, when they come to make inquiry which is the Seat of the Soul. For Hippocrates and Hierophi∣lus place it in the Fibres or Ventricles of the Brain. Democritus, in the whole Region of the Temples. Era∣tistratus, in the Epicranidal Membrane. Strabo, within the space between the Eye-brows. Epicurus gives it room in the whole Brest. Diogenes, in the Arterial
Page 136
Ventricle of the Heart: the Stoicks with Chrysippus, in the whole Heart, and Spirits that surround the Heart. Empedocles seats it in the Blood; to which Opinion Moses seems to give way, while he forbids his People to eat the Blood of any thing, because the Soul of every Animal is seated therein. Plato and Aristo∣tle, and the more Noble Sects of Philosophers, place the Soul in the whole Body. Galen is of Opinion, That every part of the Body has his particular Soul: For so he makes it appear, in his Book of the Usefulness of the Parts: There are many Particles of Animals, some greater, some lesser; others altogether indivisible into the Species of the Creatures, yet necessarily every of those wants a Soul. For the Body is the Or∣gan thereof; and therefore the Particles of the Bo∣dy are very much different one from another, because the Souls are different. I cannot here pass by a Sen∣tence of Beda the Divine, who writing upon Mark, The Principal seat of the Soul, saith he, is not, as Plato thinks, in the Brain; but to follow the Doctrine of Christ, in the Heart. Now as concerning the Continuation of the Soul, Democritus and Epicurus were of Opinion, That it dy'd with the Body. Plato and Pythagoras held it to be altogether Immortal; but that being out of the Body, it retires to some Nature or being like it self. The Stoicks taking the middle way between both these, assert, that the Soul shall leave the Body; but that if it be not purified and dignifi'd with the excel∣lent Vertues to be possessed in this Life, that then it shall presently dye; but that if it be endu'd with Heroical Vertues, then that it may attain the Heavenly Seats, and be associated with those Sympathi•ing Na∣tures that stay there in expectance of being joyn'd unto it. Aristotle taught, That some parts of the Soul which remain in Corporeal seats are inseparable from the same, and therefore dye with them; but that the Under∣standing,
Page 137
which wants no Corporeal Organ, is separate from the Corruptible Parts. But he is so far from de∣livering any thing of farther perspicuity, that his In∣terpreters do wholly abandon the Discourse thereof. Alexander the Aphrodisean saith, That most certainly he held the Soul to be Mortal. And of the same Opi∣nion among us, is Gregory Nazianzene. Against these, Pleton, and Thomas Aquinas in defence of Aristotle, most stiffly stands up, affirming that he was in the right Opinion concerning the Immortality of the Soul. Moreover, Averroes, that most exquisite Commenta∣tor upon Aristotle, believes that every man has a pe∣culiar Soul, but Mortal; But that the Mind or Under∣standing is Eternal, having neither Beginning nor End; of which there was but one kind, that all men use in this Life. Themistius saith, That Aristotle held one only Active Understanding; but that the Understanding capable of Subjects was manifold, and that both were Immortal. Thus through the strange Dissentions and Garboils of these Philosophers, it comes to pass, that there are so ma∣ny absurd Contests among our Christian Divines about the Original of the Soul; among whom, there are some that believe that the Souls of all Men were Created at the Beginning, and remaining there as in a Store∣house till they come to be us'd; of which Opinion above all the rest is the Learned Origen. St. Austin also believes, That the Soul of our First Parent had its Original from Heaven, being something Elder than the Body; and perceiving the Body to be a fit Habi∣tation, of its own accord did covet the same: how∣ever, he does not affirm it for any certain or positive Maxime.
