Spiritual Presence

Reid, Jasper

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_5

Jasper Reid²

Part of the book series: International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées ((ARCH,volume 207))

604 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Whether, and in what sense, spiritual beings like God or the human soul could be ascribed any spatial presence. More consistently insisted that they should be: but (as other commentators have failed to appreciate) his views on the nature of that presence changed dramatically over the course of his career, from a traditional Scholastic or Neoplatonist theory of their being ‘whole in the whole, and whole in each part’ of a certain place, to a much more radical and innovative theory of their being genuinely (though immaterially) extended through it. I also have occasion to explore the analogous question of spirits’ relation to time, as well as to examine More’s views on the real presence (or lack thereof) of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 189.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The Oxford English Dictionary cites Joseph Glanvill, together with just a couple of later authors, as having adopted the term ‘nullibist’ from More. ‘Holenmerian’ is not listed at all.
2.
Plato 1963, p. 925 (Parmenides, 131a–b).
3.
Hilary 1979, p. 53b (On the Trinity, bk. 2, ch. 6).
4.
Augustine 1979, p. 64a (Confessions, bk. 3, ch. 8); see also op. cit., pp. 102b-103a (bk. 7, ch. 1), and Augustine 1956, p. 208a (The City of God, bk. 11, ch. 5).
5.
Augustine 1978, p. 101a (Of the Trinity, bk. 6, ch. 6). See also Augustine 1979, p. 524a–b (letter 166 to Jerome, ch. 2).
6.
Plotinus 1992, p. 418 (enn. 4, tr. 9, ch. 1).
7.
Plotinus 1992, p. 294 (enn. 4, tr. 2, ch. 1).
8.
Plotinus 1992, p. 472 (enn. 5, tr. 5, ch. 9).
9.
Plotinus 1992, pp. 590, 595 (enn. 6, tr. 4, chs. 3, 8).
10.
Ficino 2001–2006, vol. 2, p. 229 (bk. 7, ch. 5).
11.
Ficino 2001–2006, vol. 1, pp. 237–239 (bk. 3, ch. 2).
12.
Divine Dialogues, p. 47 (dial. 1, §22).
13.
For a very extensive taxonomy of (mostly) Scholastic attitudes to the ‘no action at a distance’ principle—construed both physically and metaphysically—see Kovach 1980, 161–171.
14.
Aquinas 1920, pp. 82, 82–83, 85, 87 (pt. 1, qu. 8, arts. 1–3). The reference is to Aristotle 1984, vol. 1, p. 409 (Physics, bk. 7, ch. 2; 243a32–35).
15.
For a few more historical examples of this sort of theory, see Grant 1981, pp. 143, 222, 350 n. 127. For discussion, see Des Chene 2000, chs. 9 and (especially) 10. Also, with reference to the Descartes-More correspondence as well as to the Scholastic background, see Rozemond 2003; and Pasnau 2007, pp. 294–96, especially the footnotes.
16.
See Sylwanowicz 1996, pp. 171–181. Also Funkenstein 1986, pp. 50–59, especially pp. 54 and 59; and Grant 1981, p. 146. But contrast Pasnau 2007, pp. 295–296 n. 14.
17.
Grant 1981, pp. 399–400 n. 238.
18.
Divine Dialogues, p. 72 (dial. 1, §33).
19.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 98 (ch. 27, §2, together with its title). See also the scholium to Descartes’ August 1649 letter to More, in More’s edition of Epistolae quatuor, p. 109.
20.
Bayle 1991, pp. 280–281 (‘Simonides’, note F).
21.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 114–115, 139 (ch. 27, §12, scholium; ch. 28, §21, scholium).
22.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 115 n. 1.
23.
The title-page clearly states 1674 as the publication date, but the epistle dedicatory is dated 25 March 1678. One of these is presumably incorrect, but what is not so clear is which one.
24.
Fairfax 1674, pp. 61, 89–90, 194.
25.
Fairfax 1674, pp. 16, 24–25, 42, 44, 82–83, 103.
26.
Fairfax 1674, pp. 43–44, 77.
27.
Fairfax 1674, p. 60.
28.
