SOUL. 



of God and providence from the Perfian Zoroaller, con- 

 ceived God to be the foul of the world, a rational and in- 

 telleaual light, from which all good is derived, and the 

 chief feat of whofe divinity is the fun. Their notion of di- 

 vine providence, deduced from that of the foul of the world, 

 probably extended no farther than that this principle is 

 necelTarily the firft fpring of all motion, life, and enjoyment ; 

 and fell far (hort of that wife and gracious voluntary fuper- 

 intendance, which is the Chriftian idea of Providence. 



Others have given particular fouls to all the heavenly 

 bodies, the fun, liars, earth, &c. to regulate their motions. 

 The philofophers, many of them, allow of two, and others 

 of three, kinds of fouls ; -viz. a 



Soul, Rational, %vhich they hold to he divine, and l!i- 

 fufed by the breath of God. This they call the fpirit, and 

 in this they fuppofe the intelleft and will to be feated. 



Soul, Senfiti-vi, or Irrational, which man has in common 

 with brutes ; which is formed out of the elements, and in 

 which they apprehend the paffions and appetites are feated. 



Soul, Vegetative, which we have in common with plants ; 

 and, as the firft is the principle of rcafon and underftanding, 

 or that in us which thinks and underilands ; and the fecond, 

 the principle of life ; this is the principle of growth, nutri- 

 tion, and vegetation. 



The firft ancient philofopher who taught the immor- 

 tality of the foul, is faid to have been Pherecydes. ( See 

 his article. ) The human mind, according to the doftrine 

 of the ancient Indians (fee Brachmans), is of celeftial 

 origin, and has a near relation to God. When it departs 

 from the body, it returns to its parent, who expefts to re- 

 ceive back the fouls which he has fent forth. The human 

 foul they reprefented as of divine original, becaufe, with 

 all the other eattern nations, they conceived it to be a par- 

 ticle, or an emanation, of that intelleftual fire, by which 

 they believed the univerfe to be animated. Their doftrine 

 of the return of the foul to God, which fome have con- 

 founded with the Chriftian doftrine of the refurreftion, 

 feems to have meant nothing more than that the foul, after 

 being difengagcd from the grofler material body, would be 

 reunited to the fountain of all being, the foul of the world. 

 For the opinion of the Egyptians concernir.j the human 

 foul, we refer to the article Egypt, 



Among the northern nations it was a generally received 

 opinion, that the iiuman foul was of divine original, rational 

 and immortal. That this was the univerfal doftrine of the 

 Celts, whether Gauls, Britons, Germans, or other nations, 

 is unanimoully attefted by the Greek and Roman v.-riters, 

 and by the remains of northern antiquities. Cxfar in- 

 forms us (Bell. Gall. lib. vi. c. 14.), that the firft doc- 

 trine of the Gallic Druids was, that the foul of man is im- 

 mortal ; and Pomponius Mela (lib. iii. c. 2.) fays, that 

 one of their doftrines, which was divulged among the 

 people in order to infpire them with martial courage, was, 

 that the foul is immortal. This account is confirmed 

 by Valerius Maximus (1. ii. c. 6.), Strabo (1. iv. ), and 

 other hiftorians. And tlie fables every vifhere received 

 among the Celts concerning a future ftate, leave no room 

 to doubt, that the doftrine of the immortality of the foul 

 was generally received among them. 



« Without or breath, or reafoning pow'rs, or fpeech. 

 Or vital blood, or the fair human face, 

 Alkus and Emla lay : till Odin bade 

 Them live, Haer.erus kindled in their breaft 

 The lamp of mind, and Laedur through their veins 

 Pour'd forth the purple Itream ; thus man arofe. 

 Graceful in youth, an animated form." 



The hiftory of all the northern nations abounds with 

 fafts, which prove that their contempt of death originated 

 from an expeftation of immortality. It does not, however, 

 certainly appear, what kind of immortality thefe nations 

 cxpefted. According to Caelar (1. ii. c. 6.) and Diodorus 

 Siculus (I. i.), they thought, that the foul at death paflej 

 from one body to another. This doftrine of tranfmi- 

 gration is alfo afcribed to them by Lucan (Pharf. 1, i, , 

 v. 454.) 



" If dying mortals doom they fing aright, 



No ghofts defcend to dwell in dreadful night ; 



No parting fouls to grifly Pluto go. 



Nor feek the dreary lllcnt fhades below : 



But forth they fly, immortal in their kind. 



And other bodies in new worlds they find : 



Thus life for ever runs its endlefs race. 



And, like a line, death but divides the fpace." Rowe, 



On the contrary, Pomponius Mela reprefents the Celts 

 as expefting to pafs, after death, into the invifible world. 

 And this notion beft agrees with the accounts, which are 

 given by various writers, of the funeral ceremonies prac- 

 tifed in the northern nations, particularly that of commit- 

 ting to the funeral pile, or to the fepulchre, whatever had 

 been dear to the deceafed. It is alfo moft confonant to 

 the language of the ancient Edda, which every where re- 

 prefents the future life, as an allembly of good or bad 

 men, in a ilate of reward or punifhmept, and only fpeaks of 

 a return to life for the purpofe of reuniting the foul and 

 body, after the foul has pafled through a necefiary courfe 

 of purification, previoufly to its admiffion into the regions 

 of the happy. From this ftate of purgation none were to 

 be excufed, except thofe who had voluntaiily expofed them- 

 felves to death in battle : and hence it was, that they who 

 fell in war were deemed to have made a glorious and happy 

 exit from life, whilft they who died by ilcknefs were thought 

 to have periftied fhamefully and wretchedly. See Celts 

 and Daums. 



Of the opinion of Socrates concerning the human foul, 

 we liave already given an account under the article 

 Socrates. For Plato's opinion, fee Pl.^tonism. For 

 an account of the Ariftoteban doftrine on this fubjeft, fee 

 Aristotle. Strabo taught that the feat of the foul is in 

 the middle of the brain ; and that it only afts by means of 

 the fenfes. (See Strabo.) Dicearchus, of whom Cicero 

 fpeaks as a learned and eloquent writer, maintained, that 

 there is no fuch thing as mind, or foul, either in man or 

 beaft ; that the principle, by which animals perceive and aft, 

 is equally diffufcd through the body, is infeparable from it, 

 and expires with it. For the opinion of the Stoics, fee 

 Stoics. For the opinion of Pythagoras and his followers, 

 fee Pythagoreans. See alfo Empedocles, Democri- 

 tus, and Heraclitism. 



The Epicureans took the fubftance of the foul, we mean 

 of the rational foul, to be a fubtile air, compofed of their 

 atoms, or primitive corpufcles. See Epicureans. 



The tenets of the modern Platonifts with regard to the 

 foul of man, may be found in the writings of Plotinus, 

 Jambhchus, and Porphyry, who may be reckoned among 

 the principal perfons that belonged to the Ecleftic feft. 

 Plotinus taught, that the firft principle of the univerfe, 

 which is diftinft from the univerfe, is the caufe of intellec- 

 tual life and the fource of eflence and being, fimple in its 

 own nature, and having no place, and deftitute both of 

 motion and reft ; infinite and unlimited, eftentially good, 

 and fair and beautiful, the author of all that is lovely, the . 

 beginning and end of beauty. From this firft principle 



proceeds 