Others believe the Soul to be propagated extraduce, from Parent to Parent; and that the Soul is begot by the Soul, as the Body is begot by the Body: of which Opinion was Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea, Tertullian,
Page 138
Cyril, and Luciferianus; against whose Heresie St. Jerom fiercely Combats. Others are of Opinion, That Souls are Created daily by God: which Opinion Thomas Aquinas follows, defending himself with that Peri∣patetical Argument, that seeing that the Soul is the Form of the Body, the same ought not to be Created apart, but in the Body: to which Opinion the Uni∣versal Judgment of our Modern Divines adheres. I omit the Degrees, Ascentions and Descentions of Souls, which the Origenists have brought into play, as being neither strengthned by Scripture, nor consen•aneous to the Thesis of Christianity: so little of certainly there is, either among Philosophers, or among Divines, con∣cerning the Original, or indeed the very meaning and definition of the Word Soul. For Epicurus and Aristo∣tle believe it Mortal; Plato's Circle brings it to the same Station again, in so many years. Some there are that, as Plato says, contract it within the Verges of Humane Bodies; others diffuse it into the Bodies of Animals: some restore it to Heaven from whence they had it, others send it on Pilgrimage about the World: Some that Compel it to Infernal Hell, others deny any: some say, That every Soul is Created by it self; others say, They were all Created together. So far Thomas. There was Averroes, who undertaking to broach something more remarkable, First held the Vnity of the Understanding. The Manichaean Hereticks were of Opinion, That there was but one Soul of the Universe, dispers'd as well into Inanimate as Animate Bodies; but that those things which are without Life, l••s participate thereof: that Animate things have a greater share, and Coelestial things the greatest of all: and at length they conclude, That singular Souls are but parts of the Universal Soul. Plato also holds but one Universal Soul of the World, but other Souls for particular Creatures; as if the World subsist∣ed
Page 139
only by its own Soul, but particular Creatures were animated by particular Souls. Others there are that will have but one sort of Souls. Others make a twofold Soul; that is to say, Rational and Irrational. Others say, there are many, as many as there be spe∣cies of living Creatures. Galen the Physitian affirms, That there are various and distinct Souls in divers Crea∣tures, according to the variety of the Species; and moreover, he appoints many Souls in one Body. There are other that place two Souls in a Man, one sensitive from Generation, the other intellectual from Creation: among these we finde Occam the Divine. Plotinus will have the Soul to be one thing, and the Under∣standing to be another; with whom Apollinaris con∣sents. Some there are that do not distinguish between the Soul and the Understanding; but they say, that it is the most Principal Part of the substance of the Soul. Aristotle believes the Intellect to be present only Po∣tentially in the Soul, and that Actually it works from without; neither that it conduces to the Essence or Nature of Man, but only to the Perfection of Know∣ledge and Contemplation. Therefore he affirms, That few Men, and those only Philosophers, are endu'd with Actual Understanding. And indeed, there is a great Dispute among Divines, whether, according to the Opinion of Plato, the Souls of Men after they are Departed from the Body, do retain any Memory of things done while the Body was alive; or whether they altogether want the Knowledge thereof: which the Tomists, together with their mighty Aristotle, firmly assert. And the Carthusians confirm it, from the Testi∣mony of a certain Parisian Divine returning from Hell, who being ask'd, what Knowledge he had left him, return'd Answer, That he understood nothing but Pain: and then citing the words of Solomon, There is no understanding, no knowledge, no wealth in Hell, he
Page 140
seem'd to them to make it out, that after Death there was no Knowledge of any thing: which notwithstan∣ding is not only manifestly against the Opinion of the Platonicks, but repugnant to the Authority and Truth of the Scripture it self also, which teaches, That the wicked shall see and know that he is God; and that they shall give an account not only of a•l their Deeds, but of all their idle Words and Thoughts. Moreover, there are some that have adventur'd to write and report many things concerning the Apparition of separated Souls, and those oft-times repugnant both to the Do∣ctrine of the Gospel, and the sacred Text. For where∣as the Apostle teaches us, That we ought not to believe the Angels from heaven, if they should preach otherwise than what is delivered; yet the Gospel is so much out of date with them, that they will rather believe one come from the Dead, than the Prophets, Moses, Apostles or Evangelists. Of this Opinion was the Rich Man in the Gospel, who believed that his Brothers and Kindred living would give credit to any one that were sent from the Dead. To whom so vainly Con∣jecturing, Abraham made answer, If they will not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe any one that should be sent from the dead. However, I do not absolutely deny some Holy Apparitions, Ad∣monitions, and Revelations of the Dead; but yet I ad∣monish ye to be very wary, knowing how easie it is for Satan to Transform himself into an Angel of Light. Therefore they are not absolutely to be believ'd, but to be entertain'd as things which are Apocry∣phal, and without the Rule of the Scripture. There are many Fabulous stories to this purpose, written by one Tundal in his Consolation of Souls; and also by some others, of which your Cunning Priests and Fri∣ars make use, to terrifie the Vulgar sort, and get Mony. A certain French Notary hath also lately put forth a
Page 141
Relation of a Spirit walking at Lyons; a Person of no Credit, and less Learning. But the most approved Authors that write of these things, is Cassianus, and James of Paradise, a Carthusian. But there is nothing in them of solid Truth or secret Wisdome, tending to the encrease of Charity, or edifying of the Soul; only they thereby perswade people to Alms, Pil∣grimages, Prayers, Fastings, and such other Practi∣cal Works of Piety; which the Scripture nevertheless with far greater Reason and Authority enjoyns. But of these Apparitions we have discours'd at large, in a Dialogue which we have Written of Man, as also in our Occult Philosophy. But now let us return to the Philosophers. All the Heathen, who affirm the Soul to be Immortal, by common consent also up∣hold the Transmigration of the Soul: and farther, That rational Souls do sometimes Transmigrate into Plants, and Creatures void of Reason. Of this Opi∣nion of Transmigration, Pythagoras is said to be the first Author; of which, thus Ovid:
Souls never die, but in Immortal state,
From dead to living bodies transmigrate.
