Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	body_n	soul_n	unite_v	6,137	5	9.8589	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05303	A treatise of specters or straunge sights, visions and apparitions appearing sensibly vnto men Wherein is delivered, the nature of spirites, angels, and divels: their power and properties: as also of witches, sorcerers, enchanters, and such like. With a table of the contents of the several chapters annexed in the end of the booke. Newly done out of French into English.; Discours des spectres, ou visions et apparitions d'esprits, comme anges, demons, at ames, se monstrans visibles aux hommes. English	Loyer, Pierre le, 1550-1634.; Jones, Zachary.	1605 (1605)	STC 15448; ESTC S108473	230,994	324

Answer to their tenth Argument do not suffice to produce a true shape of a humane body but onely by the due and ordinary meane of generation Neverthelesse so it is that the Angells and divells are capable to clothe themselves and to put on a certaine similitude of humane bodie as touching the colour and figure and other such exterior Accidents and that especially at such a time as when it may suffice them by a locall motion to moove any such bodies by meanes whereof both the vapors are thickned and againe purefied and made thin as also the clowds are diversly painted and figured But they obiect againe that this is not sufficient But they say that it behooveth the cause A reply to the former answer mooving to infuse some vertue into the body mooved but cannot infuse any vertue except it touch it And if it bee so that the Angells have not any touching nor feeling with the bodie it seemeth that then they cannot moove it And therefore it must needes be that they cannot take vpon them any body Answer to the reply But it may be said that the Angells by their commandement onely may moove the body with a motion locall which they give vnto it in touching of it not with a corporall kinde of touching but a spirituall A surreply to the former answer Against this solution they dispute further saying It behoveth the mover and the thing moved to be connexed and vnited togither as appeareth by Aristotle But in saying that an Angell doth commaund any thing of his own will Li. 7. Phisee it is to bee presupposed that then hee is not together with the bodie which is saide to bee governed by him and therefore he cannot move the bodie only by his commaundement Herevnto I answere That the commaundement of the Angell doth demaund an execution of his vertue and puissance and therefore it must of necessitie bee that there be some spirituall touching of that bodie by which it is moved The eleventh Argument They insist yet further and say That the Angels cannot move bodies with any locall motion and that therefore in vaine should the bodies bee obedient vnto them seeing they should still remain immoveable And to prove this they bring diverse arguments 8. Phisicorum Arguments vrging that angels cannot move bodies with a locall motion Their first Argument is taken from the authoritie of Aristotle who sayth That the locall motion is the principall and most perfect of all other motions Now the Angels if it be graunted that they take a bodie cannot vse any lesser or inferiour motions It followeth therefore by a more forcible reason that they can much lesse vse any locall motion which is the greatest and the most excellent of all others Answer to the first reason But the answere is easie and we say That the Angels moving themselves with a locall motion by the phantasmaticall bodie which they take may also cause the other lasser motions by vsing some corporal agents for the producing of those effects which they purpose like as the Smith vseth fire to soften the yron and to reduce it to that which they have an intention to make of it And as touching that saying of Aristotle That the locall motion is the chiefest of all motions the reason thereof is because everie corporall nature having life as apt to move it selfe locally by the meanes of the soule bee it either reasonable or sensitive which giveth life vnto it The second reason Their second Argument is That the locall motion of naturall bodies doth follow their formes But the Angels are not causes of the formes of naturall bodies and therefore they cannot be a meane to give them any locall motion Answere to the second reason Neverthelesse answere may be made them That in bodies there bee other locall motions then those that doe adhere vnto the formes as the flowing and ebbing of the Sea doe not follow the substantiall forme of the water but the influence of the Moone with much greater reason therefore may other locall motions then such as adhere to the formes follow spirituall and incorporall substances The third reason Their third Argument is That the corporall members do obey to the conception of the soule in a locall motion in asmuch as they have from her the beginning of life now the bodies which the Angels take vnto them have not from them the beginning of life for then it would behoove that the bodies and the Angels should be vnited togither And therefore it followeth that the bodies by them assumed cannot bee obedient to any locall motion Answer