is made either by addition, detraction, or transpo- | fition of the particles. But every thing muft, of neceffity be mortal that receives new parts, that lofes any of its parts, or of whofe parts the pofition and order is changed. Therefore, whether the mind grow fick, which the foregoing arguments have proved, or whether it grow well again, it either way confeffes its own mortality.

Ver. 501. Not in the leaft for the reafon here alleged; because, though the raving or madness of the mind be cared by hellebore, or other remedies of like nature, yet the cure is not of the mind, but of the brain; which being reftored to its former health, the mind performs her functions as before.

Ver. 505. The feventh argument is included in thee nineteen verfes. Men often die limb by Jimb, and expire by degrees. Therefore, the foul zoo dies by degrees. For, who will pretend that the foul, that most lively and fenfible thing, refides in the dead members of the body that are void of all fenfe. But if you think that the foul retires out of the dying members into the more inward parts of the body; why do not those parts to which the foul retrea's, and where she is contracted into a narrower space, enjoy a more lively and brifker fenfe? Has the foul, by being thus shut up in a lefs compafs, loft the power of sense? Take care of granting that; for what decays and lofes its nature by being thus contracted and huddled up, is as much mortal as that which flies difperfed, and is torn to pieces in the air.

Ver. 516. The falfehood of this conclufion may vinced even from the doctrine of Lucretius body. For ver. 137. of this book, he fixes the feat of sind in the heart; but the foul, because he believed corporeal, he has diffused through the whole body, and yet not disjoined it from the mind. Therefore, it may by degrees contract itself from the extremeft parts of the body to the heart, where the mind, to which it is joined, has its refidence. But there is another anfwer to this argument: for fince the foul is incorporeal, it is diffufed whole through all the body, and whole in every part of the body; fo that when any part of the body dies, or is cut off, the foul does not therefore die, nor is it therefore cut off: but remains fafe and whole in the other found and whole parts of the body, nor does it go out of the body, till the body be diffolved by death. Thus, for example, the intentional fpecies, as they call it, is whole in all the place, and whole in each part of the place: For inftance; in whatever place, or in whatever part of a place you fet a mirror, or fix your eye, there the whole image will every where be found. Thus too, fay the Romanifts, the body of our Lord Jefus Chrift is whole under the whole fpecies of the bread, and whole under every part of the bread, in the bleffed facrament of the Eucharift.

Ver. 524. These eight verfes contain the eighth argument. The mind is a part of man, as is proved above, ver. 93. and has a certain place allotted for it; as there is for the nofe, the eyes, &c. But luck out the eyes, and cut off the noftrils, and

neither will those perceive colours, nor these smell odours. Therefore, we must acknowledge the fame of the feparated foul, fince it is no lefs joined to the body than the other parts of it.

In answer to this argument, we say, that the foul is indeed a part of man; but not fuch a part as the feet, the eyes, the arms, &c. for it is only an effential part, as they call it, and is the principle of life to its own feif; but the other parts of man derive their vital motions, and their fenfes from the foul. Therefore, it is not ftrange, that the other parts, when they are disjoined from the whole man, have no fenfe remaining in them, fince they are feparated from their principle of vital fenfe. Lactantius gives this argument another anfwer. The foul, fays he, is not a part of the body, but in the body in like manner, as what is contained in a veffel is not part of the veffel, no more than the goods in a house are part of the house; fo neither is the foul, because the body is, as it were, the veffel and receptacle of the foul, therefore a part of the body. "Anima non eft pars corporis, fed in corpore eft: Sicut id, quod vafe continetur, vafis pars non eft; nec ea, qua in domo funt, partes domus effe dicuntur: ita non anima pars eft corporis, quia corpus vel vas animæ eft, vel receptaculum." De Divin. Præm. c. 12.

Ver. 529. So Cicero Tufcul. I. "Nofce animum tuum, nam Corpus quidem eft quafi vas, aut aliquod animi receptaculum." Know thy mind, for the body is indeed as a veffel, or certain receptacle of the mind. Thus Xenocrates in Antioch, calls the body Yuxñs oxñves, the tabernacle of the foul. In Cratyl. Yuxs ona, the sepulchre of the foul.

