Henry CambridgePlatonistsMaterialism 1986

A Cambridge Platonist's Materialism: Henry More and the Concept of Soul
Author(s): John Henry

Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , 1986, Vol. 49 (1986), pp. 172-
195
Published by: The Warburg Institute
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/751295
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/751295?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
This content downloaded from

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A CAMBRIDGE PLATONIST'S MATERIALISM
HENRY MORE AND THE CONCEPT OF SOUL
John Henry
Hylobares: Is it not infinitely incredible, Philotheus, if not impossible, that some thousands of
Spirits may dance or march on a Needle's point at once?
Cuphophron: I, and that booted and spurred too.

[Henry More, Divine Dialogues, London 1668, p. 90o]
ATHEISM WAS greatly on the increase in the seventeenth century - or so many devout
contemporaries believed.1 This supposed challenge to attempts to establish the
principles of the true faith stimulated that proliferation of exegetical studies which
is now regarded as a characteristic of post-Reformation scholarship. However, it was
immediately recognized that no amount ofhermeneutics would persuade the out-and-out
atheist. So an alternative strategy was developed in order to prove the existence of God,
the immortality of the soul and other principles of faith on 'natural' grounds. Perhaps the
most familiar form of this natural theology can be seen in the attempts to prove the
existence of God by vast and detailed elaborations of the cosmological argument or the
argument from design.2 But there was also a major philosophical effort to prove the
immortality of the soul and the reality of life after death on purely rational or common-
sense grounds, in order to persuade or remind the atheist - who was regarded as
thoroughly antisocial - that he must face a future reckoning for his present misdeeds.
One of the most important philosophical theologians engaged in this effort was the
Cambridge Platonist, Henry More (1614-87). In the early part of his career (from 1642 to
1659), More published a series of philosophical works intended to combat atheism on a
number of different fronts. It is easy to see, however, that the nature of the human soul
engaged most of his attention; from The Platonicall Song of the Soul of 1642 to The Immortality
1 For discussions of this problem see F. Brie, 'Deismus idem, 'The Problem of Atheism in Early Modern
und Atheismus in der englischen Renaissance', Anglia: England', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th
Zeitschrift fir englische Philologie, N.S. xxxvI, 1924, series, xxxv, I985; and C. Bianca, 'Per la storia del
pp. 54-98; P. H. Kocher, Christopher Marlowe: A Study of termine "atheus" nel Cinquecento: fonti e traduzioni
his Thought, Learning and Character, Chapel Hill 1946; greco-latine', Studifilosofici, in, 1980, pp. 71-i o4. On the
R. Pintard, Le libertinage erudit dans la premikre moiti du xvii popular awareness of the cultural relativity of religious
siicle, Paris 1943; E. A. Strathmann, Sir Walter Ralegh: A belief see, for example, Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and
Study in Elizabethan Scepticism, New York I95I; D.C. the Worms: the Cosmos of a sixteenth-century Miller, London
Allen, Doubt's Boundless Sea: Skepticism and Faith in the and Henley I980, pp. 41-51.
Renaissance, Baltimore 1964; L. Febvre, The Problem of 2 Among the earliest in English are Walter Charleton,
Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais, The Darknes of Atheism dispelled by the Light of Reason. A
Harvard I1982; David Wooton, Paolo Sarpi: Between Physico-Theological Treatise, London I652; and Henry
Renaissance and Enlightenment, Cambridge 1983; More, An Antidote against Atheism; or, an Appeal to the
G. E. Aylmer, 'Unbelief in seventeenth-century Eng- Natural Faculties of the Mind of Man, whether there be not a
land', in D. Pennington and K. Thomas (eds.), Puritans God, London i653. For a historical analysis see
and Revolutionaries, Oxford 1978, pp. 22-46; M. Hunter, R. S. Westfall, Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century
'Science and Heterodoxy: An Early Modern Problem England, New Haven 1958; or C.E. Raven, English
Reconsidered', in D.C. Lindberg and R. S.Westman Naturalists from Neckham to Ray: a Study of the Making of the
(eds.), Reappraisals ofthe Scientific Revolution, forthcoming;
Modern World, Cambridge I947.
172
Journal ofthe Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Volume 49, 1986

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
HENRY MORE'S MATERIALISM 173
of the Soul in 1659 More developed a detailed and original
Immortality of the Soul has recently been described as the culm
cal programme'.3 Henry More believed that Plato's philosop
effectual Engine to fetch up a man's mind to true virtue and
that is extant in the World', and that the mechanical philosop
assistance to Religion that Reason and the Knowledge of N
ingly, More's philosophical programme was presented in a
blend of Platonism and Cartesianism. This being so, it is in
take, explicitly or overtly, a dualist approach to the notions of
is categorically distinct from the other.s Nevertheless, a close r
reveals a number of confusions and inconsistencies which bede
vigorously dualistic rhetoric. As D. P. Walker has recently sho
nature of the soul were contaminated by more materialistic vie
to be identified with 'animal spirits', the subtle fluid sup
ventricles of the brain and distributed to sense organs and mu
system.6
Apart from Walker, no modern commentator has noticed this quasi-materialistic trait
in More's Platonism although at least one contemporary theologian noticed it. Walker's
3The Song of the Soul may be consulted in Alexander Tours 1984, pp. 287-300; the same essay appears as
B. Grosart (ed.), The Complete Poems of Dr. Henry More 'Medical Spirits and God and the Soul', in M. Fattori
(1614-1687), Edinburgh I1878. Henry More, The Immor- and M. Bianchi (eds), Spiritus (IVo Colloquio interna-
tality of the Soul, so farre forth as it is Demonstrable from the zionale del Lessico Intellettuale Europeo), Rome I1984,
Knowledge ofNature and the Light ofReason, London I659. PP. 233-44. Walker does not attempt a systematic study
See Alan Gabbey, 'Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata: of influences on More's ideas but refers in passing to
Henry More (I646-I671)', in T.M. Lennon, Neoplatonic, Cartesian and Paracelsian influences as
J. M. Nicholas, J. W. Davis (eds.), Problems of Cartesian-
well as Virgil, Origen and Hermes Trismegistus. A full
study of the sources of More's views would be a vast
ism, Kingston and Montreal 1982, pp. 171-250, p. 222.
After I659 More turned for a while to theological undertaking. Even a fairly superficial examination of his
writing. He produced a collected edition of his writings on the soul reveals More responding to St.
philosophical writings in I662 and then returned to Paul, Pletho (interpreting the Greek Fathers),
philosophical themes in his Divine Dialogues, LondonPythagoras, Philo, Plotinus, Aristotle, 'the Per-
I668 (but Gabbey, op. cit. above, p. 232 tells us this was ipateticks', the Cabbalists and the Theologia germanica,
written about I666), and his Enchiridion metaphysicum, Ficino, Boehme, Edmund Spenser, Joseph Mede and
London I671. Benjamin Whichcote, to say nothing of Jean Fernel,
4Alazonomastix Philalethes [i.e. Henry More], The William Harvey, J.B. van Helmont and Henricus
Second Lash ofAlazonomastix: Concerning a Solid and Serious Regius. For a consideration of some of these influences
Reply to a very uncivill Answer to certain Observations upon see Geoffrey Bullough's introduction in his edition of
Anthroposophia Theomagica, and Anima Magica Abscondita, Philosophical Poems ofHenry More, comprising Psychozoia
Cambridge I65I, p. 36; and Henry More, The Immor- and minor poems, Manchester 193 1, pp. xmII-xxxIv; Paolo
tality of the Soul. I have used the edition included in A Cristofolini, Cartesiani e sociniani: studio su Henry More,
Collection of Several Philosophical Writings, London 1662, Urbino 1974; C. A. Staudenbaur, 'Galileo, Ficino, and
henceforward cited as Immortality. This quotation is at Henry More's Psychathanasia', Journal of the History of
p. 13. For the influence of Descartes on More see Ideas, xxIx, 1968, pp. 565-78; and J. Henry, 'Medicine
Gabbey, op. cit. n. 3 above. and Pneumatology: Henry More, Richard Baxter and
s Plato deals with the soul in a number of his dialogues Francis Glisson's Treatise on the Energetic Nature of
but the major source is the Phaedo. For Descartes's Substance', Medical History, xxxI, 1987. The literature on
categorical distinction between body and soul see his pneumatology which might be consulted is vast, but
Meditations on First Philosophy: Wherein are demonstrated the consider E. Rhode, Psyche.: the Cult of Souls and Belief in
Existence of God and the Distinction ofSoulfrom Body (1641). Immortality among the Greeks, trans. W. B. Hillis, London
There is, unfortunately, no history of dualist philosophy I925; G. Verbeke, L'evolution de la doctrine du pneuma du
but for a recent discussion see Sylvana Tomaselli, 'The stoicisme ai S. Augustin, Paris and Louvain 1945; M. Put-
First Person, Descartes, Locke and Mind-Body Dual- scher, Pneuma, Spiritus, Geist, Vorstellungen vom Lebensan-
ism', History ofScience, xxIi, 1984, pp. i85-205. treib in ihnen geschichtlichen Wandlungen, Wiesbaden 1973;
6D. P. Walker, 'Medical Spirits in Philosophy and the collection ed. Fattori and Bianchi cited above; and
Theology from Ficino to Newton', in Arts du spectacle et D.J. O'Meara (ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought,
histoire des idies. Recueil offert en hommage it Jean Jacquot, Albany N.Y. 1982.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
174 JOHN HENRY
discussion is only brief since it is inclu
adopted by a number of thinkers who w
nature ofspiritus in medical and Renaiss
I am not attempting to prove that Mo
sense. It would be foolish to deny that
so regarded by many of his contemp
phenomena such as consciousness and
motion. Rather I use the term 'material
English Dictionary, 197 I: 'Applied in re
the future life) that are supposed to imp
spiritual'. That More's theology is ind
sense is evident from his sensualist visio
the nature of spirits smacks very strong
so that More seems to be suggesting th
first part of this paper, therefore, pres
spirit in order to show the philosophica
this is not to score points off More by d
intellectual inadequacies. Whatever th
day More was a force to be reckoned
theology was commended by Samuel J
which More was trying to solve, I belie
deviate from the canons of what w
D. P. Walker has already noted that so
for the tidiness and coherence of his sy
beyond acknowledging the intractab
interaction.9 This philosophical intrac
More embraced such contradictory elem
sufficient clues as to the particular ene
defeat. With the help of these we can d
those intentions compromised and eve
pneumatology. In doing so we may appr
of More's thought and the influence of
HENRY MORE'S PNEUMATOLOGY
Remarkable though it may seem, the 'angel of Christ's' (as More was known to
students) more than any other single thinker, was responsible for the introduction
ismFicino
7D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from is worthy of Hobbes himself', but she regards this
to Campanella, London 1958; idem, 'The Astral only
Bodyasina fleeting aberration. L. Mulligan, '"Reason",
Renaissance Medicine', this Journal, xxI, 1958, "Right Reason", and "Revelation" in mid-seventeenth-
century England', in B. Vickers (ed.), Occult and Scientific
pp. II9-33; idem, 'Francis Bacon and Spiritus', in
A.G. Debus (ed.), Science, Medicine and Society in the Mentalities in the Renaissance, Cambridge 1984,
Renaissance, n, New York r972, pp. 121-30; and the pp. 375-401 (p. 39I).
articles cited in n. 6, all of which may now be consulted 8James Boswell, Life ofjohnson, Oxford 1980, p. 471.
in D.P. Walker, Music, Spirit and Language in the 9 Walker, 'Medical Spirits in Philosophy', n. 6 above,
Renaissance, London I985. Lotte Mulligan has observed p. 294.
about More's materialistic tendencies: 'Such material-

