The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1

Heresies perish not with their Authors, but like the River Arethusa, though they lose their Currents in one place, they rise again in another. ] Who would not think that this expression were taken from Mr. Mountaigne, l. 2, des Ess. cap. 12. Where he hath these words, Nature enserre dans les termes de son progress ordinaire comme toutes autres choses aussi les creances les judgements et opinions des hommes elles ont leur revolutions; and that Mountaigne took his from Tully. Non enim hominum interitu sententiæ quoque occidunt, Tull. de nat. deorum l. 1, etc. Of the River Arethusa thus Seneca. Videbis celebratissimum carminibus fontem Arethusam limpidissimi ac perludicissimi ad imum stagni gelidissimas aquas profundentem, sive illas primum nascentes invenit, sive flumen integrum subter tot maria, et à confusione pejoris undæ servatum reddidit. Senec. de consolat. ad Martiam.

Sect. 7. Pag. 14.

Now the first of mine was that of the Arabians. ] For this Heresie, the Author here sheweth what it was; they are called Arabians from the place where it was fostered; and because the Heresiarch was not known, Euseb. St. Aug. and Nicephorus do all write of it: the reason of this Heresie was so specious, that it drew Pope John 22. to be of the same perswasion. Where then was his infallibility? Why, Bellarmine tells you he was nevertheless infallible for that: for, saith he, he maintained this opinion when he might do it without peril of Heresie, for that no definition of the Church whereby 'twas made Heresie, had preceded when he held that opinion. Bellar. l. 4, de Pontif. Roman. cap. 4. Now this definition was first made ('tis true) by Pope Benedict in the 14 Age: but then I would ask another question, that is, If 'till that time there were nothing defined in the Church touching the beatitude of Saints, what certainty was there touching the sanctity of any man? and upon what ground were those canonizations of Saints had, that were before the 14 Age?

The second was that of Origen. ] Besides St. Augustine, Epiphanius, and also S. Hierom, do relate that Origen held, that not only the souls of men, but the Devils themselves should be discharged from torture after a certain time: but Genebrard endeavours to clear him of this. Vid. Coquæum, in 21. lib. Aug. de. Civ. Dei. cap. 17.

These opinions though condemned by lawful Councils, were not Heresie in me, etc. ] For to make an Heretique, there must be not only Error in intellectu but pertinacia in voluntate. So St. Aug. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, quærunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Hæreticos deputundi. Aug. cont. Manich. 24, qu. 3.

Sect. 9 Pag. 16.

The deepest mysteries ours contains have not only been illustrated, but maintained by Syllogism and the Rule of Reason, ] and since this Book was written, by Mr. White in his Institutiones Sacræ.

And when they have seen the Red Sea, doubt not of the Miracle. ] Those that have seen it, have been better informed then Sir Henry Blount was, for he tells us that he desired to view the passage of Moses into the Red Sea (not being above three days journey off) but the Jews told him the precise place was not known within less than the space of a days journey along the shore; wherefore (saith he) I left that as too uncertain for any Observation. In his Voyage into the Levant.

Sect. 10. Pag. 18.

I had as lieve you tell me that Anima est Angelus hominis, est corpus Dei, as Entelechia; Lux est umbra Dei, as actus perspicui.] Great variety of opinion there hath been amongst the Ancient Philosophers touching the definition of the Soul. Thales, his was, that it is a Nature without Repose. Asclepiades, that it is an Exercitation of Sense. Hesiod, that it is a thing composed of Earth and Water; Parmenides holds, of Earth and Fire; Galen that it is Heat; Hippocrates, that it is a spirit diffused through the body. Some others have held it to be Light; Plato saith, 'tis a Substance moving itself; after cometh Aristotle (whom the Author here reproveth) and goeth a degree farther, and saith it is Entelechia, that is, that which naturally makes the body to move. But this definition is as rigid as any of the other; for this tells us not what the essence, origine or nature of the soul is, but only marks an effect of it, and therefore signifieth no more than if he had said (as the Author's Phrase is) that it is Angelus hominis, or an Intelligence that moveth man, as he supposed those other to do the Heavens.