Ver. 532. The ninth argument is in these twen ty-five verfes to this purpose. While the body and foul are joined together, the animal lives and is fenfible; when the foul is gone, the body is infenfible, and fo too is the foul when feparated from the body. The mind is as the eye of the body, and who expects to fee with an eye that is torn out? Befides, were not the atoms of the foul contained in the veins and nerves, they could not be affected by those motions that are the cause of fenfe for all thofe motions require a certain space, and fixed and definite bounds. But if you pretend that the foul, after its diffolution from the body can be contained or held in by the air, you may as well at the fame time, affirm likewife, that the air is an animal which feems most abfurd and moft falfe. Epicurus writes thus to Herodotus. Καὶ μὴν τὲ λυομένη τῇ ὅλα ἀθρόισματος, τὸ ψυχὴ διασωέρται, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔχει τὰς αὐλας δυνάμεις, ét ાસા, ઇંદુ ને '' aiSv xર્ડનીi 'Ov yàg our σὲ νοῦιν αΰτο αἰσθανόμενον, μὴ ἐν τέλῳ τῷ σοτή μαζί ταῖς κινήσεσι ταύταις χρώμενον, ὅταν τὰ τεγάζοντα, καὶ περὶ ἔχοντα μὴ τοιαν]α 7, ἐν οἷς νῦν ὅσα ἔχει ταύτας τὰς κινήσεις.

Ver. 536. This comparison is not juft. For, though the foul be the principle of life to the body; yet the body is not fo to the foul. It is not therefore to be wondered at, that the body perceives nothing without the foul. But who can

doubt but that the foul has the power of perception without the body, fince it is the principle of all fenfe.

Ver. 553. This inference is too abfurd; for what neceffity is there, that the air into which the foul flies at its feparation from the body, fhould become an animal? Has it any of the organs or difpofitions that are proper for vital fenfe? The foul, after it is feparated from the body, always retains its innate propensity to animate the body again at the refurrection.

Ver. 557 In these ten verfes, is included the tenth argement. When the foul, which is feated

it

in the inmoft parts of the body, as being the foundation of the whole animal, is fled away, the ruinous body putrifies, and moulders into duft. Now, whence can proceed this total deftruction of the body, except because the foul that propped up, and held all the members together, has forfaken them, and is fled away through all the pores and iffues of the body? And the foul too, being thus divided into fo many minute parts, at her going out of the animal, feems to be prepared and got ready for her total d flipation.

Ver. 565. This inference which the poet draws from this argument, is altogether ridiculous, as if the foul exhaled through the pores and paffages of the body, as the finoke of frankincenfe does through the holes of a cenfer. The foul is wholly incorporeal, and therefore goes unhurt and whole out of the whole body, as well as out of each pore and paffage of it. And the body's corruption when the foul is gone out of it, argues not any divifibility of the foul; but proceeds from the want of that vital agitation, which the body has from the foul only.

Ver. 567. Thefe fourteen verfes contain the eleventh argument, which is to this purpose: In what we commonly call a fwoon, the ftrength and powers of the mind and foul are fhaken to fuch a degree, that were the caufe but a little more violent, the foul itfelf would be diffolved. Since, then, the mind can be thus difordered, even while the body hides and protects it: who can believe that fo fubtle a fubftance, when it comes to be turned out from its place of fhelter, can refift and hold good against the reftlefs violence of the winds and other things that will be continually affaulting it. Thus Lucretius: but we know very well, that this "Deliquium animi," as the Latins call it, this fainting of the mind, does not in the least arque the mortality of the foul; but only a deficiency or failure in the organs of the whole body: to which organs, when they are thus obftructed, the vital and animal fpirits which the foul makes ufe of, as helps to the prefervation of life, cannot be tranfmitted.

Ver. 581. in thefe ten verfes, the poet brings his twelfth argument; and, to leave no stone unturned, he appeals to the dying, and afks, Which of them ever perceived his foul rifing up from the extremeft parts of his body, and then go out whole at his mouth? Or whether they do not rather perceive it dying in each part, as every fenfe does in its proper organ? Nor is it to be doubted, fays

he, but that the dying are confcious of the diffolution of their fouls; otherwise why do they complain? They should rather rejoice to lay down the burden of the body, as a fnake is to caft off her flough, or as a ftag to drop his ponderous and overgrown antlers.

Ver. 585. Neither Lucretius, nor any man elfe, ever experienced the truth of what he here ad. vances for what dying perfon ever told the standers by, that he perceived what his foul was doing, which way it was going, or how it went out of his body, from which part of it it firft retired, &c. For his faying that it goes out through the jaws is only a vulgar way of fpeaking. And fince the foul is wholly fpiritual, it may, as we faid before, go out whole through the whole body, or at any part of it.

ciant.