to the third reason I answere That the Angels have their vertue lesse restrayned or hindred then the soules insomuch that being separated from all corporall massinesse they may neverthelesse take an ayrie bodie the which they can move locally at their will and pleasure Their tvvelfth Argument Besides all the former Arguments they replie yet further and say That everie corporall motion doth not obey to the commaund of the Angels as touching the forming and fashioning thereof now the figure which the angels take is as a kinde of forme And therefore by the onely commaundement of the angels cannot any bodie take any forme or figure whatsoever bee it either of man or of any other diverse kinde comprised vnder one gender To this the answere is That the figure which the Angells take Answer to their tvvelfth Argument is in very truth a forme which is made by the abscision and dismembring as a man may say of the thickning of the ayre or by the purefaction of it or by the similitude and motion which may bee taken of the same matter But there is a very great difference betweene the forme Figure that is made so accidentally and that which is naturall and according to the true substance of a thing the which cannot possibly be confounded with this accidentall Figure Their thirteenth Argument that divells cannot take a body This is not all which they obiect for they say further touching the Divells That if they doe invest themselves with a body then they ought to be within the body which they have taken Now S. Ierome interpreting that place of the Psalmist The Lord in his holy Temple and the Glosse doe say that the divells do command and rule over images and idolls externally and cannot be in them internally and the idolls are bodies as every man knoweth And therefore it cannot be said that the divells can take vpon them any bodies Answer to their thirteenth Argument I answer That to be in or within a body of some substance hath a double and two-folde entendment or vnderstanding In the first sort it is vnderstoode vnder the T●rmes of Divinitie And in this manner nothing letteth but that the Divell may be in a body In the second sort it is meant according To the essence as in giving a beeing to the

Apparitions it will be requisite that we define what a Specter is A Specter or Apparition Definition of a Specter In Latine it is called Spectrū a spectando of seeing is an Imagination of a substance wihout a Bodie the which presenteth it selfe sensibly vnto men against the order and course of nature and maketh them afraid And notwithout great reason do I make the Imagination to be the Genus vnto a Specter because the Imagination according to the iudgemēt of Themistius is no other thing but a motion of the soule which the sense being set in action doth create and engender And forasmuch as the sight is of all other senses the most excellent liuely and actiue therefore is it that the Imagination hath sometimes taken the name of a Specter or strange sight of a Phantosme of a visiō And the Fantasie also which is formed in the spirit or vnderstanding hath beene called by the name of light or rather of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commeth of the eyes and of the light without which nothing can bee seene or discerned So that the seuerall and speciall kindes of the Imagination are the Specter or strange sight the Phantosme the vision the fantasie which the Greekes seuerally cal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And first of all Suydas saith De placitis philosop ●ru●n Definition of a phantosme what it is That a Phantosme which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an imagination of thinges which are not indeede and doth proceede of the senses being corrupted which Plutarch also doth seeme to confirme Howbeit that some moderne Physitians doe goe further and doe confound a Specter and a Phantosme together taking both the one and the other for a false vision The which opinion for my part I cannot allow because in verie truth the Specter is that which our Ciuil Lawyers haue cald 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. ostentum D de verb. signiff Glossar and the Phantosme which commeth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a false imagination by which wee doe perswade our selues be it in sleeping or waking that some obiect doth present it selfe vnto vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mostellum Math. 14. Mark 6. The differēce betweene a Phantosme a Specter And albeit many Authors and namely the holy Scriptures do take a Phātosme for a Specter truly appearing vnto the sense not corrupted nor deceiued yet if we will soundly interpret them we must say that they must be vnderstoode to speake according to the vulgar and common opinion which doth confound the Specter and the Phantosme together or else that they regarded the propertie of Spirits the which do vse to take a fantastique or imaginatiue bodie to appeare vnto vs. And to shew yet further what difference there is betweene thē both Certaine it is that a Phantosme is a thing without life and without substance And the Specter hath a substance hidden and concealed which seemeth to moue the