The Works of Sir Thomas Browne Volume I Part 4

_If we shall strictly examine the circ.u.mstances and requisites which_ Aristotle _requires to true and perfect valour, we shall find the name onely in his Master_ Alexander, (_that is, no more than the name) and as little in that Roman worthy_ Julius Caesar.] _Aristot. 3. Ethic. cap. 6._ amongst other requisites, requires to valour, that it keep a mediocrity betwixt audacity and fear; that we thrust not our selves into danger when we need not; that we spare not to shew our valour when occasion requires: he requires for its proper object, Death; and to any death, he prefers death in War, because thereby a man profits his Country and Friends; and that he calls _mors honesta_, an honest or honourable death: and thereupon he defines a valiant man to be, _Is qui morte honesta proposita, iisq; omnibus quae c.u.m sint repentina mortem adfuerunt metu vacat_. So that by the Author's saying, there was onely the Name in _Alexander_, he means only that which is rendred in the two last words, _metu vacans_, and not the rest that goes to make up the definition of a valiant man, which is very truly affirmed of _Alexander_, who exposed himself to hazzard many times when there was no cause for it: As you may read in _Curtius_, he did, in the siege of _Tyrus_, and many other ways.

_Cettuy-cy semble rechercher et courir a force les dangiers comme un impetueux torrent, qui choque et attaque sans discretion, et sans chois tout ce qu'il rencontre_, saith _Montaign_, speaking of _Alexander, l.

2. des Ess. cap. 34_. And for _Caesar_, it cannot be denied, but in his Wars he was many times (though not so generally as _Alexander_) more adventrous than reason military could warrant to him; and therefore _Lucan_ gives him no better Character than

_Acer et indomitus quo spes quoq; ira voca.s.set Ferre manum, etc._ Lucan. lib. 1.

To instance in some Particulars: with what an inconsiderable strength did he enterprize the conquest of _Egypt_, and afterwards went to attaque the forces of _Scipio_ and _Juba_, which were ten times more than his own? after the Battle of _Pharsalia_, having sent his Army before into _Asia_, and crossing the _h.e.l.lespont_ with one single Vessel, he there meets _Lucius Ca.s.sius_ with ten men of War, he makes up to him, summons him to render, and he does it. In the famous and furious siege of _Alexia_, where he had 80,000 men to make defence against him, and an Army of one hundred and nine thousand Horse, and two hundred and forty thousand foot, all marching towards him, to raise his siege; yet for all that he would not quit the siege, but first fought with those without, and obtain'd a great Victory over them, and soon afterwards brought the besieged to his mercy.

_Sect. 26. Pag. 41._

_The Council of_ Constance _condemns_ John Husse _for an Heretick, the Stories of his own Party style him a Martyr_.] _John Husse_ did agree with the Papists against us in the Point of Invocation of Saints, Prayers and Sacrifice for the Dead, free Will, Good Works, confession of Sins, seven Sacraments, etc. _Gordon. Hunt. l. contr. 3. de Sacr. Euch.

cap. 17_. Yet was he condemned for maintaining certain Articles said by that Council to be heretical and seditious, and was burnt for Heresie.

Now as I will not say he was an Heretick, so can I not maintain that he was a Martyr, if it be but for this one Article, which in the 15. Sess.

of that Council was objected against him, which he did acknowledge, but would not recal, _i.e._ _Nullus est Dominus civilis, dum est in peccato mortali_. If that Doctrine should be believed, we shall have little obedience to Civil Magistrates; and without that, how miserable is humane condition? That which begat compa.s.sion towards _Husse_ in those of his own Party was, that he had a safe conduct from the Emperour _Sigismund_; and therefore it was, say they, a violation of publick faith in the _Council_ and _Emperour_ in putting him to death.

_That wise heathen_ Socrates _that suffered on a fundamental point of Religion, the Unity of G.o.d_.] That _Socrates_ suffered on this Point, divers Christian Writers do object to the Ethniques, as _Justin Martyr_, Apol. 2. _Euseb. l. 5. de praeparat. Evangelic. c. 14. Tertul._ in _Apolog._ cap. 14. and _Lactant. de just.i.tia_, cap. 15. whose words are these: _Plato quidem multa de uno Deo locutus est, a quo ait const.i.tutum esse mundum, sed nihil de Religione; somniaverat enim Deum, non cognoverat. Quod si just.i.tiae defensionem vel ipse vel quilibet alius implere voluisset, imprimis Deorum Religiones evertere debuit, quia contrariae pietati. Quod quidem Socrates quia facere tentavit in carcerem conjectus est, ut jam tunc appareret quid esset futurum iis hominibus qui just.i.tiam veram defendere Deoque singulari servire cp.i.s.sent_.