Ver. 586. This part of the argument is wretchedly weak indeed; and Lactantius, lib. 7. de Divin. Præm. cap 13. has fully answered it in these words: "Equidem nunquam vidi qui quereretur fe morte diffolvi: Sed Lucretius fortaffe Epicureum aliquem viderat, etiam dum moritur, Philofophantem, ac de fua diffolutione in extremo fpiritu differentem. Quomodo fciri poteft utrum diffolvi fe fentiat, an corpore liberari, cum in exitu lingua mutefcat? Nam dum fentit, et loqui poteft, nondum diffolutus eft: Ubi diffolutus eft, nec fentire jam, nec loqui poteft: Ita queri de diffolutione aut nondum poteft, aut jam non poteft. Et enim non prius quam diffolvatur, intelligit fe diffolu tum iri. Quid, quod videmus plerofque morientium non diffolvi conquerentes, fed enim fe, et proficifci, et ambulare teftantes; idque aut geftu fignificant, aut, fi adhuc poffunt, et voce pronunUnde apparet non diffolutionem fieri, fed feparationem, quæ declarat animam permanere." Indeed, I never faw any man who complained that he was diffolved in death. But Lucretius perhaps had seen fome Epicurean philofophizing, even when he was dying, and reafoning of his diffolution at his laft gafp. How can it be known, whether a man perceives his foul to die, or to be freed from the body, fince the tongue is fpeechlefs in the moment of death? For fo long as a man perceives and fpeaks, he is not diffolved. When he is diffolved, he can then neither perceive nor fpeak; therefore, either he cannot yet bemoan his diffolution, or now he can no longer bemoan it. For how can he know he is diffolved before he is diffolved. Befides, we fee many dving perfons, not complaining of their entire diffolution, but affirming that they are going, that they are departing, that the foul is going out of the body; and this they fignify by figns and geftures; or, if they are able, they pronounce it with their tongue. Whence it appears there is no diffolution but a feparation of the foul from the body; which separation evinces the permanency of the foul.

Ver. 589. Tertull. de Pall. Theophylact. in cap. 10 Matth. Ariftot. Hift. Nat. 1. 8. c. 7. et Plin. lib. viii. c. 27. fays, that ferpents, when they perceive themfelves growing old, caft off their fkins, and are clothed again with new, which Virgil confirms in thefe excellent verfes :

Qualis ubi in lucem locuber, mala gramina paftus,
Frigida fub terrâ tumidum quem bruma tegebat;
Nunc pofitis novus exuvius, nitidufque javentâ
Lubrica convolvit fublato, pectore terga,
Arduus ad folem, et linguis micat ore trifulcis.
En. 2. ver. 471.
So fhines renew'd in youth, the crefted fnake,
Who flept the winter in a thorny brake;
And cafting off his flough when fpring returns,
Now looks aloft, and with new glory burns.
Reftor'd with pois'nous herbs, his ardent fides
Refled the fun; and rais'd on fpires he rides,
High o'er the grafs he hifling rolls along,
And brandishes by fits his forky tongue..

Dryd.

Ver 590. Pliny, in the eighth book of his Natural Hutory, chap 32 fpeaking of deer, fays, "Cornua mares habent, folique animalium omnibus annis flato veris tempore amittunt." The males have horns, and are the only animals that lofe them every year at a certain time in the fpring. And Waller, deferibing the head of a ftag, takes notice of the fame thing. So we fome antique hero's ftrength Learn by his launce's weight and length; As thefe vaft beams exprefs the beait Whofe thady brows alive they dreft. O fertile head, which ev'ry year Could fuch a crop of woeder bear! Which, might it never have been cast, Each year's growth added to the laft, Thefe lofty branches had fupply'd The earth's bold fon's prodigious pride: Heav'n with thefe engines had been scal'd, When mountains heap'd on mountains fail'd.

Ver. 591. Thefe five verfes contain his thirtecuth argument. He has already faid, that the mind is feated in the heart; and now he concludes from thence, that it is confined to the heart in fuch a manner, that it cannot exift elfewhere. He who looks for fouls in the air, may as reafonably expect to find flames in water, and ice in fire: for all natural things have certain and fixed places to be born and live in.

