The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1. Browne Thomas

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ I have ever believed, and do now know that there are Witches. ] What sort of Witches they were that the Author knew to be such. I cannot tell; for those which he mentions in the next Section, which proceed upon the principles of Nature, none have denyed that such there are; against such it was, that the Lex Julia de veneficiis was made, that is, those, Qui noxio poculo aut impuris medicuminibus aliquem fuerint insectati. At. ab Alex. Gen. Dier. l. 5. c. 1. But for the opinion that there are Witches which co-operate with the Devil, there are Divines of great note, and far from any suspition of being irreligious, that do oppose it. Certainly there is no ground to maintain their being from the story of Oracles, as may be seen from what hath been said on the precedent Section.

       Nor have the power to be so much as Witches. Pliny saith, so it fared with Nero, who was so hot in pursuit of the Magick Arts, that he did dedicate himself wholly to it, and yet could never satisfie himself in that kind, though he got all the cunning men he could from the East, for that purpose. Plin. l. 3. Nat. Hist. c. 1.

      Pag. 46.

       By conjunction with the Devil. ] Though, as the Author saith, it be without a possibility of Generation, yet there are great men that hold, that such carnality is performed; as August, in Levit. Aquin. l. 2. de qu. 73. art. ad 2. and Justin Martyr, Apol. 1.

      Sect. 33. Pag. 48.

       It is no new opinion of the Church of Rome, but an old one of Pythagoras and Plato. ] This appears by Apuleius a Platonist, in his Book de Deo Socratis, and elsewhere. See Mede's Apostasie of the latter times, where out of this and other Authors, you shall see collected all the learning de Geniis.

      Pag. 50.

       I cannot with those in that great Father securely interpret the work of the first day, Fiat lux, to the creation of Angels. ] This great Father is S. Chrysost. Homil. in Genes. But yet 'tis his opinion, as also of Athanasius and Theodoret, that there is express mention of the creation of Angels, so that they need not rest upon this place, which they admit to be somewhat obscure. The place which they take to be express, is that of the 130 Psalm, where David begins to speak of the Majesty of God, in this manner: Confessionem sive majestatem et decorem induisti, amictus lumine sicut vestimento: Next he speaks of the Heavens, saying, Thou hast stretched them out over us like a Tent. Then he speaks of the Angels, Qui facis Angelos tuos spiritus. Now if it shall be objected, that this expression is onely of the time present, and without relation to the Creation: Answer is given by Divines, that the Hebrews have but three Tenses in their Verbs, the Preterperfect, Present, and Future Tense; and have not the use of the Preterimperfect, and Preterpluperfect, as the Greeks and Latines have; whence it ariseth, that the Present Tense with the Hebrews, may, as the sentence will bear it, be translated by the Preterimperfect, as also by the Preterperfect and Preterpluperfect Tense; and this (they say) is practised in this very passage, where the Phrase, as it is in Hebrew, may be rendered as well qui faciebas, as qui facis Angelos, etc. Vid. Hieronym. in Ep. ad Titum, et Thom. Aqu. 1. p. qu. 61. art. 3. The Latine Annotator saith, the Father meant by the Author, is St. Aug. and quotes him, l. II. de Civ. Dei cap. 9. which place I have perused, and find the expression there used by St. Aug. is but hypothetical; for these are his words: Cum enim dixit Fiat lux, et facta est lux, si rectè in fine luce creatio intelligitur Angelorum, etc. Where you see 'tis but with a Si, and therefore I conceive the Author intends not him, but Chrysostom.

       Where it subsists alone, 'tis a Spiritual Substance, and may be an Angel. ] Epicurus was of this opinion, and St. Aug. in Euchirid. ad Laurentium.

      Sect. 35. Pag. 52.

      Moses decided that Question, and all is salved with the new term of Creation.] That is it which Aristotle could not understand; he had learned that ex nihilo nihil fit, and therefore when he found those that disputed that the World had a beginning, did maintain that it was generated, and he could not understand any generation, but out of matter præ-existent in infinitum, therefore he took their opinion to be absurd, and upon that ground principally, concluded the World to be eternal: whereas, if he had understood that there may be such a thing as Creation, he had not done it, for that solves his processus in infinitum. Take from Plato, that the World had a beginning, and from Aristot. that it was not generated, and you have the (true) Christian opinion.

      Sect. 36. Pag. 54.

       In our study of Anatomy, there is a mass of mysterious Philosophy, and such as reduced the very Heathens to Divinity. ] So it did Galen, who considering the order, use, and disposition of the parts of the body, brake forth into these words: Compono hic profecto Canticam in creatoris nostri laudem, quod ultra res suas ornare voluit melius quam ulla arte possent. Galen, 3. de usu partium.

      Sect. 37. Pag. 55.

       I cannot believe the wisdom of Pythagoras did ever positively, and in a literal sense, affirm his Metempsychosis. ] In this the opinion of Grotius is contrary to the Author, who saith this opinion was begotten by occasion of the opinion of other Philosophers, who in their discourses of the life that is to be after this, brought such arguments, Quæ non magis de homine quam de bestiis procedunt. And therefore, saith he, mirandum non est, si transitum animarum de hominibus in bestias, de bestiis in homines alii commenti sunt. Lib. 2. de ver. Relig. Christ. (vide etiam Annotat. ejusd.). But yet there is a shrewd objection against the opinion of Pythagoras, if he did mean it literally, which is cast in by the Sectators of Democritus and Epicurus, which Lucretius remembers in these Verses:

       Præterea si immortalis natura animaï

      Constat, et in corpus nascentibus insinuatur,

      Cur super anteactam ætatem meminisse nequimus?

      Nec vestigia gestarum rerum ulla tenemus?

      Namsi tantopere 'st animi mutata potestas,

      Omnis ut actarum excideret retinentia rerum,

      Non ut opinor ea ab læto jam longiter errat.

[Lib. 3.]

      This Argument, 'tis true, is pro falso contra falsum, but yet holds ad hominem so far, that it is not likely (as the Author saith) but Pythagoras would observe an absurdity in the consequence of his Metempsychosis; and therefore did not mean it literally, but desired only to express the Soul to be immortal, which he, and the other Philosophers that were of that opinion, who had not heard of Creation, could not conceive, unless it must be taken for truth, that the soul were before the body; so saith Lactantius of them. Non putaverunt aliter fieri posse ut supersint animæ post corpora, nisi videntur fuisse ante corpora. De fals. Sap. c. 18.

      Sect. 41. Pag. 59.

       I do not envy the temper of Crows or Daws. ] As Theophrastus did, who dying, accused Nature for giving them, to whom it could not be of any concernment, so large a life; and to man, whom it much concern'd, so short a one. Cic. Tusc. quæst. l. 3. How long Daws live, see in Not. ad Sect. 41.

      Sect. 42. Pag. 61.

       СКАЧАТЬ