fantastique body the which it hath taken Moreouer the Phantosme being as it is a thing without life hath not any will whereas the Specter if it will doth appeare vnto vs if it will not it doth not appeare And as Saint Ambrose saith Huius naturae est non videri voluntatis videri Li I. in Lucam ca. I. de Angel apparit The nature thereof is not to be seene but the will of it is to be seene Of Visions and their generall kindes After the Phantosme and the Specter commeth the vision to be considered of which Saint Augustine maketh three sortes one which is done by the eyes of the body as that of the three men who appeared vnto Abraham Lib contra Adimantum Gen. 18. Exod. 3 Math. 17. Mar. 9. Luk. 9. and that of Moyses who saw the bush to burne and that also of the Apostles who saw Moyses and Elias when Christ was transfigured in the mountaine before them Another sort of visions is by Imagination which is done when our thought is rauished vnto heauen and wee see nothing by the exteriour senses but we imagine onely by some diuine and heauenly inspiration as was that of Saint Peter Acts. 10. when he was rauished in an extasie he saw all sortes of vncleane creatures and heard a voyce which bade him eate of that he saw The third sort may be said Intellectuall because it is done onely in the vnderstanding Daniel 5. as when Balthasar saw a hand writing vpon the wall To these three sortes of visions we may wel adde a fourth and fifth which happen in dreaming and do present themselues onely either in full sleepe or betweene sleeping and waking when wee neither sleepe nor wake which the Hebrewes call Thardema And first for that in our sleepe when one dreameth or seemeth to behold any thing which shall betide and happen in very deede according as was dreamed And thus doth Macrobius define a vision in his Commentarie vpon the dreame of Scipio where hee discourseth of all dreames in generall and he produceth these examples One dreameth saith he that his friend whome hee thinketh to be away in a farre countrie is returned and the next day he seeth him and findeth that his dreame falleth out to be true Or he dreameth that his friend hath left certaine money with him and the next day hee seeth his friend repaire vnto him accordingly to commit a sūme of money vnto his trust and fidelitie And as touching that which is betweene sleeping and waking which some call To bee in a traunse It is when partly in sleeping and partly with the bodily eyes waking one seeth any thing to appeare before him Such was that vision of the Domesticall or houshold gods of the Phrigians which Aeneas perceiued betweene sleeping and waking when hee was in Candye For after that Virgil had said a little before That those gods which Aeneas had saued and taken out of the middest of the fire at the burning of Troy had appeared to him sleeping hee addeth in the end Yet sure this was no sleepe nor dreame me thought their faces bright Their hayre wrapt vp in foldes I saw I knew them well by sight A colde sweate trickling down my limmes then did me sore affright All these sortes of visions haue their name amongst the Hebrewes The one they call The Daughter of the voyce another The cleere mirrour another The rauishment of kissing and the last as we said is called Thardema of al which we shall speake more amply in the Treatise of Angelles and especially of that vision of the Face which Moses only enioyed and which properly is not to be called a vision whatsoeuer the Rabbins do dreame thereof For the word of God in the holy scriptures doth plainly expresse That the vision of face to face Numb 12. ver 6. ● 8 is farre diuers and different from the other visions aboue specified For when Aaron murmured against Moses in that he did so manifestly

former But they will say perhaps that we see often in the Ayre Comets Fiery Flames and other Prodigies True this I will not deny but these things which they say are seene in the Ayre doe not take their originall neither of their Atomes nor of the Aire but are engēdred of the vapours dryed vp from the earth as it is well known by the writings of good Philosophers And the Ayre is susceptible capable of them by reason of some emptines in it which doth easily yeeld and giue place and receiueth that which is sent vnto it from below Besides it is very euident that such figures and Images as are seene in the Ayre haue not any life in them as haue the true Specters the which also the Epicures ought to shewe by good reasons to be carried to and fro and to moue themselues in the Ayre For if they had attributed motion and stirring vnto Specters and had proued that naturally without hauing any soule or life they might notwithstanding be seene wandring and running hither and thither in our forme or in any other and that they are not onely to bee seene in all partes of the ayre but in all other places whatsoeuer then this might haue stood them in great stead to haue impugned the Apparition of Specters supernaturally or against nature Moreouer if they will affirme that the transparent and thicke Ayre receiuing our figure by refraction doth moue it selfe as we doe and doth liue and change from place to place as we doe then must they also proue vnto