But this argument is falfe; for birds, for example, are hatched in a neft, and yet live out of the neft. A nut is produced upon a tree, and a grain of corn in the ear, and yet they are kept in granaries. Then, why fhould not the foul, if it were created in a certain part of the body, be able to live out of it. But as La&antius, lib. 7. de Div. Præm. c. 12, argues admirably well, the poet contradicts his own doctrine; for book ii. ver. 964. he fays,

-Each part returns when bodies dies; What came from earth to earth, what from the fky [high Dropp'd down, afcends again, and mounts on, which ought not to have been faid by him, who now afferts, that the foul dies with the body. But to ufe the very words of Lactantius, "Veritate vi&us eft, et imprudenti ratio vera furrepfit;" he is convicted by a truth which happened to flip from him unawares,

Ver. 596. In these ten verfes, the poet brings his fourteenth argument. If you imagine, fays he, the feparated foul to be immortal, you must believe it fenfible too; and confequently endowed with five fenfes : but from whence can these senses arife, fince the organs of the fenfes, the eyes, the noftrils, the hands, the tongue, the ears, are all putrified in the abandoned body?

The answer to this argument is, that the fenfes that are afcribed to the foul after death: as hearing, feeing, &c. are not properly called fenfes; but it is the very power and faculty of perception and understanding, which is called the fenfes in each diftinct and different fort, and which of it

felf, for inftance, difcerns colours no lefs than the eye, hears founds no lefs than the ear, &c.

Ver. 600. He derides the fables of the ancients concerning the fouls of men, which, as they feigned, went into hell after death, where they enjoy. ed all their fenfes, as when they were alive.

Ver 606, 607. His fifteenth argument takes up thefe thirty-four verses. The foul, fays he, being diffufed through the whole body, muft of neceffity be divided, if the body be cut in two by a violent and fudden stroke. For example, if a limb of a foldier be cut off by an armed chariot, the motion of the diffected part is a proof that the foul is divided likewife. This the poet elegantly and at large defcribes; and then brings a fecond inftance in the parts of a ferpent chopped to pieces; and urges, that it must be granted, ei ther that there are feveral fouls in the fame ani. mal, that is to fay, in a man or a ferpent, and that the keennefs of the weapon, even though the blow be given at random, divides the members of the animal fo exquisitely, that it leaves to each foul its proper feat; which no man in his fenfes will allow, or else it must be confeffed, that the fingle foul which is diffufed through the whole body of the animal, is cut into many pieces, and confequently is mortal.

To this argument we anfwer, that befides that the Chriftian faith teaches, that the foul of man is incorporeal; if the mind have chofen to itself its peculiar feat in the heart, as Lucretius pretends it has, it can never be divided, unless the heart be cut to pieces; but this we know to be falfe. Then as to what he instances in the amputated linibs of foldiers, it is not the foul that remains in them, and caufes that palpitation; but certain warm fpirits, that, by firring up and down in the yet living nerves and mufcles, move the mangled and chopped off limbs; nor do they forfake them till they are feized and benumbed with cold. As to the inference he draws from ferpents, we answer, that their rejected parts have life, because the foul of animals is corporeal and mortal too.

Ver. 607. That is to fay, the foul is in the whole animal, or in every part of the animal: for where the faculties of the foul are, there the foul is likewife; nor can thofe faculties exit where the foundation and caufe of them is not; but the foul is the foundation of them. And this is what made Ariftotle fay, that if the eyes were in the feet, the feet would fee.

Ver. 614. Lucretius calls them " falciferos Cur rus," fcythe bearing chariots, alluding to the armed chariots which the ancients made use of in their armies, and which Xenophon, in book 6. of the Inftitution of Cyrus, defcribes in these words. Πολεμιτήρια κατεσκεύασεν ἂρμα]α τροχοῖς τὲ ἰσχυρῖς, ὡς μὴ ραδίως συντρίβεται, ἀξεσί τε μακροῖς ἦταν γὰρ ἀναΤρύπιζαν πάνα τὰ πελαβέα, τὸν δὲ δίφρον τοῖς ἡνιόχοις ἐπότησεν, ὥσπερ πύργον, ἰχυρῶν ξύλων ὕψος δὲ τάφον ἐπὶ μέσ τῶν ἀγκώνων. ὡς δύνωνται ἡνιοχεσαι δι ἵπποι ἱπὶς τῶν δίφρων τὰς δὲ ἡνιόχας ἐθωράκισε πάν]α πλὴν τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, προσέθηκε δὲ καὶ δρέπανα σιδήρια ὡς διπήχεα πρὸς τὰς ἄξονας ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν τῶν τροχῶν, καὶ ἄλλα μάζω ύπο του άξον, ἐς γῆν βλέποντα, ὡς ἐμβαλωνων ég rès lvavías rois ägarn. He took care, fays he, to have warlike chariots made with very ftrong wheels, that they might not be easily broken, and large axle-trees, that they might not be apt to overthrow. The coachman's feat or box was made like a tower, of ftrong timber, and elbow-high, that they might govern the horses as they fat in their feats. The charioteers were armed from head to foot; to the axle-trees on both fides of the wheels he fattened scythes of iron, two cubits in length, and others beneath the axle, turning downwards towards the ground, as if he meant to drive over and trample down his enemies with this fort of chariots. And Vegetius de re Milit. I. 3. c. 24. fays, "Quadrigas falcatas in bello Rex Antiochus et Mithridates habuerunt, quæ ut primò magnum intulere terrorem, ita poftmodum fuere deritui." King Antiochus and Mithridates, in their wars, made ufe of chariots drawn by four horfes, and armed with hooks or bills; which at firft were very dreadful in an army, but at length were laughed at. Lucretius mentions them again, book V. ver. 1392. But we have a better authority for this fort of chariot, than any of the heathens can give us; I Sam. xiii. and Cowley, David. iv. defcribes them thus,