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
popularization of Cartesian mechanical philosophy in England.1o Lavish i
Descartes, More insisted that 'This man certainly is the very Miracle of
'all that have attempted anything in natural Philosophy hitherto are mere s
fumblers in comparison of him'.11 Conveniently, More made the reasons fo
tion with Cartesianism perfectly clear:
that which enravishes me most is, that we both setting out from the same lists, t
several wayes, the one travailing in the lower rode of Democritisme, amidst the thic
and flying particles of Matter, the other tracing it over the high and aiery Hills o
that more thin and subtil Region of Immateriality, meet together notwithstanding
certainly not without a Providence) at the same Goale, namely at the entrance of t
More believed that Descartes's philosophy was 'the best assistance to R

Platonism because students of Descartes's writings would 'be thoroughly exe
just extent of the Mechanical powers of Matter, how farre they will reach, an
fall short'.13 Those phenomena which could not be 'resolved into mere
powers' enabled More to insist upon the existence of the supernatural agenc
spirit.14
More's argument for the existence of incorporeal spirits relies upon the Cartesian
assumption that all matter is totally passive and inert. From this standpoint he con-
tended:
if matter be utterly devoid of motion in it self, it is plain it has its motion from some other Substance,
which is necessarily a Substance that is not Matter, that is to say, a Substance Incorporeal.1s
The crucial aspect of this distinction between matter and spirit, then, is that spirits are
active and have the 'power of Penetrating, Moving and Altering the Matter'. It is by these
active powers that spirit is 'plainly distinguished from a Body' which 'is not Self-
moveable'.,6
the However,
same process More
of giving does arrive
'opposite at two
attributes' to further
'opposite characteristics
species': of spirit through
consequently that Matter being discerpible, a Spirit ought to be indiscerpible, and Body being
Impenetrable, according to the common Tenent of Philosophers, Spirits should be Penetrable.
And lastly, Matter being dead, and passive, Spirit should be the source of life and activity.7
The whole thrust of More's natural philosophy depends on this strict categorical
dichotomy. As long as he can persuade his readers of the truth of this then he can easily
10o S. P. Lamprecht, 'The Role of Descartes infrom and distortion of Descartes's ideas will be
Seventeenth-Century England', Studies in the History of
discussed later but see also Gabbey, op. cit. n. 3 above
Ideas, Ini, i935, PP. i81-240; Marjorie Nicolson, 'The 1s More, Immortality, p. 44; see also p. 48.
Early Stage of Cartesianism in England', Studies in 16 More, Antidote against Atheism (in Collection, n.
Philology, xxvI, 1929, PP. 356-74; Charles Webster, above), pp. 15-16. For earlier discussions of the role o
'Henry More and Descartes: Some New Sources', British spirit in More's philosophy see E.A. Burtt, The
Journal for the History of Science, Iv, I969, pp. 359-77; Metaphysical
and Foundations of Modern Physical Science,
Gabbey, op. cit. n. 3 above. London 1932, pp. I27-44; and A. Koyri, From the Close
" Letter from More to Samuel Hartlib, late I648.
World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore 1957, pp. I o-54
Quoted from C. Webster, op. cit. n. Io above, p. 365. 17 Henry More, 'A Letter to a Learned Psychopyrist
12 Henry More, Collection, n. 4 above, 'The Prefacein Joseph Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus: Or, full and
General', p. xi. plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions..., 2n
a13 More, Immortality, p. 13. edn, London I682, p. 1I99. More saw this edition
14 More, Immortality, p. 193. In view of More's
through the press and added some short pieces of h
deliberately didactic use of Cartesian philosophy itown.
is I have used the facsimile of the 1689 edition, ed
Coleman O. Parsons, Gainesville 1966.
not surprising that More's version of it is very different
from Descartes's own. Some aspects of More's deviation

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
176 JOHN HENRY
refute the strict mechanistic materialism of Thomas Hobbes or those atheistic Cartesians
who ignore the religious aspects of Descartes's system.18 The only real threat to this
philosophical programme of More's, as he was quick to realise, would be a theory of self-
active matter. So after I670, when Spinoza's hylotheistic system began to be known, and
after the appearance in 1672 of a major philosophical work devoted to expounding 'the
energetic nature of substance' by the Regius Professor of Physick at Cambridge, Francis
Glisson (1597-1677), More had to renew his efforts to defend his dualist system.19
Throughout his philosophical career, therefore, from the I64os to the I68os More was
always concerned to avoid the attribution of activity to matter and the attribution of
materiality to spirit.
Such were More's intentions and such were his rhetorical pronouncements. However,
when we examine the details of More's system of nature we can see More being
ineluctably drawn towards a materialist concept of spirit. The rot sets in as a result of
More's Neoplatonist conviction that real existence is nonsensical except for extended
entities:
it being the very essence of whatever is, to have parts of extension in some manner or other.
take away all extension, is to reduce a thing only to a Mathematical point, which is nothing e
pure negation or non-entity; and there being no medium betwixt entity and non-entity, it is
that if a thing be at all, it must be extended.20
More does not hesitate to extend this argument to include even God:
I believe it to be clear that God is extended in His manner just because He is omniprese
occupies intimately the whole machine of the world, as well as its singular particles.
Significantly, More adds a further argument for God's extension by appeal to a hig
physicalist notion of God's action on the world:
How indeed could He communicate motion to matter, . . . if He did not touch the matter of
universe in practically the closest manner, or at least had not touched it at a certain time?
certainly He would never be able to do if He were not present everywhere and did not occupy
spaces. God, therefore, extends and expands in this manner; and is, therefore, an extended th
Similarly, the 'Spirit of Nature', a universal hylarchic principle, which More inv
like the Neoplatonic anima mundi, to activate and move matter, is incorporea
18 Much of The Immortality of the Soul is explicitly

W. Schmidt-Biggemann (eds), Spinoza in der Friihzeit
directed against Thomas Hobbes. For a general seiner
surveyreligiosen Wirkung, Heidelberg 1984, pp. 181-200.
of the reaction to Hobbes's materialism see S. I.On More's response to Francis Glisson see Henry,
Mintz,
op. to
The Hunting ofLeviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reactions cit.the
n. 6 above.
Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, 20 More, Immortality, p. 3. For the Neoplatonic pro-
Cambridge 1970. On More's gradual realisation venance
thatof such ideas see John Henry, 'Francesco
Patrizi da Cherso's Concept of Space and its Later
Cartesianism was adopted by atheists see Gabbey,
op. cit. n. 3 above, and More, Collection, p. xx. Influence', Annals of Science, xxxvI, 1979, PP. 549-75. It
has,Light
19 On More's response to Spinoza see R. Colie, alternatively, been regarded as a Stoic tradition:
Edward
and Enlightenment: A Study of the Cambridge Platonists Grant, Much Ado about Nothing. Theories of Space
and the
Dutch Arminians, Cambridge i957; idem, 'Spinoza in from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution,
and Vacuum
England, 1665-1730', Proceedings of the AmericanCambridge
Philo- 1981, pp. 199-228.
21 This is taken from More's first letter to Descartes
sophical Society, cvI, 1963, pp. 183-219; idem, 'Spinoza
(1648), see
and the Early English Deists', Journal of the History ofMore, Epistolae quatuor (in Collection), p. 62. I
Ideas, xx, 1959, pp. 23-46; and Sarah Hutton,have taken the translation from Koyri, op. cit. n. 16
'Reason
and Revelation in the Cambridge Platonists, and above, p. III.
their
Reception of Spinoza', in K. Griinder and