_I have often pitied the miserable Bishop that suffered in the cause of_ Antipodes.] The suffering was, that he lost his Bishop.r.i.c.k for denying the _Antipodes_. Vid. _Aventin. in Hist. Boio_. Besides him, there were other Church-men of great note, that denyed _Antipodes_, as _Lactantias_, _Augustin_, and _Bede_.

_Sect. 27. Pag. 43._

_I hold that G.o.d can do all things: How he should work contradictions, I do not understand, yet dare not therefore deny._] Who would not think the Author had taken this from Mr. _Montaign_, whose words are, _Il m'a tousjours semble qu'a un homme Christien, cette sorte de parler est plein d'indiscretion et d'irreverence [Dieu ne se peut disdire,] [Dieu ne peut faire cecy ou cela]. Je ne trouve pas bon d'enfermer ainsi la puissance divine sous les loix de nostre parole. Et l'apparence qui s'

offre a nous en ses propositions, il la faudroit representer plus reverement, et plus Religieus.e.m.e.nt._ Liv. 2. des Ess. c. 12.

_I cannot see why the Angel of G.o.d should question_ Esdras _to recal the time past, if it were beyond his own power, or that G.o.d should pose mortality in that which he was not able to perform himself._] Sir _K.

Digby_ in his Notes upon this place saith, There is no contradiction in this, because he saith it was but putting all things that had motion into the same state they were in at that moment, unto which time was to be reduced back, and from thence letting it travel on again by the same motions, _etc._ which G.o.d could do. But under favour, the contradiction remains, if this were done that he mentions; for Time depends not at all upon motion, but has a being altogether independent of it, and therefore the same revolution would not bring back the same time, for that was efflux'd before; as in the time of _Joshua_, when the Sun stood still, we cannot but conceive, though there were no motion of the Sun, but that there was an efflux of Time, otherwise, how could the Text have it, _That there was not any day, before or after, that was so long as that?_ for the length of it must be understood in respect of the flux of time.

The reasoning of Sir _Kenelme_ is founded upon the opinion of _Aristot_.

who will needs have it, that Time cannot be without mutation; he gives this for a reason, because when we have slept, and cannot perceive any mutation to have been, we do therefore use to connect the time of our sleeping and of our awaking together, and make but one of it: to which it may be answered, although some mutation be necessary, that we may mark the mix of time, it doth not therefore follow that the mutation is necessary to the flux it self.

_Sect. 28. Pag. 43._

_I excuse not_ Constantine _from a fall off his Horse, or a mischief from his enemies, upon the wearing those nails_, etc.] _Hac de re videatur P. Diac. hist. miscell._

_Sect. 29. Pag. 44._

_I wonder how the curiosity of wiser heads could pa.s.s that great and indisputable miracle, the cessation of Oracles._] There are three opinions touching the manner how the predictions of these Oracles were perform'd: Some say by vapour, some by the intelligences, or influences, of the Heavens, and others say by the a.s.sistance of the Devils. Now the indisputable miracle the Author speaks of, is, that they ceas'd upon the coming of Christ; and it is generally so believed; and the Oracle of _Delphos_ delivered to _Augustus_, mentioned by the Author in this Section, is brought to prove it, which is this:

_Me puer Hebrus divos Deus ipse gubernans Cedere sede jubet, tristemq; redire sub orc.u.m.

Aris ergo dehinc tacitus discedito nostris._

But yet it is so far from being true that their cessation was miraculous, that the truth is, there never were any predictions given by those Oracles at all.

That their cessation was not upon the coming of Christ, we have luculent testimony out of _Tully_, in his _2. lib. de Divinat._ which he writ many years before Christ was born; who tells us that they were silent (and indeed he never thought they were otherwise) long before that time, insomuch that they were come into contempt: _Cur isto modo jam oracula Delphis non eduntur, non modo nostra tate, sed jamdiu jam ut nihil possit esse contemptius_. So that for that of _Delphos_, which was the most famous of them all, we see we have no reason to impute the cessation of it to Christ; Why therefore should we do so for any of the rest?

For their predictions, let us consider the three several ways before mentioned, whereby they are supposed to operate; and from thence see whether it be probable that any such Oracles ever were.