Now to come to the definition of Light, in which the Author is also unsatisfied with the School of Aristotle, he saith, It satisfieth him no more to tell him that Lux est actus perspicui, than if you should tell him that it is umbra Dei. The ground of this definition given by the Peripateticks, is taken from a passage in Aristot. de anima l. 2, cap. 7, where Aristotle saith, That the colour of the thing seen, doth move that which is perspicuum actu (i.e. illustratam naturam quæ sit in aere aliove corpore trunsparente) and that that, in regard of its continuation to the eye, moveth the eye, and by its help the internal sensorium; and that so vision is perform'd. Now as it is true that the Sectators of Aristotle are to blame, by fastening upon him by occasion of this passage, that he meant that those things that made this impress upon the Organs are meer accidents, and have nothing of substance; which is more than ever he meant, and cannot be maintained without violence to Reason, and his own Principles; so for Aristotle himself, no man is beholding to him for any Science acquir'd by this definition: for what is any man the near for his telling him that Colour (admitting it to be a body, as indeed it is, and in that place he doth not deny) doth move actu perspicuum, when as the perspicuity is in relation to the eye; and he doth not say how it comes to be perspicuous, which is the thing enquired after, but gives it that donation before the eye hath perform'd its office; so that if he had said it had been umbra Dei, it would have been as intelligible, as what he hath said. He that would be satisfied how Vision is perform'd, let him see Mr. Hobbs in Tract. de nat. human, cap. 2.

For God hath not caused it to rain upon the Earth. ] St. Aug. de Genes. ad literam, cap. 5, 6, salves that expression from any inconvenience; but the Author in Pseudodox. Epidemic. l. 7, cap. 1, shews that we have no reason to be confident that this Fruit was an Apple.

I believe that the Serpent (if we shall literally understand it) from his proper form and figure made his motion on his belly before the curse. ] Yet the Author himself sheweth in Pseudodox. Epidemic. lib. 7, cap. 1, that the form or kind of the Serpent is not agreed on: yet Comestor affirm'd it was a Dragon, Eugubinus a Basilisk, Delrio a Viper, and others a common Snake: but of what kind soever it was, he sheweth in the same Volume, lib. 5, c. 4, that there was no inconvenience, that the temptation should be perform'd in this proper shape.

I find the tryal of Pucelage and the Virginity of Women which God ordained the Jews, is very fallible. ] Locus extat, Deut. c. 22, the same is affirm'd by Laurentius in his Anatom.

Whole Nations have escaped the curse of Child-birth, which God seems to pronounce upon the whole sex. ] This is attested by M. Mountaigne. Les doleurs de l'enfantiment par les medicins, et par Dieu mesme estimees grandes, et que nous passons avec tant de Ceremonies, il y a des nations entieres qui ne'n fuit nul conte. l. 1, des Ess. c. 14.

Sect 11. Pag. 19.

Who can speak of Eternity without a Solœcism, or think thereof without an Extasie? Time we may comprehend, etc. ] Touching the difference betwixt Eternity and Time, there have been great disputes amongst Philosophers; some affirming it to be no more than duration perpetual consisting of parts; and others (to which opinion, it appears by what follows in this Section, the Author adheres) affirmed (to use the Authors Phrase) that it hath no distinction of Tenses, but is according to Boetius (lib. 5, consol. pros. 6), his definition, interminabilis vitæ tota simul et perfecta possessio. For me, non nostrum est tantas componere lites. I shall only observe what each of them hath to say against the other. Say those of the first opinion against those that follow Boetius his definition, That definition was taken by Boetius out of Plato's Timæus, and is otherwise applyed, though not by Boetius, yet by those that follow him, than ever Plato intended it; for he did not take it in the Abstract, but in the Concrete, for an eternal thing, a Divine substance, by which he meant God, or his Anima mundi: and this he did, to the intent to establish this truth, That no mutation can befal the Divine Majesty, as it doth to things subject to generation and corruption; and that Plato there intended not to define or describe any species of duration: and they say that it is impossible to understand any such species of duration that is (according to the Authors expression) but one permanent point.