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
extended.22 And, last but not least, the immortal soul pervades the whole body in o
carry out its functions. Moreover, in spite of being indiscerpible, we are told that
the soul 'resides in the muscles', that the 'most prescious' part of the soul, 'her Ce
Perception', is 'confined to the Fourth Ventricle of the Brain', and, thus, there is 'a
Heterogeneity in the Soul'.23
Another important attribute of spirits or souls which More insists upon is the
power to dilate or contract. More calls this 'fourth mode' of spirit (the first three b
dimensions of space) 'essential spissitude' and in so doing is borrowing a term whic
formerly been used to refer to matter. Indeed, the spissitude or density of matter w
current term when More wrote, as can be seen, conveniently, from the fact that
himself, even in The Immortality of the Soul, talks of the spissitude of air.24
More's insistence upon the extension and spissitude of spirit may seem unprobl
to a modern reader, but our post-Newtonian perspective has accustomed us to the
matter and space being ontologically distinct categories. We have no difficu
imagining empty space and little difficulty in imagining a distinction betwee
occupied only by an immaterial entity and space filled with matter.25 For many o
contemporaries, however, extension and matter were almost universally acc
being entirely congruent concepts. If it is matter it is extended and if it is extend
matter. The major source of this pervasive notion in More's day was, of course, Ar
and its unshakeable hold is most clearly revealed by Descartes's total endorsement
idea. Even with his avowed intention to reject all previous learning and to estab
first principles of his philosophy only when they seemed self-evident, Descar
cluded, as had Aristotle, that matter was simply res extensa. For Descartes God and
were res cogitantes and were non-spatial entities by virtue of their categorical dis
from res extensae.26 Thus to his contemporaries More's views on extended souls en
with spissitude would have seemed downright materialistic.27 In the Enchiridion me
cum of 167 I More accused Cartesians and Hobbists of being
22 The Spirit of Nature is invoked by More as a vital
says, 'we must not forget that for a man of the
but imperceptive and unintelligent principleseventeenth
which is century the idea of an extended, though not
'the vicarious power of God'. He introduces itmaterial,
to avoid entity, was by no means something strange or
unfortunate consequences to theology if it waseven uncommon', p. 130. His major example, of an
assumed
that God must 'bear a part amongst Pimps and Bawds,incorporeal light does not support his case
extended
and pocky whores and Whoremasters, to rise out of his
(p. 131). In fact light was regarded either as a corporeal
Seat for them, and by a free Act of Creation ofsubstance
a Soul, or
to no substance at all but an accident.
set his Seal of Connivance to their Villanies ...' This
Descartes and More argued over the issue of extended
appears in More's annotations to [Joseph Glanvill and
incorporeals in their brief correspondence (i648-49).
Alan
George Rust], Two Choice and Useful Treatises: the one Gabbey is preparing a critical edition of this
Lux
correspondence
Orientalis or an Enquiry... concerning the Praeexistence of but in the meantime see Gabbey,
Souls... The other, A Discourse of Truth, ... op.
with
cit. n. 3 above, and Koyri, op. cit. n. 16 above,
Annotations on them both, London I682, p. 9; see also
PP. p. 15
125-54.
(the Annotations are separately paginated). Similarly thecourse there were exceptions. More was not the
27 Of
Spirit of Nature can be invoked to account only
for thinker trying to adjust the philosophical concept
miscarriages, monstrous births and the like:ofMore,
space. Franceso Patrizi, Pierre Gassendi and Walter
Immortality, p. o102. Charleton had already gone a long way down the road
23More, Immortality, pp. 102, Io8, 109, 151-52. More was following. Nevertheless it remains true that
24 More, Immortality, p. 131. The illustrations of for most thinkers extension implied and entailed
the use
of 'spissitude' in the O.E.D. are all concerned with
materiality. It required strenuous intellectual efforts by
matter except for a quotation from More. a number of leading philosophers to overcome this
25I speak presumptively. For myself, I do find it
philosophical prejudice and to enable Isaac Newton to
difficult to imagine space filled with an immaterial
establish his own prejudice, absolute space. See Henry,
entity. op. cit. n. 2o above; Grant, op. cit. n. 2o above; and
26 Regrettably, Alexandre KoyrC, op. cit. n. 16 above, Koyri, op. cit. n. 16 above.
gets this wrong when, in defence of More's views, he

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
178 JOHN HENRY
so illaqueated or lime-twigged, as it were, w
they cannot but infect those things also wh
Tincture and Contagion. .28
However, it looks rather as though Mor

faults. Consider also his definition of
without corporeal dimensions, but no
dilatable and contractible'. The seve
amplitude of dilation and contractio
dimensions'. Such a reader, therefore, w
confusing and could hardly credit his c
apprehension of these [spiritual] thin
corporeal thing in the world'.29
Henry More was undoubtedly aware
strenuous efforts to clarifying his v
attempts to divert his contemporaries a
of extension with matter, and philo
profound influence on Isaac Newton; and
mathematica (1687), were transmitted to
Nevertheless More's own philosophy, a
ated with materialistic ways of thinking
theory of space which, as far as I know,
in the Enchiridion metaphysicum to esta
because More regarded empty spac
exemplar of spirit. Indeed, his claim tha
correspondence with the attributes of
attributes of empty space, however, Mo
exemplar of spirit (the active principle
that it is totally noninteractive.31
There are further examples of conf
consider. The reader may already hav
omnipresent extended God who can a
ubiquitous 'Spirit of Nature' which info
their motions.32 Similarly, when disc
28More, Enchiridion, n. 3pp.
above, above. I have
147-54; used
Baker, op
English translation of Burtt,
the last op.
twocit. n. I6 which
chapters abov
op.cit.
reprinted in Glanvill, op. cit.
n.n.1720 above,
above, pp. the
under 22
attributes
The Easie, True and Genuine of God
Notion, and and shown
consistent Expl
of the Nature of a the attributes
Spirit.. of space (as
., p. I34; hereafter ci
More, True Notion ofa that space
Spirit. 'is in truth a cert
29Alazonomastix incorporeal
Philalethes or aMore],
[Henry real spiri
op.
n. 4 above, p. 176. equated entirely with God
30For the influence from
of More
his on Newton
life see Bu
and activitie
op. cit. n. i6 space
above; being
Koyri, distinguished
op. cit. n. i6 fr
ab
J.T.Baker, An Historical and of
grounds Critical Examinati
its inactivity. En
English above), ch.
Space and Time Theories from8, Henry
part 15,
Morep. to
74.B
Berkeley, Bronxville, quotations
N.Y. 1930; from
and J. E. McGuir
Burtt, op. c
32See above
Martin Tamny (eds), Certain at notes
Philosophical 21I
Ques
Newton's Trinity Notebook, Cambridge
Immortality, 1983,
p. 193. PP. 58
31 For discussions of the role of space as exempl
spirit in Enchiridion metaphysicum see Koyrt, op. cit.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
the immortal soul duplicate many of the functions of the animal spirits. Th
spirits, furthermore, are equated with 'that Fire which Trismegist affirms, is th
inward vehicle of the Mind' and this in turn is equated with the anima mundi or
Nature. This accumulation of different kinds of'spirit' - some immaterial, some
- serving to perform the same functions has been described by Walker as 'a
corporealized version ofa Neoplatonic hierarchy of emanations'. Walker further o
that 'the unnecessary proliferation of cosmological principles', which is co
Neoplatonic thought, 'becomes much cruder and more obvious when they are
and literally overlap'.33
Neoplatonic emanationist cosmogonies always bear a materialistic stamp be
natural world is held to consist of a series of increasingly crass and crude emanati
the Godhead - starting with light and descending through aether, fire and air d
the densest forms of matter. Light was sometimes held to be purely incorp
because of its extension in space it was more ausually regarded as the thinnest and
form of matter.34 Certainly More regarded light as a material body but th
prevent him from using it as an analogue (or 'Hieroglyphick') for his immaterial
Suppose a point of light from which rays out a luminous Orb according to the known p
Opticks: this Orb of light does very much resemble the nature of a Spirit, which is diff
extended, and yet indivisible.
It is indivisible because one luminous ray cannot be separated from the rest
Engine or Art whatsoever'.35 Similarly 'the parts of a Spirit can be no more
though they be dilated, than you can cut off the Rayes of the Sun by a pair of Sci
of pellucid Crystall'.36
If we bear in mind the fact that it was a corollary ofemanationist cosmogonie
bodies contained 'invisible light' or 'invisible fire' within them, then we can see
is a high degree of congruence between More's Spirit of Nature and the self-acti
Neoplatonist 'light metaphysics'.37 Just as matter was regarded, in this N
tradition, as debased and concreted light, so we find More suggesting that 'S
33Walker, 'Medical Spirits' (n. 6 above), p.295; see

E.E. Maechling, 'Light Metaphysics in the Natural
also pp. 288-89. Philosophy of Francesco Patrizi da Cherso', University
34 On the role of'light metaphysics' and emanationist
of London, M.Phil. thesis 1977. There is much useful
theories of creation in natural philosophy and information
natural on Neoplatonic hierarchies in P.O.
theology see C. Baeumker, Witelo, ein Philosoph und The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, New York
Kristeller,
Naturforscher des XIII. Jahrhunderts, MifinsterI943, I908;
PP. 74-9I; A. H. Armstrong, The Architecture of the
L. Baur, 'Das Licht in der Naturphilosophie des Robert Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus: an
Intelligible
Analytical
Grosseteste', in Festschrift Georg von Hertling, Freiburg and Historical Study, Cambridge I940; and
1913, PP. 42-55; A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and the
Benjamin Brickman, An Introduction to Francesco Patrizti's
'Nova de universis philosophia', New York 1941.
Origins
pp. of Experimental
104-34; Science o0--700oo,
G. Federici Vescovini, Studi sull Oxford I953,
prospettiva
s More, Antidote against Atheism, Appendix, p. 15o. For
medievale, Turin I965; K. Goldammer, 'Lichtsymbolik
a discussion of similar ideas see A. N. M. Rich, 'Body
in philosophischer Weltanschauung, Mystik undin the Philosophy of Plotinus', Journal of the
and Soul
Theosophie vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert', Studium
History ofPhilosophy, , 1963, pp. '-'15, especially pp. 7-8.
Generale, xIII, 196o, pp. 670-82; Aldo Gargani, Hobbes e laAntidote against Atheism, p. 16.
36 More,
S SeeThe
scienza, Turin 1971, PP. 97-123; James McEvoy, Crombie, op. cit. n. 34 above; and Everett
Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, Oxford 1982, Mendelsohn,
pp. I49-87; Heat and Life: the Development of the Theory of
D.C. Lindberg, Roger Bacon's Philosophy ofAnimal
Nature,
Heat, Cambridge Mass. I964, pp. 8-66. See also
Oxford 1983, pp. XXXVII-LI; H.A. Wolfson, Philo:
More, Immortality, pp. 25-29, 215; and idem, The Apology
Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity
ofDr. Henry More, London 1664, pp. 494-504, 559.
and Islam, Cambridge Mass. 1948, pp. 20o1-II; and

