(Praeterea gigni pariter cum corpore, et una
        Cresere sentimus, pariterque senescere mentem.)[1004]

Averroes, and I know not how many Neoterics. [1005]"This question of the immortality of the soul, is diversely and wonderfully impugned and disputed, especially among the Italians of late,” saith Jab.  Colerus, lib. de immort. animae, cap. 1. The popes themselves have doubted of it:  Leo Decimus, that Epicurean pope, as [1006]some record of him, caused this question to be discussed pro and con before him, and concluded at last, as a profane and atheistical moderator, with that verse of Cornelius Gallus, Et redit in nihilum, quod fuit ante nihil.  It began of nothing, and in nothing it ends.  Zeno and his Stoics, as [1007]Austin quotes him, supposed the soul so long to continue, till the body was fully putrified, and resolved into materia prima:  but after that, in fumos evanescere, to be extinguished and vanished; and in the meantime, whilst the body was consuming, it wandered all abroad, et e longinquo multa annunciare, and (as that Clazomenian Hermotimus averred) saw pretty visions, and suffered I know not what. [1008]Errant exangues sine corpore et ossibus umbrae.  Others grant the immortality thereof, but they make many fabulous fictions in the meantime of it, after the departure from the body:  like Plato’s Elysian fields, and that Turkey paradise.  The souls of good men they deified; the bad (saith [1009]Austin) became devils, as they supposed; with many such absurd tenets, which he hath confuted.  Hierome, Austin, and other Fathers of the church, hold that the soul is immortal, created of nothing, and so infused into the child or embryo in his mother’s womb, six months after the [1010]conception; not as those of brutes, which are ex traduce, and dying with them vanish into nothing.  To whose divine treatises, and to the Scriptures themselves, I rejourn all such atheistical spirits, as Tully did Atticus, doubting of this point, to Plato’s Phaedon.  Or if they desire philosophical proofs and demonstrations, I refer them to Niphus, Nic.  Faventinus’ tracts of this subject.  To Fran. and John Picus in digress:  sup. 3. de Anima, Tholosanus, Eugubinus, To.  Soto, Canas, Thomas, Peresius, Dandinus, Colerus, to that elaborate tract in Zanchius, to Tolet’s Sixty Reasons, and Lessius’ Twenty-two Arguments, to prove the immortality of the soul.  Campanella, lib. de sensu rerum, is large in the same discourse, Albertinus the Schoolman, Jacob.  Nactantus, tom. 2. op. handleth it in four questions, Antony Brunus, Aonius Palearius, Marinus Marcennus, with many others.  This reasonable soul, which Austin calls a spiritual substance moving itself, is defined by philosophers to be “the first substantial act of a natural, humane, organical body, by which a man lives, perceives, and understands, freely doing all things, and with election.”  Out of which definition we may gather, that this rational