I now my self can call to minde how I,
When long since Troy the strength of Greece did try,
Was then Euphorbus, that my life sold dear,
To crown the Conquest of Atrides Spear,
Which then my left hand b•re; I knew the Shield
Which late in Juno's Temple I beheld.
Much more has been written concerning this Pytha∣gorical Transmigration, by Timon, Xenophanes, Crati∣nus, Aristophon, Hermippus, Lucianus, and Diogenes Laertius. But Iamblicus, who has many other Abet∣tors, asserts, That the Soul does not Transmigrate out of Man into Brutes, nor return from Creatures Irra∣tional
Page 142
into Men; but that there are Transmigrations of Souls, that is, of the Souls of Beasts into Beasts▪ and of the Souls of Men into Men, he does not deny. There are also Philosophers, of which number E••ri∣pides is one, a greatfollower of Anaxagoras, together with Archelaus the Naturalist, and after them Avicen, who report the first Men to have sprung out of the Earth like Herbs: in that not less ridiculous than the Poets, who feign certain Men to have sprung from the Teeth of a Serpent sown in the Earth. Some there are who deny that the Soul is Generated, and others who deny that it has any Motion.
Of the Soul.
IF you desire to know any thing from them concern∣ing the Soul, there is far less of certainty among them. For Crates the Theban affirm'd, that there was no Soul, but that the Body was mov'd by Nature. Those who grant that there is a Soul, suppos'd it to be the most thin and subtile of all bodies, infus'd into this thick and earthy body. Others there be that affirm it to be of a fiery nature; of which number were Hip∣parchus and Leucippus, with whom the Stoicks for the most part agree, who define the Soul to be a hot Spirit, together with Democritus, who calls it a moveable and fierce Spirit, mix'd and infus'd into Atomes. Others said it was the Air, as Anaximines and Anaxagoras, Di∣ogenes the Cynick, and Critias; with whom Varro con∣curs, where he says, that The Soul is Air receiv'd into the Mouth, heated in the Lungs, temper'd in the Heart, and diffus'd over the whole Body. Others will have it of a watery substance, as Hippias. Others of an earthy substance, as Heliodorus and Pronopides; to whose opi∣nion Anaximander and Thales willingly agree, both fellow-Citizens with Thales. Others will have it to be a Spirit compos'd partly of Fire and partly of Air, as Boetes and Epicurus. Others, compos'd of Earth and water, as Zenophantes. Others, of earth and fire, as Parmenides. Others affirm'd the Soul to be the blood, as Empedocles and Circias. Some would have it be a thin Spirit diffus'd through the body, as Hippocrates the Physitian. Others, flesh exercis'd by the senses, as Asclepiades. But many others have been of opinion,
Page 134
that the Soul is not that little body, but a certain qua∣lity or complexion thereof infus'd through all the par∣ticles of the same; as Zeno the Cithick, and Dicearchus, defining the Soul to be the complexion of the four E∣lements: Cleanthes also, Antipater, and Possidonius, af∣firming the same to be a certain heat or complexion of heat, drew Calenus the Pergamenian into the same opinion. Others there are that uphold that the Soul is not that quality or complexion, but something resi∣ding in some part of the body, as the heart or brain, as it were in its proper point or center, and from thence governing the whole body. Amongst the number of these, are Chrysippus, Archelaus, and Heraclitus Ponticus, who thought the Soul to be Light. There are others who have thought more freely, believing the Soul to be a certain unfix'd Point, ty'd to no part of the Body, but separated from any determinated Situation, being totally present in every part of the Body; which whe∣ther it were begot by Complexion, or Created by God, yet was first hatch'd and form'd in the bosome of Matter: Of this Opinion were Zenophanes, Colophonius, Aristoxenus, and Asclepiades the Physitian, who held the Soul to be the Exercise of the Sences: and Cretolaus the Peripatetick, who call'd it the Fifth Essence; as also Thales, who held, That the Soul is an unquiet Na∣ture moving it self; and Zenocrates would have it to be a Number moving it self: whom the Aegyptians fol∣low, asserting the Soul to be a certain Force or Ver∣tue passing through all Bodies. The Caldaeaus were of Opinion, That it was a Force or Vertue without a determinate Form, but receiving all Forms that are External. So that they altogether agree, That the Soul is a certain Vertue fit to cause Motion; or that it is else a Sublime Harmony of all the Cor∣poreal Parts, depending however upon the Nature of the Body. The Footsteps of these Men are followed