Here, with worfe noife, three thousand chariots pafs,

With plates of iron bound, or louder brafs,
About it forks, axes, and fcythes, and spears;
Whole magazines of death each chariot bears;
Where it breaks in, there a whole troop it mows,
And with lopp'd panting limbs the field beftrews:
Alike the valiant, and the cowards die;
Neither can they refift, nor can these fly.

Ver. 630 10 what Lucretius here fays of ferpents, and which all men know to be true, I will add what many have experienced of vipers; the head of which animal will live a confiderable time after it is cut off, if you prick in the mouth, it will catch faft hold of the inftrument that Wounds it; and if y u flea the reti of the body, and take out he bowel, and then throw it into water, it has been oblerved to live for an hour afer and even to nove with vigour.

Vir 634 antwer, it has: Far, as Ariftotle fays, the more ignoble animals have indiftin&t an, unieparated organs, after the manner of pants; wherefore that part which is analogical to the heart is extended throughout the whole

body. Hence it is, that the refcinded parts live, becaufe each enjoys its proper fountain of life.

Ver. 640. Thefe nine verfes contain the fixteenth argument. If, fays he, the foul be immortal; if, as Pythagoras and Plato believed, it existel entire before the body was perfeded, why does no man, Pythagoras only excepted, remember the life he led before? And if the foul, by going into the body, lofe all remembrance of things past, why fhould not a thing that is viriated to fuch a degree be fubject to farther corruption, and to | death ?

This argument proves nothing against the immortality of the foul, but rather condemns the metempfychofis of Pythagoras: For neither do we Chriftians pretend that the foul pre-exifts before it is infufed into the body; but believe that it is created by the Almighty, at the time that it is infinuated into the body. Souls, therefore, are not from all eternity, but created eternal, and in time. But Pythagoras held, that fouls are eternal, and that they pafs from body to body, as well of man as of beat. Now, this doctrine of the tranfmigration of fouls was originally an Egyptian doctrine,, as Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus both affirm; but if lying Philoftratus may be believed, the Egyptians had it from the Bramins. It is agreed by all, that Pythagoras first brought it into Greece, where he had a mind to be thought the first author of it. To make the people believe him, and give credit to his doctrine, he told them an impudent lie: that his foul had been in Euphorbus at the time of the Trojan war, and that in the fix hundred years between that and his birth, his foul had gone through feveral other bodies before it came into his. He faced them down by a fingular gift of remembering all the ages through which his foul had paffed in its travels. "O mirum," fays Lactantius, " ct fingularem Pythagoræ memoriam! O miferam oblivionam noftram omnium, qui nefciamus, quid ante fuerimus! fed fortaffe vel errore aliquo, vel gratia fit effectum, ut ille folus lethæum gurgitem non attigerit, nec oblivionis acquam guftaverit" But let us hear Pythagoras tell his tale. First, When Euphorbus was killed by Menelaus, which was in the year before J. C. 1185, then his foul, as he faid, came into thalides, the fon of Mercury. After his death, it came into Hermotimus, then into one Pyrrhus, a fifherman of Delos, and at laft to Pythagoras. This is the way that Porphyrius, p. 201, tells the story. But the Scholiaft on the Electra of Sophocles fays, that Pythagoras himself used to say that his foul was in

thalides before it came into Euphorbus; and this is confirmed by Diogenes Laertius, lib. viii. who cites Heraclides for it, and he lived near the time of Pythagoras; and likewife by the Scholiaft on Apoll. Argonaut. i. who reports it from Pherecydes, an intimate friend of Fythagoras. They tell their story with particulars well worth knowing, if they were true: As that Pythagoras came by this wonderful memory by the favour of Mer. cury, whofe office it was to carry fouls into hades, / and who gave the foul of his own fen Athalides,