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
18o JOHN HENRY
have a contracted spissitude which is no
contention is clear if we remember tha
spirit dichotomy in terms of impenetra
might want to preserve between spirit a
'Spirits themselves may emit a certain M
Perhaps, as Walker judged, the most
More's pneumatology is signified by his
all probability and actuate some Matter
found separated from Matter'.40 We ha
a spirit, which he deliberately compared
totally passive even though the whole po
life and activity in the world. Now, we
that souls are, perforce, completely pas
matter:
it is plain that the nature of the Soul is such, as that she cannot act but in dependanc
and that her Operations are some way or other alwaies modified thereby. And therefore
act at all after death (which we have demonstrated she does) it is evident that she is n
from all vital union with all kind of Matter whatsoever.41
The reason for this apparent volte-face is given most clearly in the derivative pneuma-
tology provided by More's close follower Joseph Glanvill (I636--80) in his Lux orientalis.42
Here it is suggested that:
if we take notice how the highest and noblest faculties and operations of the Soul are help'd on by
somewhat that is corporeal, and that it imployeth the bodily Spirits in its sublimest exercises; we
might then be persuaded that it always useth some body or other and never acts without one. And
since we cannot conceive a Soul to live or act that is insensible, and since we know not how there
can be sense where there is no union with matter, we should me seems to be induc'd to think, that
when 'tis disjunct from all body, 'tis inert and silent. For in all sensations there is corporeal motion,
as all Philosophy and Experience testifies.
This is surely incompatible with More's talk elsewhere of the 'self-activity of a spirit' and
that spirit 'moves it self by it self'.43 Similarly, notwithstanding the fact that More has
included in his definition of a spirit 'the power of moving [matter] or directing its motion',
More later in the same work diminishes his claim to
what is most certainly true, That the Soul has not any power, or else exceeding little, of moving
Matter; but her priviledge is of determining Matter in motion . . . For if it were an immediate
faculty of the Soul to contribute motion to any Matter, I do not understand how that faculty never
failing nor diminishing no more then the Soul itself can fail or diminish, that we should ever be
weary of motion.44
38More, annoturons to Joseph Glanvill i'wo Choice and 42 First published in I662 - I have used the edition
annotated by More (see n. 22 above). The fact that
Useful Treatises (n. 22 above). See also The Digression
which appears during More's annotations to Bishop More saw this through the press and wrote copious
annotations of an explicatory rather than a critical
Rust's Discourse of Truth in the same work, p. 217, where
More writes 'that by the increase of that essential nature clearly shows More's endorsement of these ideas;
Spissitude, they [spirits] may approach near to a kindsee,
of for example, More's Annotations upon Lux orientalis,
Hylopathick disposition of Impenetrability.. p. 2. More also discusses the 'state of Silence and
Inactivity' of the soul in Immortality, pp. I I6--I7, I119.
3 More, True Notion ofa Spirit, p. 155. Elsewhere, More
talks of matter emitting 'rays or [a] subtile reek' to 43Joseph Glanvill, Lux orientalis, n. 22 above, p. 103.
attract souls: More, Immortality, p. 121. More, True Notion ofa Spirit, pp. 241, I64.
4o More, Immortality, pp. 145, I47. 44 More, Immortality, pp. 33, 97.
4' More, Immortality, pp. 146-47.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
It would seem that More's rhetoric in support of

body and soul begins to fail whenever he tries to
functions of the soul, for example, is confused be
the Neoplatonic and medical theories of material a
the precise way in which the soul interacts with t
istic accounts in which the body seems to take o
the materialist interlocutor in More's Divine Dialo
than More would have cared to admit when he wa
of my minde, not to be able to conceive anything
Before proceeding further it is worth comparing
psychosomatic interaction or union with the ea
Thomas Vaughan (1I622-66). This comparison is
More's own reaction to Vaughan's theories in t
counterpart. Vaughan himself was not effusive
abscondita (165o) he remarks, perhaps carelessly
certaine other Proportionate Natures and missi
This is much too materialistic an image for More
A similitude I suppose, taken from the bung hole ofa b
bear;... But me thinks, Anthroposophus! your expression
such fine feats in the world, by the efformation of thin
figuration and proportion in living creatures, had b
expressed; if you had phansied her tied up like a pig in a
drove the yielding bag out at this corner and that corne
parts. But oh thou man of mysteries! tell me I pray the
be... tide up as a pig in a poke!
More's only response to the problem is to say th

'more Theomagical than our Theomagician himself
in his Second Lash at Vaughan (1651), More had no
I prethee how much doth this [union] differ from Sym
Asylum Ignorantiae: and now I have drove thee hither,
What I have said, I have already made good, that t
Theomagical than Magicus himself is aware of.48
One wonders if More felt suitably humble in 165

his major work, The Immortality ofthe Soul, than t
a congruity . . . which I know not better to term
natural hylopathy of spirits. In case his readers m
45 More, Divine Dialogues, London I668,

More and p. 87. see
Vaughan See Robert
also A. G
More, True Notion ofa Spirit,and
pp. Robert
167, I72, 174,on
Boyle 186.
the Spirit of Na
46 Eugenius Philalethes [i.e.History of Ideas, Anima
Thomas Vaughan], xxIII, 1962, pp
B. Burnham,
Magica Abscondita: Or a Discourse 'The More-Vaughan
of the Universall Spirit of
Nature, with his strange, abstruse,
Revoltmiraculous Ascent and Enthusi
against Philosophical
Descent, London I650, p. Io. History ofldeas, xxxv, 1974, PP. 33-
47 Alazonomastix Philalethes,'The [i.e.
Conflict between Reason
Henry More] and Obser-
Magic in
Seventeenth-Century
vations upon Anthroposophia Theomagica, England:
and Animaa Case Study
Magicaof the
Abscondita, London I65o, More-Vaughan
pp. 51,Debate',
52.Huntington
See also LibraryMore,
Quarterly,
xLIII, 1980,
Immortality, p. 12 1, where More pp. 103-26.
talks of matter having a
'Magick-sphere' to attract souls.
48Alazonomastix Philalethes, op. cit. n.4 above,
p. I65. For fuller discussions of the polemic between

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
182 JOHN HENRY
'hylopathy' differed from 'sympathy' -
brought in a 'natural Consectary': 'That
not always to take sanctuary in the asyl
operose Demonstration... [and] to philo
More does not liken the organizing powe
driving the bag of the body out at this c
same shape as the foetus it inhabits and
body'. In other words,just as the essent
the Spirit of Nature is said to be capa
essential spissitude of the soul can cause
to notice in all this is that while More r
with body as 'grosse' and materialistic
later, is remarkably similar.s'
One other aspect that it shares wit
insisted upon the vital union of the soul
free to develop further a seemingly ma
rhetorical reminders that he is a dualist
'like a Bird out of a Basket' because 't
because, as we have seen, the soul is 'nev
tenuious'.52 Upon release from the terr
either an aerial or an aetherial body. Al
arrive to that high Happiness, as to acqu
upon their quitting the Terrestrial one'
themselves restrained within the compa
before attaining the ultimate 'spirituali
in this context, it should be noted, simp
body] is of more subtle parts than those
anxious that we do not 'bemoan the shr
stript almost of all Substance corporeal
any Object of Sense'. Drawing once ag
there is ever as much Matter or Body in one
Matter in a Cup ofAire as in the same Cup f
it were filled with Lead or Quicksilver.
49More, Immortality,More's
p. I2o;objection is not
True Notion of so m
a Sp
as the way that he says it; s
p. 155; Collection, pp. xIv-xv.
50o More, Immortality, (n.
p. 4 above),
o102. pp. 'Axiome
See also 35-6. The
xx
Immortality, I5o.recognise p.
Elsewhere, thehowever,close simila M
immaterialist Vaughan aresufficiently
surface ideals L. Mulligan, op. cit. n. 7 to
above,enable h
acknowledge that 'thepp. 384-92; and A.M. difficulty..,.
greatest Guinsburg, 'Henry More, is to
how this Spirit, beingThomas
soVaughan and the late Renaissance can
Incorporeal, Magical be ab
move the Matter, though it xxvII,
Tradition', Ambix, beI980, in it. For it seem
pp. 36-58.
subtile that it will pass through
s2 More, Immortality, pp. ...',
I08, 146. More, Immort
p. 32; see also pp. 126, 53148-49.
More, Immortality, p. I119. More relates these three
5s As a matter of fact vehicles
many of the soul
ofto thethe
three kinds of matter in the
details of More's
Vaughan's philosophy Cartesian
are system;thesee same,Immortality, pp. I I8-I9. For athe
from full bel
the Spirit of Nature to of
discussion the pre-existence
More's concept of post-mortem punish- of
Generally speaking, ment see D. P. Walker,who
writers The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-
have examine
polemic have failed to
Centurynotice this
Discussions of Eternal in London
Torment, spite I964, of M
acknowledgements pp. of their agreements; see
I27-34.
example, [More], Observations
54 More, Apology (n. 37 above),(n.
p. 498. 47 above), p