Page 135
by that Daemoniack Aristotle, who by a new-invented Name of his own, calls the Soul Entelechia; that is to say, the Perfection of a Corporal Organ, Potential∣ly having life, from which the same Body receives the Principles of Understanding, Perceiving and Moving. And this is the most receiv'd, though most imp•rtinent Definition of a Soul, found out by that great Philo∣sopher; which doth not, however, declare or make manifest the Nature or Original, but only the Affecti∣ons of the Soul. There are others that soare some∣what higher than these men; who affirm the Soul to be a certain Divine Substance whole and indivi∣dual, diffus'd through the whole and every part of the Body, produc'd in such manner from the Incorpo∣real Author, as that it depends upon the force of the Agent, not on the Generative Faculty of the Matter. Of this Opinion were Zoroastes, Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Euminius, Hammonius, Plutarch, Porphyrius, Timaeus, Locrus, and Divine Plata himself, who defin'd the Soul to be an Essence moving it self, endu'd with Understanding. Eunomius the Bishop, consenting partly to Plato, partly to Aristotle, affirms the Soul to be an Incorporeal substance made in the Body; upon which definition he lay'd the Foundation of all his Opinions. Cicero, Seneca and Lactantius affirm, That it is impossi∣ble to define what the Soul should be. Thus it is apparent what great Contention there is among them touching the Essence of the Soul. Nor are the Con∣tentions and Variances less, or less Numerous than their Disputes, when they come to make inquiry which is the Seat of the Soul. For Hippocrates and Hierophi∣lus place it in the Fibres or Ventricles of the Brain. Democritus, in the whole Region of the Temples. Era∣tistratus, in the Epicranidal Membrane. Strabo, within the space between the Eye-brows. Epicurus gives it room in the whole Brest. Diogenes, in the Arterial
Page 136
Ventricle of the Heart: the Stoicks with Chrysippus, in the whole Heart, and Spirits that surround the Heart. Empedocles seats it in the Blood; to which Opinion Moses seems to give way, while he forbids his People to eat the Blood of any thing, because the Soul of every Animal is seated therein. Plato and Aristo∣tle, and the more Noble Sects of Philosophers, place the Soul in the whole Body. Galen is of Opinion, That every part of the Body has his particular Soul: For so he makes it appear, in his Book of the Usefulness of the Parts: There are many Particles of Animals, some greater, some lesser; others altogether indivisible into the Species of the Creatures, yet necessarily every of those wants a Soul. For the Body is the Or∣gan thereof; and therefore the Particles of the Bo∣dy are very much different one from another, because the Souls are different. I cannot here pass by a Sen∣tence of Beda the Divine, who writing upon Mark, The Principal seat of the Soul, saith he, is not, as Plato thinks, in the Brain; but to follow the Doctrine of Christ, in the Heart. Now as concerning the Continuation of the Soul, Democritus and Epicurus were of Opinion, That it dy'd with the Body. Plato and Pythagoras held it to be altogether Immortal; but that being out of the Body, it retires to some Nature or being like it self. The Stoicks taking the middle way between both these, assert, that the Soul shall leave the Body; but that if it be not purified and dignifi'd with the excel∣lent Vertues to be possessed in this Life, that then it shall presently dye; but that if it be endu'd with Heroical Vertues, then that it may attain the Heavenly Seats, and be associated with those Sympathi•ing Na∣tures that stay there in expectance of being joyn'd unto it. Aristotle taught, That some parts of the Soul which remain in Corporeal seats are inseparable from the same, and therefore dye with them; but that the Under∣standing,
Page 137