vs that the same should be a Specter and not the Image of the obiect opposed thereunto the which vanisheth away as soone as the same doth absent it selfe from it Of the Apparition of Images formed in the Ayre by way of reflexion And seeing we are now in the Discourse of Images formed in a thicke Ayre It is to be vnderstood that their nature is to appeare either by the refraction of our owne naturall and proper forme or by reflexion As touching their appearance by refraction wee haue alreadie spoken sufficiently Of Images appearing in the Ayre by reflexion and how it is done But as concerning those which are by reflexion It is most certaine that their propertie is to appeare by another forme then ours namely of some lightsome bodie which groweth into the thicke and grosse Ayre in the humid and moist concretion of the same or into the Glasse of a mirrour making a reflexion of that thing which is reuerberated and beaten backe againe into our sight Thus by way of reflexion may a man see within a looking Glasse those men which are walking and marching in the streetes And sometimes a man shall thinke that men are walking neere the wals of his chamber which notwithstanding is nothing so but that onely there is a reflexion of those persons whō we see aloofe walking and going vp and downe So likewise by way of reflexion may a man see in the heauens sometimes a second Sunne the Image of the true Sunne and so likewise of the Rainbowe Howbeit that this latter as Aristotle would haue it is not any reflexion but a relation of the Aspect vnto our eye-sight But vnder his correction that is not so For if the Rainebowe in the heauens doe not yeeld a reflexion to our sight it would not be seene in the water or in a looking Glasse as it is and as dayly experience sheweth vs. And this also may serue for a solution to that Argument of the Epicures who by comparison of the clothes of Tapistrie that imprint their colours in the wall opposed would proue that the Ayre may al●o cast any forme or Image of it selfe For the coloures of the Raine-bowe and of Tapistry Hangings are for the most part liuely coloures as Azure or skye colour red carnation and greene all which doe naturally cast a great luster which may easily yeeld an impression vpō any solid thing may reflect vnto our eyes And yet neuerthelesse I see not how this can be a good argument to shew that the Ayre can engender formes or figures which may referre themselues to the eyes as Specters and not rather as colours Answer to the 4. argument of the Epicures Last of all touching that which the Epicures affirme how of the bodies of things doe issue and remaine certaine Spoyles The same hath not any foundation vppon naturall reason or vpon any apparance of truth For is there any likelyhoode or probabilitie that if the creatures doe leaue behinde them their after burthens or other such spoyles bereaued from them in the places where they haue bene That therefore the bodies be they dead or be they aliue doe leaue an Image or impression of themselues in their absence after they are departed from those places It is most certaine that the bodies of any creatures haue not any thing in them which either in their life time or after that their substance is perished can be abstracted or separated from them For otherwise of one body there should bee two made which were a straunge thing and altogether abhorring from nature And were not much different either from the Fables of the Poets who of a dead bodie made the abstraction of a shadowe In lib. 4. Eneid In his Dialogues of the dead where he bringeth in Diogenes and Hercules speaking which they called the Image and I doll thereof as is affirmed both by Sergius and Lucian and the Commentator vpon Homer or else from those fabulous and idle dreames of the Rabbins and Talmudistes which had their Nephes as saith the Author of Zoar. But the truth is that those creatures which do vse to cast their spoyles from them do leaue no other then a thinne slēder skinne I had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being superfluous is no more remaining or abiding with the bodie Howbeit that it commeth from the bodie as appeareth both by the after-burthens of all creatures wherein the young ones beeing wrapped and enfolded in the bellies of their dams yet in comming from thence doe easily and naturally cast them off as also by the spoyles of the Serpent or Snake and by the skinnes of the Silke-wormes and the Caterpillers the which superfluities are drawn and cast off particularly from these beastes or creatures as a marke to the one to wit the Silke-wormes and Caterpillers that they doe chaunge from their former state and to the other namely the Serpents to shew the poisons and ill hearbes and seedes which they haue eaten all the Winter according as Virgil writeth of them Lib. 2. Eneid The opinion and Argument of the Epicures touching the cause why mē do conceiue feare at the sight of strāge formes and figures These Arguments being thus finished let vs now come to that which the Epicures affirme to bee the cause why any should bee touched and attainted with feare when they see such Images and figures which they affirme naturally to flit and flie