Fairfax 1674, p. 104.
29.
Fairfax 1674, p. 26.
30.
Fairfax 1674, p. 27.
31.
I have tackled Cartesian attitudes to the spatial presence of spirits head-on in Reid 2008. There is some overlap between this article and the following section, but I expand upon the specifically Cartesian material more fully in the article than I do here.
32.
The Complete Poems, pp. 95b; 20a respectively (Democritus Platonissans, st. 47; Psychozoia, cant. 2, st. 10).
33.
The Complete Poems, p. 62a (Psychathanasia, bk. 2, cant. 2, st. 32).
34.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 62/AT 5:238–239 (More to Descartes, 11 December 1648).
35.
Epistolae quatuor, pp. 76–77/AT 5:304–305 (More to Descartes, 5 March 1649).
36.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 85/CMSK 3:372–373/AT 5:342–33 (Descartes to More, 15 April 1649). See Des Chene 1996, pp. 387–390; Rozemond 1998, pp. 178–180; Rozemond 2003, especially pp. 357–358; Pasnau 2007, pp. 291–297.
37.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 85/CMSK 3:373/AT 5:343 (Descartes to More, 15 April 1649).
38.
Descartes 1991, p. 28/AT 8A:30/CSM 1:214 (pt. 1, §62). And see §§60–62 for Descartes’ full taxonomy of distinctions, together with Kaufman 2003, pp. 560–571; and Skirry 2004.
39.
Suárez 1947, p. 19 (Disputationes metaphysicae, disputation 7, §1.5).
40.
CSMK 280/AT 4:349 (Descartes to ***, 1645 or 1646).
41.
Suárez 1947, p. 19 (Disputationes metaphysicae, disputation 7, §1.5). And see p. 18 (§1.4).
42.
Aquinas 1920, pp. 345, 346, 347 (pt. 1, qu. 25, art. 1).
43.
Le Grand 1694, p. 64a–b (bk. 1, pt. 2, ch. 7, §§2, 6).
44.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 90/AT 5:379 (More to Descartes, 23 July 1649).
45.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 118/CSMK 381/AT 5:403 (Descartes to More, August 1649). This is the first of the two pages called ‘118’: see the comment on this edition in my bibliography.
46.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 109 (Descartes to More, August 1649, More’s scholium on §3). Note that p. 109 follows the p. 118 that I cited in my last note: see the same comment in the bibliography.
47.
Bréhier 1937, p. 27.
48.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 110/AT 5:643–644 (‘Responsio ad fragmentum Cartesii’, §3). This is the next page after the p. 109 just cited: see the same comment in the bibliography.
49.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 102 (ch. 27, §6), here following Jacob’s translation from More’s quotation out of La Forge 1997, p. 117 (ch. 12).
50.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 102–103 (ch. 27, §6).
51.
The Complete Poems, pp. 92a, 156a–b (Democritus Platonissans, st. 8, and the note thereto); The Immortality of the Soul, p. 13 (bk. 1, ch. 4, §3); Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 17–18 (ch. 2, §10, scholium). The dictum (expressed in terms of either a circle or a sphere) seems to have originated in the twelfth century Hermetic text, Liber XXIV philosophorum, and had been adopted many times since.
52.
Le Grand 1694, p. 67a (bk. 1, pt. 2, ch. 9, §7).
53.
Malebranche 1997a, p. 133 (dial. 8, §5).
54.
Malebranche 1959–1984, vol. 19, p. 883 (Malebranche to Mairan, 12 June 1714).
55.
Poiret 1990, p. 151 (bk. 1, ch. 6, §6). More himself examined and criticised Poiret in Divine Dialogues, pp. 530–534 (scholia to dial. 1, §§32–35). For more on Poiret’s position in all this, see Reid 2008, pp. 110–113.
56.
Malebranche 1997a, p. 134 (dial 8, §6).
57.
Le Grand 1694, p. 326a (bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 3, §13);
58.
Le Grand 1694, p. 85b (bk. 1, pt. 3, ch. 7, §9).
59.
CSMK 209/AT 3:508 (Descartes to Regius, January 1642); CSMK 217–218/AT 3:664–665 (Descartes to Elizabeth, 21 May 1643).