which wants no Corporeal Organ, is separate from the Corruptible Parts. But he is so far from de∣livering any thing of farther perspicuity, that his In∣terpreters do wholly abandon the Discourse thereof. Alexander the Aphrodisean saith, That most certainly he held the Soul to be Mortal. And of the same Opi∣nion among us, is Gregory Nazianzene. Against these, Pleton, and Thomas Aquinas in defence of Aristotle, most stiffly stands up, affirming that he was in the right Opinion concerning the Immortality of the Soul. Moreover, Averroes, that most exquisite Commenta∣tor upon Aristotle, believes that every man has a pe∣culiar Soul, but Mortal; But that the Mind or Under∣standing is Eternal, having neither Beginning nor End; of which there was but one kind, that all men use in this Life. Themistius saith, That Aristotle held one only Active Understanding; but that the Understanding capable of Subjects was manifold, and that both were Immortal. Thus through the strange Dissentions and Garboils of these Philosophers, it comes to pass, that there are so ma∣ny absurd Contests among our Christian Divines about the Original of the Soul; among whom, there are some that believe that the Souls of all Men were Created at the Beginning, and remaining there as in a Store∣house till they come to be us'd; of which Opinion above all the rest is the Learned Origen. St. Austin also believes, That the Soul of our First Parent had its Original from Heaven, being something Elder than the Body; and perceiving the Body to be a fit Habi∣tation, of its own accord did covet the same: how∣ever, he does not affirm it for any certain or positive Maxime.
Others believe the Soul to be propagated extraduce, from Parent to Parent; and that the Soul is begot by the Soul, as the Body is begot by the Body: of which Opinion was Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea, Tertullian,
Page 138
Cyril, and Luciferianus; against whose Heresie St. Jerom fiercely Combats. Others are of Opinion, That Souls are Created daily by God: which Opinion Thomas Aquinas follows, defending himself with that Peri∣patetical Argument, that seeing that the Soul is the Form of the Body, the same ought not to be Created apart, but in the Body: to which Opinion the Uni∣versal Judgment of our Modern Divines adheres. I omit the Degrees, Ascentions and Descentions of Souls, which the Origenists have brought into play, as being neither strengthned by Scripture, nor consen•aneous to the Thesis of Christianity: so little of certainly there is, either among Philosophers, or among Divines, con∣cerning the Original, or indeed the very meaning and definition of the Word Soul. For Epicurus and Aristo∣tle believe it Mortal; Plato's Circle brings it to the same Station again, in so many years. Some there are that, as Plato says, contract it within the Verges of Humane Bodies; others diffuse it into the Bodies of Animals: some restore it to Heaven from whence they had it, others send it on Pilgrimage about the World: Some that Compel it to Infernal Hell, others deny any: some say, That every Soul is Created by it self; others say, They were all Created together. So far Thomas. There was Averroes, who undertaking to broach something more remarkable, First held the Vnity of the Understanding. The Manichaean Hereticks were of Opinion, That there was but one Soul of the Universe, dispers'd as well into Inanimate as Animate Bodies; but that those things which are without Life, l••s participate thereof: that Animate things have a greater share, and Coelestial things the greatest of all: and at length they conclude, That singular Souls are but parts of the Universal Soul. Plato also holds but one Universal Soul of the World, but other Souls for particular Creatures; as if the World subsist∣ed
Page 139
only by its own Soul, but particular Creatures were animated by particular Souls. Others there are that will have but one sort of Souls. Others make a twofold Soul; that is to say, Rational and Irrational. Others say, there are many, as many as there be spe∣cies of living Creatures. Galen the Physitian affirms, That there are various and distinct Souls in divers Crea∣tures, according to the variety of the Species; and moreover, he appoints many Souls in one Body. There are other that place two Souls in a Man, one sensitive from Generation, the other intellectual from Creation: among these we finde Occam the Divine. Plotinus will have the Soul to be one thing, and the Under∣standing to be another; with whom Apollinaris con∣sents. Some there are that do not distinguish between the Soul and the Understanding; but they say, that it is the most Principal Part of the substance of the Soul. Aristotle believes the Intellect to be present only Po∣tentially in the Soul, and that Actually it works from without; neither that it conduces to the Essence or Nature of Man, but only to the Perfection of Know∣ledge and Contemplation. Therefore he affirms, That few Men, and those only Philosophers, are endu'd with Actual Understanding. And indeed, there is a great Dispute among Divines, whether, according to the Opinion of Plato, the Souls of Men after they are Departed from the Body, do retain any Memory of things done while the Body was alive; or whether they altogether want the Knowledge thereof: which the Tomists, together with their mighty Aristotle, firmly assert. And the Carthusians confirm it, from the Testi∣mony of a certain Parisian Divine returning from Hell, who being ask'd, what Knowledge he had left him, return'd Answer, That he understood nothing but Pain: and then citing the words of Solomon, There is no understanding, no knowledge, no wealth in Hell, he