Now that which those that follow Boetius urge against the other definition is, they say, it doth not at all difference Eternity from the nature of Time; for they say if it be composed of many Nunc's, or many instants, by the addition of one more it is still encreased; and by that means Infinity or Eternity is not included, nor ought more than Time. For this, see Mr. White, de dial. mundo, Dial. 3. Nod. 4.

Indeed he only is, etc. ] This the Author infers from the words of God to Moses, I am that I am; and this to distinguish him from all others, who (he saith) have and shall be: but those that are learned in the Hebrew, do affirm that the words in that place (Exod. 3) do not signifie, Ego sum qui sum, et qui est, etc. but Ero qui ero, et qui erit, etc. vid Gassend. in animad. Epicur. Physiolog.

Sect. 12. Pag. 20.

I wonder how Aristotle could conceive the World Eternal, or how he could make two Eternities: ] (that is, that God, and the World both were eternal.) I wonder more at either the ignorance or incogitancy of the Conimbricenses, who in their Comment upon the eighth book of Aristotle's Physicks, treating of the matter of Creation, when they had first said that it was possible to know it, and that actually it was known (for Aristotle knew it) yet for all this they afterwards affirm, That considering onely the light of Nature, there is nothing can be brought to demonstrate Creation: and yet farther, when they had defined Creation to be the production of a thing ex nihilo, and had proved that the World was so created in time, and refused the arguments of the Philosophers to the contrary, they added this, That the World might be created ab æterno: for having propos'd this question [Num aliquid à Deo ex Æternitate procreari potuit?] they defend the affirmative, and assert that not onely incorporeal substances, as Angels; or permanent, as the celestial Bodies; or corruptible as Men, etc. might be produced and made ab æterno, and be conserved by an infinite time, ex utraq; parte; and that this is neither repugnant to God the Creator, the things created, nor to the nature of Creation: for proof whereof, they bring instances of the Sun which if it had been eternal, had illuminated eternally, (and the virtue of God is not less than the virtue of the Sun.) Another instance they bring of the divine Word, which was produced ab æterno: in which discourse, and in the instances brought to maintain it, it is hard to say whether the madness or impiety be greater; and certainly if Christians thus argue, we have the more reason to pardon the poor heathen Aristotle.

There is in us not three, but a Trinity of Souls. ] The Peripatetiques held that men had three distinct Souls; whom the Heretiques, the Anomæi, and the Jacobites, followed. There arose a great dispute about this matter in Oxford, in the year 1276, and it was then determined against Aristotle, Daneus Christ. Eth. l. 1. c. 4. and Suarez in his Treatise de causa formali, Quest. An dentur plures formæ in uno composito, affirmeth there was a Synod that did anathematize all that held with Aristotle in this point.

Sect. 14. Pag. 23.

There is but one first, and four second causes in all things. ] In that he saith there is but one first cause, he speaketh in opposition to the Manichees, who held there were Duo principia; one from whom came all good, and the other from whom came all evil: the reason of Protagoras did it seems impose upon their understandings; he was wont to say, Si Deus non est, unde igitur bona? Si autem est, unde mala? In that he saith there are but four second Causes, he opposeth Plato, who to the four causes, material, efficient, formal, and final, adds for a fifth exemplar or Idæa, sc. Id ad quod respiciens artifex, id quod destinabat efficit; according to whose mind Boetius speaks, lib. 3. met. 9. de cons. Philosoph.

O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas,Terrarum Cœliq; sator qui tempus ab ævoIre jubes, stabilisq; manens das cuncta moveri:Quem non externæ pepulerunt fingere causæMateriæ fluitantis opus, verum insita summiForma boni livore carens: tu cuncta supernoDucis ab exemplo, pulchrum pulcherrimus ipseMundum mente gerens, similique in imagine formans,Perfectasq; jubens perfectum absolvere partes.