60.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 85/CSMK 373/AT 5:343 (Descartes to More, 15 April 1649).
61.
CSM 2:298/AT 7:442 (Sixth Replies, §10). On this analogy, see the rest of CSM 2:297–299, as well as CSMK 219/AT 3:667–668 (Descartes to Elizabeth, 21 May 1643), CSMK 228/AT 3:693–694 (Descartes to Elizabeth, 28 June 1643), and CSMK 358/AT 5:222–223 (Descartes for [Arnauld], 29 July 1648).
62.
See Rozemond 2003 for an examination of Descartes’ theory of mind-body union which pays special attention to issues pertaining to holenmerianism.
63.
See Reid 2008, pp. 114–116.
64.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 90/AT 5:379 (More to Descartes, 23 July 1649).
65.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 101 (ch. 27, §5). Also see passim throughout chs. 27 and 28 (which were extracted and translated as The Easie, True and Genuine Notion and Explication of the Nature of a Spirit in Glanvill’s Saducismus Triumphatus, p. 131–188); together with the climax of the first of the Divine Dialogues, pp. 68–82 (dial. 1, §§31–36), as well as its scholia at pp. 530–34.
66.
Anderson 1933, chs. 4–5; Burtt 1932, pp. 127–142; Koyré 1957, chs. 5–6; Jammer 1969, pp. 41–48; Power 1970; Boylan 1980; Copenhaver 1980, pp. 518–521; Gabbey 1982, pp. 192–194; Funkenstein 1986, pp. 77–80.
67.
Burtt 1932, pp. 140–141; Koyré 1957, pp. 135, 137.
68.
Funkenstein 1986, pp. 79, 77 respectively.
69.
Grant 1981, pp. 223–228; Jacob, passim throughout his various writings on More.
70.
Grant 1981, p. 399 n. 237.
71.
Grant 1981, p. 223. I shall return to this point in a moment.
72.
Jacob 1992. See p. 69 for Jacob’s reference to More’s anti-holenmerian arguments, and then contrast the passages quoted on p. 73 and p. 89 n. 18 (to which I shall have occasion to refer below), in which More’s own holenmerianism is pretty blatant.
73.
Baker 1930, p. 8; Fouke 1997, pp. 185–187.
74.
Fallon 1991, pp. 76–77, 78.
75.
Unless, of course, I include my own article, Reid 2007, where some of the material of this section originally appeared.
76.
The Complete Poems, p. 10a (To the Reader, upon the first Canto of Psychozoia).
77.
The Complete Poems, p. 97b (Democritus Platonissans, st. 69).
78.
The Complete Poems, p. 64a (Psychathanasia, bk. 2, cant. 3, st. 10).
79.
The Complete Poems, p. 97a (Democritus Platonissans, st. 67).
80.
The Complete Poems, p. 156b (notes upon The Infinity of Worlds, sts. 8 and 66). Grosart’s edition follows the misprint in the 1647 edition of the Philosophicall Poems wherein these notes first appeared, which was only corrected in the errata list at the rear of that volume. The printed text says ‘omnipotency’ where it was supposed to say ‘omnipraesency.’
81.
The Complete Poems, p. 62a, b (Psychathanasia, bk. 2, cant. 2, sts. 33, 37).
82.
See Jacob 1985, p. 511, and the introduction to his edition of More’s A Platonick Song of the Soul (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1998), pp. 55, 88.
83.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 6 (bk. 1, ch. 2, §11).
84.
The Complete Poems, p. 164a–b (The Interpretation Generall: ‘Reduplicative’).
85.
