Page:Deespirits.djvu/22

acquaintance) and foretold him ſtrange things that came to paſſe. (lemens Alexandrinus hath a ſtrange ſtory out of him, of a Magical Ring, one or two, which Exceſtus, King of the Phocenſes did uſe, and foreſaw things future by them. It is to be found and ſeen among the fragments of Ariſtotle works. And that he did not deny Witches, may appear by that mention he makes of them in more then one place. How much he aſcribed to common report and experience, though no reaſon could be given, doth appear by his Preface to his Treatiſe De Divinatione per inſonia: where he propoſeth the caſe, how hard it is for a rational man to believe any thing upon report which he can ſee no reaſon for; nay, which ſeemeth contrary to reaſon: as, for a man to foretel by dream what ſhall happen in another Kingdome far off without any apparent cauſe. But on the other ſide, ſaith he, not less hard to deny that which all men, or moſt men, do believe, to wit, that there be ſuch predictions. For to ſay (his own words) that ſuch dreams come from God, beſides what elſe might be objected (which might eaſily be understood by them that underſtand his Doctrine) it is moſt unreaſonable to believe that God would ſend them to men either vitious in their lives, or idiots and fools, of all men the moſt vile and contemptible, who have been obſerved to have ſuch dreams oftner then better and wiſer men. So leaving the buſineſſe undetermined, he doth proceed to the conſideration of thoſe Prophetick dreams, for which ſome probable reaſon may be given. Yet in the ſecond Chapter he faith directly, That though dreams be not θεόπεμπλα, yet they may be perchance ¹ ↑  The Latine Interpreter tranſlates it Demonia; & I know not how it can be better expreſſed though lyable to ambiguity. ^[1]δαιμόνια, for ſuch he acknowledges Nature to be, not θείαν, but δαιμονίαν only. I will not enquire further into the meaning of theſe words; it is not to be done in few words. It plainly appears that nothing troubled him ſo much (for he repeats the objection twice or thrice) as that God ſhould be thought to favour either wicked men or fools. I wiſh no worſe Doctrine had ever been Printed or Preached concerning God. But ſtill let it be remembred that he knew of no Divine Word or Revelation. Yet Jul. Scaliger in his Commentaries upon Hypocrates De Inſomniis, doth wonder that Ariſtotle ſhould ſtick ſo much at this, and ſeems himſelf to give a reaſon grounded in Nature. Indeed he ſaith ſomewhat as to the caſe of fools and idiots, but nothing (that I remember) that reacheth to wicked men alſo. Let theſe things be conſidered, and let the Reader judge of how different temper Ariſtole was from that of ancient or later Epicures. This mention of Ariſtotle and Plato puts me in mind of Socrates their Maſter, his Familiar Spirit; no Shape but a Voice only, by which his life and actions were much directed. The thing is atteſted by ſo many, ſo grave Authors whereof ſome lived at the very time, others not long after, or in times not very remote, that I know not how it can be queſtioned by any man. Neither indeed is it, that I remember, by any Heathens or Chriſtians of ancient times, and there have been books written of it, divers in Greek and Latine, whereof ſome are yet extant. But whether it were a good Spirit or an evil, ſome men have doubted, and it is free for any man to think what he pleaſeth of it. For my part I ever had a Reverend opinion of Socrates,and