The first Opinion is, that it was by exhalation or vapour drawn up from the earth; and gives this for a reason of their being, that they were for a time nourished by those exhalations; and when those ceased, and were exhausted, the Oracles famish'd and died for want of their accustom'd sustenance: this is the far-fetcht reason given by _Plutarch_ for their defect; but 'twas not devised by him, but long before, as appears, in that _Tully_ scoffs at it, _lib. de divinat_. _De vino aut salsamento putes loqui_ (saith he) _quae evanesc.u.n.t vetustate_. This seem'd absurd to others, who do therefore say this was not to be attributed to any power of the Earth, but to the power of the Heavens, or _Intelligences Clestial_; to certain aspects whereof, they say, the Statua's of those Oracles were so adapted, that they might divine and foretel future events. But yet to others, this way seemeth as absurd as the others; for, say they, admitting that there were an efficacy in the Heavens, more than in the Earth; yet how can it be that men should come by the skill to fit the Statua's to the Aspects or influences of the Heavens? or if at any time they had such skill, why should not the same continue the rather, because men are more skilled in the motions of the Heavens, of later than in the former time? Again, they do not see how it should be that the cause should be of less excellency than the effect; for if a man (say they) can by his industry make such Oracles, why can he not produce the same effect in another man? for if you affirm that the Heavens influence is requisite, they will tell you that Influence may happen as well to a man, as to a Statue of wood or stone.

Therefore the third sort being unsatisfied, which either of the former ways conclude, that this was perform'd by the Devil; but for that it will appear as contrary to Reason and Philosophy, as either of the former; for Philosophy teacheth that things singular, or individual, are to be known only by sense, or by such an Intellect, as doth know by its Essence; and Theology teacheth that G.o.d only knoweth the heart, and that the Devil doth not know by sense, nor by essence; and since 'tis admitted by all, that most of the answers that were pretended to be given by those Oracles, were _de rebus singularibus_, or _individuis_; it is evident that these predictions were not perform'd by Devils. How then? why those predictions which the ignorant Heathen took to come from Heaven, and some Christians (not less ignorant) from the Devil, was nothing but the jugling and impostures of the Priests, who from within the Statua's gave the answers; which Princes connived at, that they might upon occasion serve their turns upon the ignorance of the people; and the learned men, for fear of their Princes, durst not speak against it. _Lucian_ hath noted it, and so a more Authentick Author, _Minut.

Felix._, in _Octav. Authoritatem quasi praesentis numinis consequuntur dum inspirantur interim vatibus_. But in process of time, the people grew less credulous of their Priests, and so the Oracles became to be silent: _c.u.m jam_ (saith he) _Apollo versus facere desisset, cujus tunc cautum illud et ambiguum deficit oraculum: c.u.m et politiores homines et minus creduli esse caeperunt_. Sir _H. Blount_ in his _Levantine_ voyage, saith he saw the Statua of _Memnon_ so famous of old; he saith it was hollow at top, and that he was told by the _Egyptians_ and Jews there with him, that they had seen some enter there, and come out at the Pyramid, two Bows shoot off; then (saith he) I soon believ'd the Oracle, and believe all the rest to have been such; which indeed, is much easier to imagine than that it was perform'd by any of the three wayes before mentioned. St. _Aug._ hath composed a Book, where he handleth this point at large, and concludeth that the Devils can no more foretel things come, than they are able to discern the thoughts that are within us.

_Aug. lib. de Scientia Daemon._

_Till I laughed my self out of it with a piece of_ Justin, _where he delivers that the Children of_ Israel _for being scabbed were banished out of_ Egypt.] These words of _Justin_ are, _Sed c.u.m scabiem aegyptii et pruriginem paterentur, responso moniti, eum (se. Moysen) c.u.m aegris, ne pestis ad plures serperet, terminis aegypti pellunt. l. 36._ But he is not singular in this, for _Tacitus_ tells us, _Hist. lib. 5. Plurimi auth.o.r.es consentiunt orta per aegyptum tabe qu corpora fduret, Regem (Ochirum)_ (he means _Pharaoh_) _adito Hammonis oraculo remedium petentem purgare. Regnum et id genus hominum----alias in terras avertere jussum._ Et paulo inferius, _Quod ipsos scabies quondam turpaverat_.

_Sect. 30. Pag. 45._

_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 medic.u.minibus 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage, 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 t.i.tum, 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: _c.u.m enim dixit Fiat lux, et facta est lux, si recte 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 prae-existent _in infinitum_, therefore he took their opinion to be absurd, and upon that ground princ.i.p.ally, 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 ma.s.s 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, _Quae 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:

_Praeterea si immortalis natura anima Constat, et in corpus nascentibus insinuatur, Cur super anteactam aetatem 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 laeto 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 animae post corpora, nisi videntur fuisse ante corpora. De fals. Sap._ c. 18.

_Sect. 41. Pag. 59._