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
This being so, we can safely assume that the dead

have, only this Body is far more active than ours, b
having greater degrees of motion communicated into
The advantages for eschatological theory in Mor
consideration. The soul loses nothing by Death
but is a very considerable gainer thereby. For she does no
with as full and solid dimensions, but has that acces
invigorated with life and Motion than it was formerly.
Consequently, aetherialized persons are able to 's

reaping the lawful pleasures of the very animal life'
body is capable of enduring 'intolerable Distempers,
she die if she would, neither by fire, nor sword, no
punishments cannot be dismissed by the wicked: 'We
transgressions 'are punished with torture intolerable
Throughout his exposition of these eschatological a
tries to preserve his dualist outlook by remindin
aetherial bodies are merely vehicles for the incor
lightening us as to the nature of body and soul intera
reinforce our suspicion that More's philosophy be
gion'. Once again the reader might be tempted to th
when he wrote that he wished to reject the concept o
free the imagination of men from that ordinary and idiot
of Spirits that appear, as if they were as evanid and devoid
Bodies cast against a Wall, ... Which certainly must be a v
love this thick and plump Body they bear about with the
pounds they outweighed their Neighbour the last time th
Finally, one of Henry More's best known intell

prove, anecdotally, the existence of ghosts, demon
enterprise in order to prove the existence of'bad S
Door to the belief that there are good ones, and lastly
an element of subterfuge in this should now be clea
prove the existence of spirits are simply further atte
kinds of corporeal beings: aerial and aetherial spirits
any terrestrial being.60
A CONTEMPORARY REACTION: RICHARD BAXTER ON MATERIAL SPIRITS
Provision of a philosophical proof for the immortality of the soul was a maj
seventeenth-century theologians, and Henry More's pneumatology, in pa
invested by its author with great importance, even urgency. An examination
ss More, Immortality, pp. 154, 153, 154. 60More, Immortality, p. I54. Perhaps it is wort
s6 More, Immortality, pp. 154, 181. mentioning that More's argumentation is somewha
s7 More, Immortality, pp. 189, I85. circular: the existence of ghosts proves the existence
58ss More, Immortality, p. 154. aerial bodies and aerial bodies allow the existence of
5'Henry More, 'Dr H.M. His Letterghosts. with the
Postscript to Mr J.G.', in Joseph Glanvill, Saducismus
Triumphatus (n. 17 above), pp. I6-27, p. 26.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
184 JOHN HENRY
the confusions and inconsistences in M
the tension in his thinking between du
the reasons for this tension, it is worth
famous theological contemporaries, R
Ironically, in view of the subsequent b
requested it, that Baxter's response
summarized his views on the nature of
Spirit, which he appended to his pos
triumphatus (1681).61 The proud autho
him 'whether you be satisfyde with th
generall, 2, or if not, in what point th
send] me a notion of a spirit, wch y
Somewhat to More's astonishment,
unconvinced by More's account large
upon the immateriality of spirits. Acco
private letter in the 1682 edition of
Psychopyrist'.63 Baxter immediately re
together with 'A Reply to Dr. Henry M
and another short piece in a little book c
last word with 'A brief Return to M
[More's] Answer to a Letter of the le
digression in More's anonymous annotat
An interesting indication of the bitter
that Baxter, quite superfluously, inte
memoir of his friend, Sir Matthew
Apropos of nothing in particular Baxte
he [Hale] and I did think that the notion of
the nature of a spirit, not telling us any th
Every created being is passive; for recepit i
skill: but where there is receptivity, m
materiality; and we say, there is recepti
(laying aside the formal virtues that differ
the lowest substance, called immaterial?
We were neither of us satisfied with the n
differences.. .66
Baxter made similar play with the concept of immateriality and More's use of it in his
first letter to More:
The word Immaterial signifying nothing (but a mere negation) and Materia being by many Antients
used in the same sense as we do Substantia, I usually lay by the words.
61 See nn. 17 and 28 above. published in his Second Edition of Mr. Joseph Glanvils
62Dr. Williams's Library, Baxter Letters, im, fol. 286. ISaducismus Triumphatus or History of Apparitions, London
am grateful to the Trustees of Dr. Williams's Library for1682. Hereafter cited as Baxter, Of Spirits.
allowing me to consult and quote from this MS. 65 See n. 22 above. Hereafter cited as More, Digression.
63 See n. 17 above. Hereafter cited as More, Letter. 66 Richard Baxter, 'Additional Notes of the Life and
64 Richard Baxter, Ofthe Immortality ofMans Soul, and the Death of Sir Matthew Hale', in Sir Matthew Hale, The
Works, Moral and Religious: The Whole now first collected and
Nature ofit, and other Spirits. Two Discourses: One in a Letter
revised ..., London 1805, PP. 99-00 oo.
to an unknown Doubter; the Other in Reply to Dr. Henry
Moore's Animadversions on a private Letter to him; which he

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
Furthermore, when More grants spirits spissitude and extensi
many mean that call them Material'.67 Baxter is willing to
material in so far as 'Custom having made Materia but especial
such grosser substance as the three Passive Elements [Earth
he does not exclude the possibility that spirits and souls m
eminenter.
Baxter, like More, evidently subscribed to the tradition of l

flux of forms emanating from God', he tells us in his reminis
where immateriality ends and materiality begins?' Consequent
accept fire, which can be distinguished into 'Intellective, S
Visible Fire', as the principle of activity in the world, and
irrespective of its undeniable materiality.68 'If all self-moving
Baxter says, taking up More, 'Fire is a Spirit'.69 Baxter shares
about the validity of light metaphysics and is consequently mu
his pronouncements:
I doubt not but Fire is a Substance permeant and existent in all m
tellure; in Minerals; in your Blood it is the prime part of that called t
but the Igneous Principle of a pure aerial Vehicle, and is the Organ o
Soul: And if the Soul carry away any Vehicle with it, it's like to be so
Needless to say, such blatant materialism makes More rec

defends himself against More's charges with a tu quoque. Quot
Antidote against Atheism where More uses light as a 'Symbole
(which we have quoted above), Baxter goes on to say that 'Here
I have said, unless you think Light here to be no Fire; but tak
Fire but for Motion'.71
Elsewhere Baxter reiterates the emanationist view of the impossibility of clearly
delineating the realm of spirit from the realm of matter: 'I have often said, that I think
Substances differ so gradually, that the lower hath still some Analogy to the higher'; and
again:
I confess still all your names of Indiscerpibility, Penetrability and Immateriality, give me no
scientifical notion of the true difference between the lowest Substantiality ofa Spirit and the highest
of Fire or Aether, or Aristotelis quinta Essentia (which you call Matter).72
According to More this kind of overt materialism, with a ready acknowledgement that
some matter can be self-activated, provides hostages not only to Hobbists but also to
Spinozists and other atheists. He repeatedly attacks Baxter's account, therefore, as 'not
only a mistake but a mischief' which 'betrays much of the succours which Philosophy
affords to religion etc.' Baxter, for his part, gives this short shrift:
I hope no body will be damned for using or not using the word Material or Immaterial... you say
they are Substances of Extension, Amplitude, Spissitude, Locality and Subtility, as opposite to
Crassitude. And what if another think just so of them (or not so grossly) and yet call them Matter,
will the word undoe him?73
67 Baxter, OfSpirits, sig. A4v, A5r. 7' Baxter, Of Spirits, pp. 95-97. Baxter quotes More,
68 Baxter, OfSpirits, sig. A5v, see also p. 2I. Antidote against Atheism, pp. 16 and 15o which I have
69 Baxter, OfSpirits, p. 98. quoted at nn. 36 and 35 above.
70 Baxter, OfSpirits, p. 71I, see also pp. 72 and 38. On 72 Baxter, OfSpirits, pp. 71, 43.
fire in blood see E. Mendelsohn, op. cit. n. 37 above. 73 Baxter, OfSpirits, p. 27.
13

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
i86 JOHN HENRY
Nor does Baxter fail to press his advantag
Yea, you that make Spatium to be God, calling
that you prove by Apodectical Arguments that
is a Spirit, so that you your self make a Spiri
Amplitude, Quantity and the three dimension
The nub ofBaxter's attack on More, then,

than Baxter's and that More comes 'nearer
More, one of the best polemicists of h
Baxter's accusations of materialism. Ne
reading through this polemic is that the
they believe to be the true nature of a spir
of their concept of spirit. For More, Baxt
matter may be endowed with activity
Indeed, in the works of Spinoza and his
already at large. If matter itself is the sou
the intervention of an incorporeal superna
theology is doomed to fail:
the fairest and firmest structures of Philosoph
the Existence of Spirits, and the Immortality
fall quite to the ground.'76
Underlying More's attitude, of course, w

both Plato and Descartes, that it is possible
process of pure reasoning. It followe
necessitarianism in which God was constrained to create the world as it is in accordance
with certain absolute necessities in the nature of things. More's rationalism led ineluct-
ably to a belief that nothing in the world was arbitrary or the result of mere contingency.
He believed, therefore, that the rational order of the universe was immanent and
grounded in the natures of things. More was a necessitarian optimist in the tradition so
carefully outlined by A. O. Lovejoy in The Great Chain ofBeing. Like Abelard, More might
have quoted those famous words of St. Jerome: 'For God does not do this because he wills
to do so, but he wills to do so because it is good'.77 These views are most clearly seen in
ism are revealed in his correspondence with Samuel