And St. Augustine l. 83. quest. 46. where (amongst other) he hath these words, Restat ergo ut omnia Ratione sint condita, nec eadem ratione homo qua equus; hoc enim absurdum est existimare: singula autem propriis sunt creata rationibus. But these ideæ Plato's Scholar Aristotle would not allow to make or constitute a different sort of cause from the formal or efficient, to which purpose he disputes, l. 7. Metaphysic. but he and his Sectators, and the Ramists also, agree (as the Author) that there are but the four remembred Causes: so that the Author, in affirming there are but four, hath no Adversary but the Platonists; but yet in asserting there are four (as his words imply) there are that oppose him, and the Schools of Aristot. and Ramus. I shall bring for instance Mr. Nat Carpenter, who in his Philosophia Libera affirmeth, there is no such cause as that which they call the Final cause: he argueth thus; Every cause hath an influence upon its effect: but so has not the End, therefore it is not a Cause. The major proposition (he saith) is evident, because the influence of a cause upon its effect, is either the causality it self, or something that is necessarily conjoyned to it: and the minor as plain, for either the End hath an influence upon the effect immediately, or mediately, by stirring up the Efficient to operate; not immediately, because so it should enter either the constitution or production, or conservation of the things; but the constitution it cannot enter, because the constitution is only of matter and form; nor the Production, for so it should concur to the production, either as it is simply the end, or as an exciter of the Efficient; but not simply as the end, because the end as end doth not go before, but followeth the thing produced, and therefore doth not concur to its production: if they say it doth so far concur, as it is desired of the agent or efficient cause, it should not so have an immediate influence upon the effect, but should onely first move the efficient. Lastly, saith he, it doth not enter the conservation of a thing, because a thing is often conserved, when it is frustrate of its due end, as when it's converted to a new use and end. Divers other Arguments he hath to prove there is no such cause as the final cause. Nat. Carpenter Philosoph. liber Decad. 3. Exercitat. 5. But for all this, the Author and he differ not in substance: for 'tis not the Author's intention to assert that the end is in nature præexistent to the effect, but only that whatsoever God has made, he hath made to some end or other; which he doth to oppose the Sectators of Epicurus, who maintain the contrary, as is to be seen by this of Lucretius which follows.

Illud in his rebus vitium vehementer et istum,Effugere errorem vitareque premeditaborLumina ne facias oculorum clara creataProspicere ut possimus; et, ut proferre viaiProceros passus, ideo fastigia posseSurarum ac feminum pedibus fundata plicari:Brachia tum porro validis ex apta lacertisEsse, manusq; datas utraq; ex parte ministras,Vt facere ad vitam possimus, quæ foret usus:Cætera de genere hoc, inter quæcunq; precanturOmnia perversa præpostera sunt ratione:Nil ideo quoniam natum'st in corpore, ut utiPossemus; sed quod natum'st, id procreat usum,Nec fuit ante videre oculorum lumina nata,Nec dictis orare prius, quam lingua creata'st,Sed potius longe linguæ præcessit origoSermonem; multoq: creatæ sunt prius auresQuam sonus est auditus, et omnia deniq; membraAnte fuere, ut opinor, eorum quam foret usus:Haud igitur potuere utendi crescere causa.Lucret. lib. 4. [822-841.]

Sect. 15. Pag. 24.

There are no Grotesques in nature, etc. ] So Monsr. Montaign, Il n'ya rien d'inutil en nature, non pas l'inutilité mesmes, Rien ne s'est ingeré en cet Univers qui n'y tienne place opportun. Ess. l. 3. c. 1.

Who admires not Regio-montanus his Fly beyond his Eagle? ] Of these Du Bartas.