Page 140
seem'd to them to make it out, that after Death there was no Knowledge of any thing: which notwithstan∣ding is not only manifestly against the Opinion of the Platonicks, but repugnant to the Authority and Truth of the Scripture it self also, which teaches, That the wicked shall see and know that he is God; and that they shall give an account not only of a•l their Deeds, but of all their idle Words and Thoughts. Moreover, there are some that have adventur'd to write and report many things concerning the Apparition of separated Souls, and those oft-times repugnant both to the Do∣ctrine of the Gospel, and the sacred Text. For where∣as the Apostle teaches us, That we ought not to believe the Angels from heaven, if they should preach otherwise than what is delivered; yet the Gospel is so much out of date with them, that they will rather believe one come from the Dead, than the Prophets, Moses, Apostles or Evangelists. Of this Opinion was the Rich Man in the Gospel, who believed that his Brothers and Kindred living would give credit to any one that were sent from the Dead. To whom so vainly Con∣jecturing, Abraham made answer, If they will not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe any one that should be sent from the dead. However, I do not absolutely deny some Holy Apparitions, Ad∣monitions, and Revelations of the Dead; but yet I ad∣monish ye to be very wary, knowing how easie it is for Satan to Transform himself into an Angel of Light. Therefore they are not absolutely to be believ'd, but to be entertain'd as things which are Apocry∣phal, and without the Rule of the Scripture. There are many Fabulous stories to this purpose, written by one Tundal in his Consolation of Souls; and also by some others, of which your Cunning Priests and Fri∣ars make use, to terrifie the Vulgar sort, and get Mony. A certain French Notary hath also lately put forth a
Page 141
Relation of a Spirit walking at Lyons; a Person of no Credit, and less Learning. But the most approved Authors that write of these things, is Cassianus, and James of Paradise, a Carthusian. But there is nothing in them of solid Truth or secret Wisdome, tending to the encrease of Charity, or edifying of the Soul; only they thereby perswade people to Alms, Pil∣grimages, Prayers, Fastings, and such other Practi∣cal Works of Piety; which the Scripture nevertheless with far greater Reason and Authority enjoyns. But of these Apparitions we have discours'd at large, in a Dialogue which we have Written of Man, as also in our Occult Philosophy. But now let us return to the Philosophers. All the Heathen, who affirm the Soul to be Immortal, by common consent also up∣hold the Transmigration of the Soul: and farther, That rational Souls do sometimes Transmigrate into Plants, and Creatures void of Reason. Of this Opi∣nion of Transmigration, Pythagoras is said to be the first Author; of which, thus Ovid:
Souls never die, but in Immortal state,
From dead to living bodies transmigrate.
I now my self can call to minde how I,
When long since Troy the strength of Greece did try,
Was then Euphorbus, that my life sold dear,
To crown the Conquest of Atrides Spear,
Which then my left hand b•re; I knew the Shield
Which late in Juno's Temple I beheld.
Much more has been written concerning this Pytha∣gorical Transmigration, by Timon, Xenophanes, Crati∣nus, Aristophon, Hermippus, Lucianus, and Diogenes Laertius. But Iamblicus, who has many other Abet∣tors, asserts, That the Soul does not Transmigrate out of Man into Brutes, nor return from Creatures Irra∣tional
Page 142
into Men; but that there are Transmigrations of Souls, that is, of the Souls of Beasts into Beasts▪ and of the Souls of Men into Men, he does not deny. There are also Philosophers, of which number E••ri∣pides is one, a greatfollower of Anaxagoras, together with Archelaus the Naturalist, and after them Avicen, who report the first Men to have sprung out of the Earth like Herbs: in that not less ridiculous than the Poets, who feign certain Men to have sprung from the Teeth of a Serpent sown in the Earth. Some there are who deny that the Soul is Generated, and others who deny that it has any Motion.