74 Baxter, OfSpirits, p. 47. On space and God in More's
philosophy see Koyri, op. cit. n. 16 above; Burtt, op.Hartlib
cit. in the late 1640s, reprinted in C. Webster, op.
n. 16 above; and Brian P. Copenhaver, 'Jewish Theo- cit. n. Io above, pp. 359-77. It seems likely, therefore,
logies of Space in the Scientific Revolution: Henry given the links between rationalism in philosophy and
More, Joseph Raphson, Isaac Newton and Their theological necessitarianism, that More should regard
Predecessors', Annals of Science, xxxvII, 1980, Cartesianism as a useful bolster for his theology.
pp. 489-548. However, it is important to realise that Descartes
v Baxter, OfSpirits, pp. 66, 91. himself, for all his rationalism, was not a necessitarian
76 More, Digresssion, pp. 222-23. but a voluntarist in theology. On voluntarism see
77A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain ofBeing: A Study of the F. Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant and Order: an Excursion in
History of an Idea, Cambridge Mass. I1936, p. 71', quotes the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz, Ithaca and
Abelard from Introductio ad Theologiam in which the London 1984. That Descartes, as a rationalist voluntar-
quotation from St. Jerome appears. The origins of this ist, is an anomalous case has failed to attract scholarly
kind of theodicy can be traced back to Plato's Timaeus,attention. R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern
Science, Edinburgh and London 1973, noted that this
see Lovejoy, pp. 48-50, 71-72, and so it is unsurprising
that a Platonist like More should embrace these ideas. was 'strange' (p. 41) and 'paradoxical' (p. 42) but made
More's admiration for Descartes's rationalist approach no attempt to account for it. Margaret J. Osler,
'Descartes and Charleton on Nature and God',Journalof
to natural philosophy and his distaste for experimental-

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
More's Annotations upon [Joseph Glanvill's] Lux Orientalis wh
Glanvill's statement that 'the infinite goodness of the Deit
good, so by the same to do that which is best'.78 God's goodne
essential properties and so 'He must necessarily act accord
must obey certain laws which are inherent in the nature of
Goodness acts necessarily yet it does not blindly, but accordi
and Justice'.79
Such ideas were extremely heterodox and it is no wond
Orientalis with the formulaic submission to the authority of
likewise in the annotations. The classic response of those w
God's power in this way was to insist that God's arbitrary an
no necessary constraints. This theological tradition, known a
Divine Will could be no otherwise determined than by its ow
More's words, 'as if it willed so because it willed so'. For Mor
sad principle', but for Richard Baxter it was the only
Considering God's omnipotence, Baxter asked,
Cannot he alter or annihilate his own works: Before he made the W
ample Substance of the Spirit of the World into many Spirits: And i
Spirits be unified as the Bodies which they animate, cannot Go
Cannot he make many Stars into one? And then would that one have
one? It's a thing so high as required some show of proof, to intimate
be Almighty, and cannot conquer his own Omnipotency.81
The final sentence here is typical of Baxter's idiosyncratic

More suggested it made 'no sense') but the gist is reas
omnipotent, by definition, but More is trying to claim that
God's omnipotence enables him to do which not even he ca
conquer his own Omnipotency'. Essentially, Baxter, like many
dissenting from the view of St. Jerome that 'although God c
raise up a virgin after she has fallen'.82
It seems clear that the conflict between necessitarianism and voluntarism is funda-
mental to this entire debate between More and Baxter. Indeed, it can hardly be
the History of Ideas, XL, 1979, PP. 445-56, has tried on to

as great Paradoxes, but they had the good manners to
circumvent the difficulty by arguing that Descartesmakeis a a legg and say, Omnia Ecclesiae authoritati
modified necessitarian but I find this unconvincing.submittimus'.
For Simon Patrick, A BriefAccount of the new Sect
another account ofMore's necessitarian theology from a
ofLatitude-Men, London 1662, p. 23. The quotation from
different perspective see A. Lichtenstein, Henry More:More
the is found in the Annotations upon Lux orientalis (n. 22
Rational Theology of a Cambridge Platonist, Cambridge above), P. 45. For indications of the importance of
Mass. 1962, pp. 48-55. voluntarist theology in seventeenth-century natural
78 More, Annotations upon Lux orientalis (n. 22 above), philosophy see Francis Oakley, 'Christian Theology
pp. 41-57 ft. commenting upon Lux orientalis, p. 51. and the Newtonian Science', Church History, xxx, 1961,
79 More, Annotations upon Lux orientalis (n. 22 above), PP. 433-57; J.E. McGuire, 'Boyle's Conception of
PP. 47, 46. Nature', Journal of the History of Ideas, xxxixii, 1972,
80o On the reaction to Abelard see Oakley, op. cit., n. 77 pp. 523-42; and E.M. Klaaren, Religious Origins of
above, pp. 45 and 134. For reactions to Spinoza see Modern Science, Grand Rapids 1977, esp. pp. 29-52.
Colie, Light and Enlightenment (n. 19 above). The formula 81 Baxter, OfSpirits, pp. 79-80.
I allude to is that which led Walker to say that most 82 For More's reaction see More, Digression, p. 183. St.
heresies are orthodox 'provided that at the same time Jerome is quoted from Epistle xII in F. A. Wright (ed.),
you assert the contrary truth'. Walker, 'Medical Select Letters of St. Jerome, London, 1933, p. 62. I have
Spirits', n. 6 above, p. 292. As Simon Patrick observed taken this from Oakley, op. cit. n. 77 above, p. 43.
about Galileo: 'others have with impunity adventured

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
188 JOHN HENRY
coincidental that when More had the las
appeared as a digression to his annotati
necessitarian tract devoted to refuting
God wills them so to be'.83 Baxter's vo
also underlies Baxter's ironic humility:
I confess I am too dull to be sure that God cannot endue matter itself with the formal Virtue of
Perception: That you say the Cartesians hold the contrary, and that your Writings prove it,
certifieth me not.84
Frequently, Baxter denies his ability to 'prove' anything that God may or may not do, and
he professes ignorance on a number of fundamental issues. What this boils down to is a
conviction that faith takes precedence over philosophy: 'If God make us truly holy we
shall quickly know more to our satisfaction', and elsewhere, 'I shall quickly know all this
better than you do'. At the conclusion of his little treatise on spirit, Baxter suggests that
Our chief difference is, that I profess to be ignorant of the Consistency and Incorporation which
you talk of, and must be so: Though I am assured of the Substantiality and Form which satisfieth
me; for Christ knoweth all the rest for me.8s
Satisfaction with ignorance, however, would have been an absurdity for More. His
rationalism, inspired by Plato, Descartes and the tradition ofnecessitarian optimism, led
him to a belief that he could prove 'apodectically' the detailed nature of God's creation,
including the nature of created spirits.86 For all his intellectualism though, as we have
seen, More's reasoning was far from sound and unlikely to strike his contemporaries as
unquestionable, let alone undeniable. We have already hinted at some of the intellectual
reasons for More's confused ideas. His respect for the new philosophies of nature and
certain Neoplatonic traditions led him so close towards a materialistic world view that
conflict with dualism was inevitable. The tension between such disparate explanatory
concerns, which More believed would extend our understanding, merely resulted in
strain.
However, no purely intellectual account can fully explain the confusion in More's
concept of spirit. We must also take account of one other crucial factor which shaped his
views. More himself, on a number of occasions, makes it perfectly clear that his
pneumatology is invested with ideological intentions. He was, indeed, so keen to use his
doctrines of spirituality in an ideological war against that enemy of society, the atheist,
Spinoza. But while More always compromised his

83 George Rust's Discourse of Truth was first published
at London in 1677 but I have used the 1682 edition philosophy if it seemed to lead to theologically
unacceptable conclusions, Spinoza developed his theol-
(cited fully in n. 22 above) which included a laudatory
preface by Joseph Glanvill. The quotation is from
ogy in strict accordance with his philosophy. When
Glanvill's Preface, sig. N6v. More saw the implications of Spinoza's necessitarian-
ism he vigorously opposed it, but in doing so revealed
84 Baxter, OfSpirits, p. 28. The reference here to matter
having the 'virtue of perception' is an allusion to the not only that he missed Spinoza's point but that he was
unaware of the necessitarian implications of his own
ideas of Francis Glisson, see Henry, op. cit. n. 6 above.
85 Baxter, OfSpirits, sig. A6r, 67, Ioo. philosophy. Colie (Light and Enlightenment, n. 19 above,
86 For further evidence of More's concern with rational p. 92) suggested that Spinoza realised that the intellec-
methods and his belief that 'mathematical certainty' is tual climate of his day was 'in the grip of a materialism
attainable in philosophy consider the fact that the more enveloping and more engrossing than anything
argumentation throughout The Immortality of the Soul is imagined by More and Cudworth'. Spinoza's strategy
based on 36 axioms. See also More, True Notion ofa Spirit, was to beat the materialist atheists at their own game
pp. I39-40; and More, Collection, p. xv. but More, and others, merely saw this as another form of
In saying that More is a theological necessitarian I materialist atheism.
am aware that I am tending to equate More with

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
that he unwittingly compromised the philosophical coher

led, almost inevitably, to the confusions which we have n
HENRY MORE, 'FISHER FOR PHILOSOPHERS' AND FISHER OF M