Que diray je de l'aigle,D'ont un doct Aleman honore nostre siecleAigle qui deslogeant de la maistresse main,Aila loin au devant d'un Empereur Germain;Et l'ayant recontré suddain d'une aisle accorte,Se tournant le suit au seuil de la porteDu fort Norembergois, que lis piliers dorez,Les tapissez chemins, les arcs elabourez,Les fourdroyans Canons, in la jeusnesse isnelle,In le chena Senat, n'honnoroit tant come elle.Vn jour, que cetominer plus des esbats, que de mets,En privé fasteyoit ses seignieurs plus amees,Vne mousche de fer, dans sa main recelee,Prit sans ayde d'autroy, sa gallard evolee:Fit une entiere Ronde, et puis d'un cerveau lasCome ayant jugement, se purcha sur son bras.Thus Englished by SilvesterWhy should not I that wooden Eagle mention?(A learned German's late admir'd invention)Which mounting from his Fist that framed her,Flew far to meet an Almain Emperour:And having met him, with her nimble Train,And weary Wings turning about again,Followed him close unto the Castle GateOf Noremberg; whom all the shews of state,Streets hang'd with Arras, arches curious built,Loud thundring Canons, Columns richly guilt,Grey-headed Senate, and youth's gallantise,Grac'd not so much as onely this device.Once as this Artist more with mirth than meat,Feasted some friends that he esteemed great;From under's hand an Iron Fly flew out,Which having flown a perfect round about,With weary wings, return'd unto her Master,And (as judicious) on his arm she plac'd her.

Or wonder not more at the operation of two souls in those little bodies, than but one in the Trunk of a Cedar? ] That is, the vegetative, which according to the common opinion, is supposed to be in Trees, though the Epicures and Stoiques would not allow any Soul in Plants; but Empedocles and Plato allowed them not only a vegetative Soul, but affirm'd them to be Animals. The Manichees went farther, and attributed so much of the rational Soul to them, that they accounted it Homicide to gather either the flowers or fruit, as St. Aug. reports.

We carry with us the wonders we seek without us. ] So St. Aug. l. 10. de civ. c. 3. Omni miraculo quod fit per hominem majus miraculum est homo.

Sect. 16. Pag. 25.

Another of his servant Nature, that publique and universal Manuscript that lies expansed, etc. ] So is the description of Du Bartas 7. jour de la sepm.

Oyes ce Docteur muet estudie en ce livreQui nuict et jour ouvert t'apprendra de bien vivre.

All things are artificial, for Nature is the Art of God. ] So Mr. Hobbes in his Leviathan (in initio) Nature is the Art whereby God governs the world.

Sect. 17. Pag. 27.

Directing the operations of single and individual Essences, etc. ] Things singular or individuals, are in the opinion of Philosophers not to be known, but by the way of sense, or by that which knows by its Essence, and that is onely God. The Devils have no such knowledge, because whatsoever knows so, is either the cause or effect of the thing known; whereupon Averroes concluded that God was the cause of all things, because he understands all things by his Essence; and Albertus Magnus concluded, That the inferiour intelligence understands the superiour, because it is an effect of the superiour: but neither of these can be said of the Devil; for it appears he is not the effect of any of these inferiour things, much less is he the cause, for the power of Creation onely belongs to God.

All cannot be happy at once, because the Glory of one State depends upon the ruine of another. ] This Theme is ingeniously handled by Mr. Montaigne livr. 1. des Ess. cap. 22. the title whereof is, Le profit de l'un est dommage de l'autre.

Sect. 18. Pag. 29.

'Tis the common fate of men of singular gifts of mind, to be destitute of those of Fortune. ] So Petron. Arbiter. Amor ingenii neminem unquum divitem fecit, in Satyric. And Apuleius in Apolog. Idem mihi etiam (saith he) paupertatem opprobravit acceptum Philosopho crimen et ultro profitendum; and then a little afterwards, he sheweth that it was the common fate of those that had singular gifts of mind: Eadem enim est paupertas apud Græcos in Aristide justa, in Phocyone benigna, in Epaminonde strenua, in Socrate sapiens, in Homero diserta.

We need not labour with so many arguments to confute judicial Astrology. ] There is nothing in judicial Astrology that may render it impious; but the exception against it is, that it is vain and fallible; of which any man will be convinced, that has read Tully de Divinat. and St. Aug. book 5. de Civ. dei.

Sect. 19. Pag. 31.

There is in our soul a kind of Triumvirate – that distracts the peace of our Commonwealth, not less than did that other the State of Rome. ] There were two Triumvirates, by which the peace of Rome was distracted; that of Crassus, Cæsar and Pompey, of which Lucan, l. 1.