Jacob claims that ‘More’s views on spirit and matter are most clearly presented in his first major philosophical work, A Platonick Song of the Soul’ (Jacob 1991, p. 103); or, again, that ‘More’s views on spirit and matter are most clearly studied in his early philosophical poem, A Platonick Song of the Soul.’ (Jacob 1992, p. 70). In the introductions to his editions of The Immortality of the Soul and Enchiridion metaphysicum, he purports to be providing with the reader with elucidations of the principles contained therein: and yet what we actually get are long exegeses of the poems. Eight out of the twenty two pages of Jacob’s so-called ‘Analysis of the Enchiridium [sic] Metaphysicum’ in fact offer an analysis of the poems instead. (Enchiridion metaphysicum—i.e. Manual of Metaphysics, 1995 edition—vol. 1, pp. xxi–xxviii). In the case of The Immortality of the Soul, this number rises to a full twenty pages. (The Immortality of the Soul, ed. Jacob (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987), pp. xi–xxx). But More’s opinions had changed! Although Jacob’s translations of More’s Latin works are certainly useful, his understanding of the philosophy itself has repeatedly proved itself to be exceedingly weak.
86.
The Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660 edition), p. vi (To the Reader, §4).
87.
Opera omnia, vol. 2.1, p. viii (Praefatio generalissima, §11).
88.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 62/AT 5:238–239 (More to Descartes, 11 December 1648).
89.
Power 1970, pp. 289–290; Boylan 1980, pp. 398–400; Copenhaver 1980, pp. 518–521. See also Tulloch 1874, vol. 2, p. 381.
90.
Grant 1981, p. 223.
91.
Grant 1981, pp. 223–225.
92.
Epistolae quatuor, pp. 76–77/AT 5:305 (More to Descartes, 5 March 1649).
93.
Epistolae quatuor, p. 83 (scholium on More to Descartes, 5 March 1649).
94.
Just to mention one final instance of this sort of characterisation of the divine amplitude, there is also a remark to be found in More’s posthumous A Collection of Aphorisms, where he described God as ‘that which is infinitely Infinite, and entirely every where at once.’ (A Collection of Aphorisms, pp. 11–12 (pt. 1, §39)). This remark provides another piece of evidence for an early dating for these aphorisms (see above, p. 19 n. 57 and p. 83 n. 33), for it was during the 1650’s that More abandoned his juvenile holenmerianism.
95.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 14–21 (bk. 1, chs. 5–6).
96.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 16 (bk. 1, ch. 4, §3).
97.
See An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 186 (Appendix, ch. 3, §2).
98.
The Complete Poems, p. 164a–b (The Interpretation Generall, ‘Reduplicative’). See also p. 160b (‘Circulation’).
99.
Plotinus 1992, p. 598 (enn. 6, tr. 4, ch. 12).
100.
On the other hand, in the 1670s—by which time More’s rejection of holenmerianism had become even more explicit and emphatic than it had been in The Immortality of the Soul—More did finally become dissatisfied with the analogy, and he urged his readers not to take it too seriously. See An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 227, 231 (scholia to Appendix, ch. 3, §2, and ch. 10, §9).
101.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 208 (Appendix, ch. 10, §9).
102.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 199 (Appendix, ch. 7, §1).
103.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 200 (Appendix, ch. 7, §3).
104.
An Antidote Against Atheism, p. 201 (Appendix, ch. 7, §6).
105.
A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings, The Preface General, p. xii (§12).
106.
I wholly reject Coudert’s unsubstantiated suggestion that ‘More’s An Antidote Against Atheism (1652) was written in response to Hobbes’ Leviathan and dealt directly with Hobbes’ natural explanations for both spirits and miracles.’ Coudert 1990, pp. 118–119, at 118.
107.
Hobbes 1994, p. 461 (pt. 4, ch. 46, §19).
108.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 35 (bk. 1, ch. 9, §10).
109.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. 39 (bk. 1, ch. 10, §8).
110.
Ibid.
111.
A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings, The Preface General, p. xiii (§12).
112.
Divine Dialogues, p. 47 (dial. 1, §22).
113.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 109 (ch. 27, §12).
114.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 112 (ch. 27, §14).
115.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 110 (ch. 27, §12).
116.
Ibid.
117.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 110–111 (ch. 27, §13).
118.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 17 (ch. 2, §10, scholium). See also vol. 1, p. 132 (ch. 28, §20); and Epistolae quatuor, p. 83 (scholium, More to Descartes, 5 March 1649).
119.
The Immortality of the Soul, p. iii (The Preface, §3).
120.
A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, p. 484 (bk. 2, ch. 8, §19). See also p. 464 (bk. 2, ch. 4, §4).