As we have seen, More's scholarly life was devoted to the
was a handmaiden to religion. The philosophies of Plat
just for being 'so sound and consistent' but also because t
and Cartesianism are referred to as 'Engines' - either
destroy 'erroneous fabricks in Relligion'.88 In view o
theology, however, it is hardly surprising that More sho
philosophical systems whatever was most suited to his pu
speaking, a Platonist nor ever a Cartesian.89 His own p
and unique. Nevertheless, he was convinced that he had ar
the most useful philosophy. Repeatedly More insists that
most useful for the best ends, and serves to support the m
best'. Moreover, to deny it 'deprives us of some of t
Philosophy affords against Atheism and Epicurism'.90 Ac
by the fact that his philosophy was apodictic and undeni
any mans faculties' or 'any onesJudgement'.91Just like th
were his contemporaries, More insisted upon the eas
Rejecting Baxter's wordy and hidebound scholasticism
succinct summary to show how simple and clear his reaso
No one can pretend to be better acquainted with a Spirit by
Baxter's], but he that can prove that these Virtues are Incompe
there are two distinct kinds of Substances in the Universe, Spi
opposite Attributes are to be given to these opposite Species, an
being discerpible, a Spirit ought to be indiscerpible, and Body
the common Tenent of Philosophers, Spirits should be Penetra
and passive, Spirit should be the source of life and activity.
sound method of Philosophising, I appeal to any ones Judgeme
There can be no doubt that More deliberately fo

pneumatology in a way most fitting for his didactic purpo
87 For a further examination of the

sionment. On theideological
contrary, Gabbey insists, More was
intentions of More's theories and the
critical of a adverse way in
number of points itCartesian philosophy
affects his philosophical acumenright
see at Henry, op. cit.
the beginning of hisn. 6
acquaintance with it and
above. never accepted Descartes's arguments in defence of
88 Alazonomastix Philalethes, Second Lash (n. 4 above),
these points.
p. 36; and letter from More to Anne, Lady Conway,
90 More, Letter, pp. 224-5. See also Nicolson (ed.), op.
5July I662, in M. H. Nicolson (ed.), Conway Letters:cit.
The n. 88 above, p. 204; More, Digression, pp. 202, 214.
Consider
Correspondence ofAnne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and also More's letter to Baxter, Io February
1681 /82, Dr Williams's Library, Baxter Letters, ii fol.
their Friends, z6p-I-684, New Haven 193o, p. 204.
It is important to realise that More's talk of
284; his letter to Boyle, 4 December 1671 in Robert
Boyle, The Works, ed. T. Birch, vi, London I772,
'usefulness' should not be seen as just another example
of seventeenth-century Baconianism. More was not pp. 513-14; and his Remarks upon Two late ingenious
talking of pragmatic uses but usefulness to religion.Discourses:
See The One, an Essay touching on the Gravitation and
Webster, op. cit. n. o10 above, pp. 370-7I. Non-Gravitation of Fluid Bodies: The Other, Observations
89 Gabbey, op. cit. n. 3 above, pp. I94-95, has pointed
touching the Torricellian Experiment, London 1676, p. 190o.
out that it is a mistake to see More's attitude to
91 More, Letter, pp. 196, 199-
Cartesianism as shifting from total approval to
92 disillu-
More, Letter, p. I99.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
190 JOHN HENRY
More (1664), a defence of his philosophi
More makes this perfectly clear. Defend
aetherial not terrestrial, he says that h
draw them to or to retain them in the
not accept a resurrected earthly body, h
heaven by boring its way 'through the
of miles together'. While Copernica
composed of a 'subtile and piercing' fluid
on the grounds that the heavens 'would
such Terrestrial consistency of flesh an
Unfortunately for More, a number of
point of his apodictic pneumatology o
found it unnecessary, Samuel Parker ( I
Boyle (1627-91) believed it to be based
thought that More had been caught up
run into extreams'.95 Nevertheless Mor
easie and genuine notion of a Spiri
undermining his worthy propagandis
slighting and disgracing' More's philo
places Baxter is accused not only of bein
As a 'Fisher for Philosophers', then, M
were all Latitudinarians with a high tole
More's 'apodictic' natural theology as l
After all, the didactic use of natural ph
the 'atheistic' Thomas Hobbes, with vari
with the 'Familiastical - Levelling
Parker, in particular, slated More's Pl
cisme'. Writing so soon after the Civil W
the effects that 'the Genius of Enthu
Peace'.99
More was unrelenting in the face of this criticism as he was in the face of Baxter's.
Indeed, it is a measure ofMore's inflexibility that he had the audacity to engage in dispute
93More, Apology, p. 494. Ralph Cudworth, More's Cambridge colleague, did not
94More, Apology, pp.494, 495. wholly endorse More's teachings; and Lady Anne
9s Samuel Parker, A Free and Impartial Censure of the Conway, who learnt much from More, developed a
Platonick Philosophie, Oxford I666, p. 73; Robert Boyle,thoroughly
A monist philosophical system towards the
end of her life.
Hydrostatical Discourse occasion'd by some Objections of Dr.
Henry More against some Explications of New 98The quotation is from Thomas Hall, Vindiciae
Literarum, The Schools Guarded: Or the Excellency and
Experiments..., London 1672, p. I43; Sir Matthew
Usefulness of Humane Learning in Subordination to
Hale, Observations touching the Principles ofNatural Motions;
Divinity..., London 1654, p. 199. On the association of
and especially touching Rarefaction and Condensation ...,
dogmatic philosophy with heterodoxy see H.G. van
London 1677, p. 284. See also Robert Hooke, Lampas:
Leeuwen, The Problem of Certainty in English Thought,
Or, Descriptions ofSome Mechanical Improvements of Lamps
163o-169o, The Hague 1963; P. M. Rattansi, 'Paracelsus
and Waterpoises, London I677, which includes an attack
on More's Spirit of Nature. and the Puritan Revolution', Ambix, xI, 1963, PP. 24-32;
and John Henry, 'Atomism and Eschatology: Catholic-
96 More, Digression, p. 223 and More, Letter, pp. 198,
217, 239. ism and Natural Philosophy in the Interregnum', British
97More's only devoted and non-dissenting follower, Journalfor the History ofScience, xv, 1982, pp. 211-39.
philosophically speaking, was Joseph Glanvill. Even 99 Samuel Parker, op. cit. n. 95 above, pp. 72, 73.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
HENRY MORE'S MATERIALISM i91
with Robert Boyle on the subject of hydrostatics. No impartial reader, then
deny that the arguments of the great pneumatic philosopher prevailed over
pneumatologist, but More was not impartial. Writing to his friend Anne, La
(d. I679), in I672, he spoke of Boyle as of a poor loser: 'Mr Boyle does n
dissenting so from him in publick so candidly as I hoped, which I am very s
any body had confuted any thing of mine with such circumstances as I have d
cannot perceive that that would have given me the least disgust in the world
The truth of the matter is that More's didacticism remained unchecked b
cal opposition because he had other fish to catch. The atheistic threat
perceived all around him, and which he so much wanted to dash, did no
predominantly intellectual sources, rather it was a more lowbrow, and in ma
an anti-intellectual, development.'0' More's great ambition, therefore, wa
untrained minds and cynical scoffers of the undeniable reality of a spiritual
doing More went a long way towards accepting many of the vulgar reasons f
current concepts of the soul. Here then was yet another reason for tension an
within More's thinking: on the one hand he saw himself as an intellectualist
on the other he saw himself as a simple man of sound common sense appealing
canons of academic philosophy but to 'any ones Judgement'.
More frequently took notice of the fact that 'the want of Philosophy is mo
the ground of... mistakes in those grand points of our Relligion' which
nature of soul.102 Thus,
The greatest and grossest Obstacle to the belief of the Immortality of the Soul, is t
opinion in some, as if the very notion of a Spirit were a piece of Non-sense and perfe
in the conception thereof.
This accounts for More's pride, as shown in his polemic with Baxter, that he
to 'proceed by degrees ... to lay our foundation low and sure' so th
Judgement' will easily lead them to assent. More's commonsense method
will make it
appear to all, how unjust that cavill is against incorporeal substances, as if they were mere
Impossibilities and contradictious Inconsistencies.x03
Surprising though it may seem, the blame for the fact that 'the notion of spirit is hooted
at by so many for nonsense' rests largely with Descartes.104 When Descartes reinforced
the scholastic indentification of extension with matter he also excluded minds or souls
from the spatial category: res extensae and res cogitantes are totally disjunct. We saw earlie
that More rejected the non-spatial concept of spirits partly as a result of Neoplatoni
influences, but he also insisted upon the dimensionality of spirits in order to
stop the mouths of them that, not without reason, laugh at those unconceivable and ridiculou
fancies of the Schools; that first rashly take away all Extension from Spirits, whether Souls or
Angels, and then dispute how many of them booted and spurr'd may dance on a needles point at once.
00 M. H. Nicholson (ed.), op. cit. n. 88 above, p. 102

358.Nicolson (ed.), op. cit. n. 88 above, p. 204.
More's bitter response to Baxter's arguments about o03
theMore, Immortality, p. 21; and More, Letter, p. 199,
nature of the soul give the lie to More's claim. (n. 92 above).
'o The best analysis of the lowbrow and anti- 104Descartes is referred to as the 'Prince of the
intellectual aspects of early modern atheism is Nullibists';
to be More, True Notion ofa Spirit, pp. 134-5.
found in Michael Hunter, 'Science and Heterodoxy',
op. cit. n. I above.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
192 JOHN HENRY
These are, More insists, 'Fooleries much
As a result, much of More's True Noti
the Cartesian doctrine which More dub
that a thing should be, and yet not be any w
so absonous and abhorrent from all reason,
way of sport or some slimjest, as I have int
who captivated and blinded with admir
[Descartes], do so solemnly and seriously e
Try as they might, however, the nu

contradictious can be spoke or thought
More deals similarly with another per
dubs 'Holenmerianism'. This is the tr
body can be summed up in the dictum:
developed by some scholastic philosoph
the body but did not wish to allow the
remedy is far more intolerable than th
deemed next door to an open Repugnan
It is absurd notions like these, Mo
phasters hoot' at the very mention of
absurd that More's sympathies seem to
such distorted and strained conceits co
artifice they
(including have so who
Descartes) spread themsel
being left to their own dry subtilities, th
terrestrial, as Man is, purely Immaterial. W
breach in the order of things, such as no m
very obnoxious to be foiled by Atheistical w
the absurd consequences that lye hid in fa
The kind of anti-intellectual scorn

challenge which he wished to take up,
Carol' of 1650. Theologians and philosop
of insanity because of their views on th
Let them but tell us what a soul is
We shall adhere to these mad brainsick men!112
05os More, Immortality, p. 151. p. 37. Ranterism was used as a label for an ill-defined
group of sectarian enthusiasts. More does not, as far as I
o106 More, True Notion ofa Spirit, p. 187; see also pp. 134-
51 passim. know, use the word. He does, however, attack a number
o07 More, True Notion ofa Spirit, p. 141. of closely related enthusiastic writers such as David
o08 More, True Notion of a Spirit, pp. I56, 153; see also George (d. i556), the Nicolaitans or followers of
pp. 151-59 passim. Hendrick Niclaes (ft. 1502-80), Paracelsus (1493-1541)
o09 More, Immortality, p. 57; see also More, True Notion of and Jacob Boehme (1575-1624). See, for example,
a Spirit, p. I6o. Enthusiasmus triumphatus (in Collection), pp. 23-27, 31-36;
o10 More, True Notion ofa Spirit, p. I59. and Philosophiae teutonicae censura ..., in More, Opera
1" More, Immortality, p. 6. omnia, London I679.
112 The Arraignement and Tryall of the Ranters, London
I650, p. 6. Quoted from Nigel Smith (ed.), A Collection of
Ranter Writings from the Seventeenth Century, London 1983,

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
More's fears about the popular tendency to deny any meanin
disembodied souls was not ill-founded. As is well known m
prevalent heterdoxy in seventeenth-century England, and Hen
against it. Mortalists responded to the problem of soul-bod
monistic view of the person. On death the person was held to
the general Resurrection on the Last Day. At the Resurrect
person (body and soul, if they can be meaningfully distinguishe
God.13 Mortalists not only regarded the non-spatial concep
but also regarded any disembodied state as totally meanin
personality was entirely dependent on the body and its state o
and so forth. Furthermore, if the soul could be separated from
More, that 'such purely Incorporeal Essences' would be inca
Corporeal Objects' and so would be totally oblivious.114 T
thinking (especially if, like More, one is not expecting the Las
the subscriber may come to 'a sottish mistrust of ever b
'conclude the Mystery of Christianity within the narrow V
David George and other Enthusiasts did, who were more in
any article of Faith that promised such pleasures as might not
Here, then, was another reason for More to deny that the s
from the body. If passive and inert, disembodied souls were to
It is easy for the Psychopannychites to support their Opinion of the
being utterly rescinded from all that is corporeal, and having no vit
will be very prone to infer, that it is impossible she should know anyth
as dream. For even that power also may seem incompetible to her in
an essential aptitude for vital union with Matter.116
113 For a survey of mortalism in our period

p. I7I; see Norman
Joseph Glanvill, Lux orientalis (n. 22 above),
T. Burns, Christian Mortalism from Tyndale
p. II7; and Thomas to Edwards,
Milton, The Third Part of
Cambridge I972. On Hobbes's mortalism see
Gangraena, or a new and also
higher Discovery of the Errors,
J. G. A. Pocock, 'Time, History and Eschatology
Blasphemies, in the
and insolent Proceedings of the Sectaries of these
Thought of Thomas Hobbes', in idem, Politics,
Times..., London 1646,Language
p. 8.
and Time: Essays on Political Thought115s
and History,
Henry London
More, An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of
1972, pp. I48-2o01. I have arguedGodliness
elsewhere that
(I66o). I have the
consulted this in Henry More,
threat which mortalism seemed to present to Works,
The Theological society and
London I708, p. I . Elsewhere
religion was also a major factor in More the development
links the rise of mortalismofnot to incomprehen-
the natural philosophy of Sir Kenelm Digby
sible philosophical (1603-65)
subtleties but to the Roman Catholic
and the English secular priest, Thomas White doctrine of 'The affrightfull Figment of Purgatory':
(1593-1676); Henry, op. cit. n. 98 above. Henry More's '... the grand Mischief of this cheating Invention is a
opposition to mortalism is first advertised in The blasphemous affront to the Merits and Satisfaction of
Platonicall Song of the Soul (see n. 3 above) of 1642: one ofour dear Saviour, and a Tyrannical oppression of the
the poems in the cycle is entitled 'Antipsychopanny- consciences of the simple; but so great a scandal to the
chia'. For further surveys of popularist mistrust of more nasute, that it were a strong temptation to them to
immaterial spirits and explanations which rely upon misbelieve the whole summe of Religion, or any state at
them see Piero Camporesi, La camne impassibile, Milan all of the Soul after death, but that she is mortal and
1983; and Roy Porter, 'Barely Touching: Social perishes; these false Apostles having abused the belief of
Perspectives on the Mind / Body Problem', in the Doctrine of her survival after the death of the Body
G. S. Rousseau (ed.), William Andrews Clark Lectures 1985, so grossely and rancidly, merely to the advancing of
forthcoming. their own estates in this life, and to the wallowing in
114 More, Immortality, p. 6. Related to this notion is the wealth, honour and sensual pleasures'. Henry More, A
belief, increasingly held, that the body deserved its Modest Inquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, the first part,
reward in heaven as much as the soul. See for example, containing a careful and impartial Delineation of the true Idea of
Jeremy Taylor, The Great Exemplar of Sanctity and Holy Antichristianism ..., London 1664, p. 86.
Life according to the Christian Institution, London I649, 116 More, Immortality, pp. 6-7.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
194 JOHN HENRY
'Unless we will be so dull as to fall in
More reiterated, 'we are to allow the sou
Resurrection'.11"' Accordingly More d
render normally unappealing visions of
insisted upon the bodily nature of the af
because some men utterly misbelieve the th
the Receptions and Entertains of those Aer
time; with many other intricacies which
concernment to take away this objection again
is, and therefore it is not at all, which is t
Incorporeal Substances) by a punctual and r
It would seem clear, then, that the co

tology - determinedly dualistic on the o
other - stem partly from his efforts t
wits'. Essentially, his pneumatology fall
to avoid the uncompromising mater
thinkers, while at the other he wish
prevailing academic pneumatologies i
non-extended or even extended and no
ism). The result is so materialistic in
professed belief in immaterial souls.
suffered as a result of his ambivalence
seems, we must conclude that it suffere
of philosophy itself. So, because he sh
with much more lowbrow contempo
philosophical theology which would s
trained in philosophical subtleties. Howe
rial substances in a way which all m
materialist and sensualist views of the so
sectarians.19
In an article on 'The Spirit World o
noticed the striking similarities betwee
mortalist, John Milton (1608-74). Pro
actually have influenced Milton's thin
More's deliberate efforts to forge a visi
mortalists it seems equally likely that M
same sources as that of Milton's.120 Wh
More and Milton, at least at first sight,
117More, Annotations 120 Marjorie H. Lux

upon Nicolson, 'The Spirit World of Milton
orientalis (n. 22 ab
p. I io. and More', Studies in Philology, xxuII, 1925, PP. 433-52.
118 More, Immortality, pp. 7-8.
119 For a further discussion of tension between rational-
ist theology and anti-intellectualism in More see
Lichtenstein, op. cit. n. 77 above, pp. 96-155.

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00
HENRY MORE'S MATERIALISM '95
monist par excellence, should admire More's dualist system with
rial souls. Yet More's early eighteenth-century biographer, Rich
even Mr Hobbes himself, as I have been informed, hath been he
Philosophy was not True, he knew of none that he should sooner like t
Whether Hobbes meant this seriously or whether it was inte

pointing to More's crypto-materialism we shall never know. Ho
see why Hobbes should say it at all. More's vision of the af
effectively, as materialist and sensualist as Thomas Hobbes's. If
old saying that 'it takes one to know one', then we may rely
Henry More, the Cambridge Platonist, was not a materialist, he
SCIENCE STUDIES UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
121 Richard Ward, The Life of the learned and annex'd

which are pious Dr.
divers of his Useful and Excell
London
Henry More, late Fellow of Christ's College 1710o, p. 8o.
in Cambridge. To

94.134.214.110 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +00:00

Henry CambridgePlatonistsMaterialism 1986

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry CambridgePlatonistsMaterialism 1986

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Cambridge Platonist's Materialism: Henry More and the Concept of Soul

Author(s): John Henry

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/751295

This content downloaded from

Cuphophron: I, and that booted and spurred too.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

HENRY MORE'S PNEUMATOLOGY

This content downloaded from

More believed that Descartes's philosophy was 'the best assistance to R

This content downloaded from

18 Much of The Immortality of the Soul is explicitly

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

However, it looks rather as though Mor

This content downloaded from

33Walker, 'Medical Spirits' (n. 6 above), p.295; see

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

It would seem that More's rhetoric in support of

More's only response to the problem is to say th

One wonders if More felt suitably humble in 165

45 More, Divine Dialogues, London I668,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This being so, we can safely assume that the dead

Consequently, aetherialized persons are able to 's

Finally, one of Henry More's best known intell

A CONTEMPORARY REACTION: RICHARD BAXTER ON MATERIAL SPIRITS

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Baxter, like More, evidently subscribed to the tradition of l

Needless to say, such blatant materialism makes More rec

This content downloaded from

The nub ofBaxter's attack on More, then,

Underlying More's attitude, of course, w

ism are revealed in his correspondence with Samuel

This content downloaded from

The final sentence here is typical of Baxter's idiosyncratic

the History of Ideas, XL, 1979, PP. 445-56, has tried on to

This content downloaded from

Spinoza. But while More always compromised his

This content downloaded from

that he unwittingly compromised the philosophical coher

HENRY MORE, 'FISHER FOR PHILOSOPHERS' AND FISHER OF M

There can be no doubt that More deliberately fo

87 For a further examination of the

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

00 M. H. Nicholson (ed.), op. cit. n. 88 above, p. 102

This content downloaded from

Try as they might, however, the nu

The kind of anti-intellectual scorn

This content downloaded from

113 For a survey of mortalism in our period

This content downloaded from

It would seem clear, then, that the co

117More, Annotations 120 Marjorie H. Lux

This content downloaded from

Whether Hobbes meant this seriously or whether it was inte

SCIENCE STUDIES UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

121 Richard Ward, The Life of the learned and annex'd

This content downloaded from