Page:Deespirits.djvu/21

(beſides the judgment of all accounted wife and learned in former ages) I am convicted in my judgment, that ſo much ſolid reaſon in all Arts and Sciences never iſſued from mortal man (known unto us by his writings) without ſupernatural illumination. Well: Ariſtotle doth not acknowledg Spirits he mentions them not in any place. Let it be granted: And why ſhould it be a wonder to any man that knows the drift and purpoſe of Ariſtotle's Phyloſophy? He lived when Plato lived; he had been his fellow Scholer under Socrates, and for ſome time his Scholer; but afterwards he became his œmulus, and pleaſed himſelf very much to oppoſe his Doctrine, inſomuch as he is cenſured by ſome Ancients for his ingratitude. The truth is, Plato's writings are full of Prodigies, Apparitions of Souls, pains of Hell and Purgatory, Revelations of the gods, and the like. Wherein he is ſo bold that he is fain to excuſe himſelf ſometimes, and doth not deſire that any man ſhould believe him, according to the letter of his relations, but in groſſe only, that ſomewhat was true to that effect. Indeed he hath many divine paſſages, yea, whole Treatiſes, that can never be ſufficiently admired in their kind; but too full of tales, for a Phyloſopher, it cannot be denyed. Ariſtotle therefore reſolved upon a quite contrary way: He would meddle with nothing but what had ſome apparent ground in Nature. Not that he preciſely denyed all other things, but becauſe he did not think that it was the part of a Phyloſopher to meddle with thoſe things that no probable reaſon could be given of. This doth clearly appear by a Divine paſſage of his, De part. anim. l. 1. c. 5. where he divides Subſtances in ἀγεννήτους κὶ ἀφθάρτους, Eternal and Incorruptible, that is, in effect, Spiritual (for even Spirits that were created might be termed ἀγείνητοι, that is, properly, I hat bave not their beginning by Generation; but we will eaſily grant, that the creation of Angels, good or bad, was not known to Ariſtotle: (we may underſtand Gods and Intelligences) and thoſe, that μετέχεσι γενέσεως κὶ φθοράς, that is, are mortals. He goes on, As for Divine Substances, which we honour, we can ſay but little of them, though we deſire it, becauſe ſo little of them is expoſed to ſenſe [and Reaſon.] Mortal things that we are familiarly acquainted and duly converſe with, we may know if we take pains. But much more ſhould we rejoice in the knowledg (yea though we know but a very little part) of things Divine for their excellency, then in the knowledg of theſe worldly things though never ſo perfect and general But the comfort that we have of them (which doth make ſame amends) is the certainty, and that they come within the compaſſe of Sciences. What could be ſaid more Divinely by a man that had nothing by revelation? Truly, there appeareth unto me (if I may ſpeak without offence and miſconſtruction) more Divinity in thoſe words, then in ſome books that pretend to nothing elſe. Add to this another place of his in his Metaphyſicks, where he ſaith, That though things ſupernatural be of themſelves clear and certain, yet to us they are not ſo, who ſee them only with Owles eyes. Can we ſay then that Ariſotle denyed thoſe things that he forbore to write of, becauſe they were (their natures and their qualities) above the knowledg of man? Neither is it abſolutely true that Ariſtotle never wrote of Spirits and Apparitions. Cicero in his firſt book De Divinatione, hath a long ſtory out of him of a ſhape or Spirit that appeared in a dream to one Eudemus (his familiar friend andac-