121.
Hobbes 1994, p. 462 (pt. 4, ch. 46, §23).
122.
A Brief Discourse of the Real Presence, p. 21 (ch. 3, §5).
123.
A Brief Discourse of the Real Presence, pp. 21, 25, 26 (ch. 3, §§5, 8, 10).
124.
An Antidote Against Idolatry, p. 782 (ch. 3, §§4–6). See also the defence of this passage in A Brief Reply to a Late Answer, pp. 117–144.
125.
Stillingfleet 1697, p. 79.
126.
Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, p. 485 (bk. 2, ch. 8, §19).
127.
The Complete Poems, p. 86a (Psychathanasia, bk. 3, cant. 4, st. 27).
128.
The Complete Poems, p. 97a–b (Democritus Platonissans, sts. 68, 70).
129.
The Complete Poems, pp. 98a–99b (Democritus Platonissans, sts. 76–93). More would subsequently reject the notion that a planet could become a comet: see Two Choice and Useful Treatises, second part, pp. 141–142 (Annotations upon Lux Orientalis, upon ch. 14, pag. 141).
130.
For the former treatment, see Divine Dialogues, pp. 276–282 (dial. 3, §35); see also pp. 30–37 (dial. 1, §§15–17); pp. 557–559 (scholium to dial. 3, supplement, §44). For the treatment in Enchiridion metaphysicum, see what follows. Also compare An Antidote Against Atheism, pp. 221–222 (Appendix, ch. 13, §4).
131.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 82 (ch. 10, §2).
132.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 91 (ch. 10, §2, scholium).
133.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 83 (ch. 10, §3).
134.
More considers and (unconvincingly) attempts to answer this objection at Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 94–95 (ch. 10, §3, scholium).
135.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 83 (ch. 10, §4).
136.
More’s correspondent, as quoted in Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, pp. 90–91 (ch. 10, §2, scholium).
137.
Enchiridion metaphysicum, vol. 1, p. 93 (ch. 10, §2, scholium).
138.
See More’s own autobiographical sketch in the Praefatio generalissma to his Opera omnia, vol. 2.1, pp. v–vi (§7); translated in Ward 2000, pp. 15–16.
139.
See The Complete Poems, p. 49b (Psychathanasia, bk. 1, cant. 2, st. 38).
140.
Divine Dialogues, p. 324 (dial 4, §17).
141.
The Immortality of the Soul, pp. 68–75 (bk. 2, ch. 3); Enchiridion ethicum, pp. 172–190 (bk. 3, chs. 1–2).
142.
Hobbes and Bramhall 1999, p. 40 (Of Liberty and Necessity, §34).
143.
The Complete Poems, p. 161b (The Interpretation Generall: ‘Eternitie’).
144.
The Complete Poems, p. 136a (notes upon Psychozoia, cant. 1, st. 1).
145.
The Complete Poems, p. 10a (To the Reader, upon the first Canto of Psychozoia).
146.
If Ahad, The One, had any relation to time at all, it would certainly have also enjoyed the same perfect form of eternity whereby More characterised Aeon. However, More tended to follow the Neoplatonist tradition of saying very little indeed about the first hypostasis of the Triad, on the grounds that it was just so far beyond anything the human mind could conceive, and was, in some mysterious manner, ‘above’ eternity, wisdom and even being. Psyche, meanwhile, was described in the same passage just quoted from the notes upon Psychozoia as ‘the fountain of this evolved life, whence she is also the very life of time’ (The Complete Poems, p. 136a: notes upon Psychozoia, cant. 1, st. 1). But More does not seem to have meant that Psyche herself suffered the imperfection of successive duration, even an everlasting one, but merely that she was the one who was most immediately involved in endowing created things with successive durations of their own. Her own relation to time does, like that of Aeon, seem to have been an eternal one.
147.
Divine Dialogues, pp. 32–33 (dial. 1, §15).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Philosophy, King’s College London, London, UK
Jasper Reid

Authors

Jasper Reid
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reid, J. (2012). Spiritual Presence. In: The Metaphysics of Henry More. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 207. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3988-8_5
Published: 28 March 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3987-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3988-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics